What happens if large percentage take the buy out?

[Anonymous]

This won’t happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some will take it.
You definitely are overlooking that fed offices are filled with mid level young parents who are looking at summer break and eyeing this offer as a rare opportunity to take a paid summer vacay with their kids, not shell out money for daycare, and then spend most of August interviewing for jobs in private sector.
There are also plenty of young GenZers who wouldn’t mind taking a paycheck to stay home for a few months or travel or even immediately get a new job and take double salary until September. And getting new job will be easy if they choose a super liberal company and just blame their departure on “yeah I had to get out of that Trump sh!$show…”
This is a terrible move by Elon/Trump but I don’t think it will land as flat as people think.
There will be some takers. 5-7%

Except it’s not a “paid summer vacay.” it literally by its terms is “deferred resignation.” You *still have to work* the whole time. It has zero benefits.

+1

It's not leave, it's just working remotely.

No, they are genuinely putting out guidance that says you will go on admin leave once you transition duties. Our agency has specifically directed us to the OPM Q&As that say that. The agency is working on its own guidance including the internal paperwork that you will actually signed to effectuate your deferred resignation, but it does look like this is more akin to a buyout than the original email made it sound like. Whether they'll stick to the deal, it's binding, it will be funded by Congress, etc are all legitimate questions, but it does look like the intention is that you won't work. Several of my employees (including one who was planning to retire anyway, but wants to use the pause to look for her post-retirement contracting job) have already indicated interest. I don't think 5-10% is unreasonable, especially at agencies whose employees fear being targeted. (I am not at such an agency and have heard interest nonetheless.)

+1. There’s an OPM transmittal that provides additional information (and a Q&A) that specifies your duties are reassigned and you’re on admin leave.

Suggests, not specifies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "buy out" is an Elon Musk troll. There is a reason you only have until 2/6 to take it, and it's because everyone who takes a deferred resignation will just get let go without pay. Musk is going to then brag about getting rid of the 5-10% laziest feds who thought they would actually get paid to do nothing.

Getting 10% reduction in Fed headcount will absolutely be considered a triumph. Especially if it was voluntary. Assume 7% voluntary buy outs (not uncommon in the private sector) and another 8% involuntary reduction, altogether 15% reduction in workforce. If output does not decrease, it is without question a victory for the Trump administration. Although privately suspect they are looking at more than 15%. Probably 25%.

I listen to a few Democrats and some have said there's fat that can be trimmed in the bureaucracy so you may be surprised by the relatively minimal opposition.

For the millionth time - this is NOT a buy out. It’s an absurdly shady and illusory offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some will take it.
You definitely are overlooking that fed offices are filled with mid level young parents who are looking at summer break and eyeing this offer as a rare opportunity to take a paid summer vacay with their kids, not shell out money for daycare, and then spend most of August interviewing for jobs in private sector.
There are also plenty of young GenZers who wouldn’t mind taking a paycheck to stay home for a few months or travel or even immediately get a new job and take double salary until September. And getting new job will be easy if they choose a super liberal company and just blame their departure on “yeah I had to get out of that Trump sh!$show…”
This is a terrible move by Elon/Trump but I don’t think it will land as flat as people think.
There will be some takers. 5-7%

Except it’s not a “paid summer vacay.” it literally by its terms is “deferred resignation.” You *still have to work* the whole time. It has zero benefits.

+1

It's not leave, it's just working remotely.

No, they are genuinely putting out guidance that says you will go on admin leave once you transition duties. Our agency has specifically directed us to the OPM Q&As that say that. The agency is working on its own guidance including the internal paperwork that you will actually signed to effectuate your deferred resignation, but it does look like this is more akin to a buyout than the original email made it sound like. Whether they'll stick to the deal, it's binding, it will be funded by Congress, etc are all legitimate questions, but it does look like the intention is that you won't work. Several of my employees (including one who was planning to retire anyway, but wants to use the pause to look for her post-retirement contracting job) have already indicated interest. I don't think 5-10% is unreasonable, especially at agencies whose employees fear being targeted. (I am not at such an agency and have heard interest nonetheless.)

