Did your agency address "fork in the road"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said it was bullshit and to ignore it

Who? Are agency HR offices saying that? I doubt it. Even if they believe it

My manager said this albeit in slightly more colorful language.