Guidance. GUIDANCE. I’m not doing something as import as resigning my freakin’ job based on non-binding guidance the idiots in OPM are pulling out of their butts. It’s not going to be anywhere near even 5% - but they’ll lie about the data anyway.

[Anonymous]

They won’t.

[Anonymous]

When there’s no funding for this effort, no budget past March, no guidance on whether or not you’re retroactively paid if there’s a shutdown, no guidance I’m aware of on whether you would keep your pension / insurance, and no guidance I’m aware of explaining what happens if you take another job, I wouldn’t consider it a “buy out” and I’m disappointed media is reporting it as such.

[Anonymous]

Hiring freeze + buyouts make the remaining employees that much more valuable and needed.

Agencies still have to complete their statutory obligations, as required by Congress. None of these agencies would exist if Congress did not pass laws in the past telling them what to do.

You can't dissolve an agency without changing the law. That's why the current Administration keeps trying to devise end-arounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some will take it.
You definitely are overlooking that fed offices are filled with mid level young parents who are looking at summer break and eyeing this offer as a rare opportunity to take a paid summer vacay with their kids, not shell out money for daycare, and then spend most of August interviewing for jobs in private sector.
There are also plenty of young GenZers who wouldn’t mind taking a paycheck to stay home for a few months or travel or even immediately get a new job and take double salary until September. And getting new job will be easy if they choose a super liberal company and just blame their departure on “yeah I had to get out of that Trump sh!$show…”
This is a terrible move by Elon/Trump but I don’t think it will land as flat as people think.
There will be some takers. 5-7%

Except it’s not a “paid summer vacay.” it literally by its terms is “deferred resignation.” You *still have to work* the whole time. It has zero benefits.

+1

It's not leave, it's just working remotely.

No, they are genuinely putting out guidance that says you will go on admin leave once you transition duties. Our agency has specifically directed us to the OPM Q&As that say that. The agency is working on its own guidance including the internal paperwork that you will actually signed to effectuate your deferred resignation, but it does look like this is more akin to a buyout than the original email made it sound like. Whether they'll stick to the deal, it's binding, it will be funded by Congress, etc are all legitimate questions, but it does look like the intention is that you won't work. Several of my employees (including one who was planning to retire anyway, but wants to use the pause to look for her post-retirement contracting job) have already indicated interest. I don't think 5-10% is unreasonable, especially at agencies whose employees fear being targeted. (I am not at such an agency and have heard interest nonetheless.)

+1. There’s an OPM transmittal that provides additional information (and a Q&A) that specifies your duties are reassigned and you’re on admin leave.

Suggests, not specifies.

I am guessing the transition will occur around August 15th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "buy out" is an Elon Musk troll. There is a reason you only have until 2/6 to take it, and it's because everyone who takes a deferred resignation will just get let go without pay. Musk is going to then brag about getting rid of the 5-10% laziest feds who thought they would actually get paid to do nothing.

Getting 10% reduction in Fed headcount will absolutely be considered a triumph. Especially if it was voluntary. Assume 7% voluntary buy outs (not uncommon in the private sector) and another 8% involuntary reduction, altogether 15% reduction in workforce. If output does not decrease, it is without question a victory for the Trump administration. Although privately suspect they are looking at more than 15%. Probably 25%.

I listen to a few Democrats and some have said there's fat that can be trimmed in the bureaucracy so you may be surprised by the relatively minimal opposition.

For the millionth time - this is NOT a buy out. It’s an absurdly shady and illusory offer.

It doesn't matter what you think. The terminology being used is quite clear. They're calling it a voluntary buy out because people in the private sector are familiar with the term. Getting hung up over terminology is pedantic. The Administration's goal is clear: they want to reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy and will do it one way or another.

It doesn't mean all Feds are losing their jobs. Most, in fact, will not. Just like most people didn't lose their jobs during the great recession or any other major recessions. But it's realistic to assume that between the reduction in headcount either by fiat or voluntary, cancellation of unfilled roles and eliminating a significant number of federal spending and projects, there will be overall trimming of the workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "buy out" is an Elon Musk troll. There is a reason you only have until 2/6 to take it, and it's because everyone who takes a deferred resignation will just get let go without pay. Musk is going to then brag about getting rid of the 5-10% laziest feds who thought they would actually get paid to do nothing.

Getting 10% reduction in Fed headcount will absolutely be considered a triumph. Especially if it was voluntary. Assume 7% voluntary buy outs (not uncommon in the private sector) and another 8% involuntary reduction, altogether 15% reduction in workforce. If output does not decrease, it is without question a victory for the Trump administration. Although privately suspect they are looking at more than 15%. Probably 25%.

I listen to a few Democrats and some have said there's fat that can be trimmed in the bureaucracy so you may be surprised by the relatively minimal opposition.

For the millionth time - this is NOT a buy out. It’s an absurdly shady and illusory offer.

It doesn't matter what you think. The terminology being used is quite clear. They're calling it a voluntary buy out because people in the private sector are familiar with the term. Getting hung up over terminology is pedantic. The Administration's goal is clear: they want to reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy and will do it one way or another.

It doesn't mean all Feds are losing their jobs. Most, in fact, will not. Just like most people didn't lose their jobs during the great recession or any other major recessions. But it's realistic to assume that between the reduction in headcount either by fiat or voluntary, cancellation of unfilled roles and eliminating a significant number of federal spending and projects, there will be overall trimming of the workforce.

No, people in the private sector would not understand this to be a buyout as the only company that pulled a stunt like this was Twitter. What the private sector understands as a buy out is specifically drawing up a contract explaining exactly what you will be paid and what you will be expected to do.

[Anonymous]

It's a pretty decent buyout many people would love 8 months paid to find a job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You may or may not have to work. What’s less clear is whether taking up employment with another employer will be allowed.

It won't be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a pretty decent buyout many people would love 8 months paid to find a job

Except they won’t get 8 months. The offer is not in good faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a pretty decent buyout many people would love 8 months paid to find a job

It's an illegal offer with zero funding behind it. If it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "buy out" is an Elon Musk troll. There is a reason you only have until 2/6 to take it, and it's because everyone who takes a deferred resignation will just get let go without pay. Musk is going to then brag about getting rid of the 5-10% laziest feds who thought they would actually get paid to do nothing.

Getting 10% reduction in Fed headcount will absolutely be considered a triumph. Especially if it was voluntary. Assume 7% voluntary buy outs (not uncommon in the private sector) and another 8% involuntary reduction, altogether 15% reduction in workforce. If output does not decrease, it is without question a victory for the Trump administration. Although privately suspect they are looking at more than 15%. Probably 25%.

I listen to a few Democrats and some have said there's fat that can be trimmed in the bureaucracy so you may be surprised by the relatively minimal opposition.

For the millionth time - this is NOT a buy out. It’s an absurdly shady and illusory offer.

It doesn't matter what you think. The terminology being used is quite clear. They're calling it a voluntary buy out because people in the private sector are familiar with the term. Getting hung up over terminology is pedantic. The Administration's goal is clear: they want to reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy and will do it one way or another.

It doesn't mean all Feds are losing their jobs. Most, in fact, will not. Just like most people didn't lose their jobs during the great recession or any other major recessions. But it's realistic to assume that between the reduction in headcount either by fiat or voluntary, cancellation of unfilled roles and eliminating a significant number of federal spending and projects, there will be overall trimming of the workforce.

lol you could not make it more clear that you are wholly out of your depth. it is not “pedantic” to point out that the terms of this “offer” are extremely questionable.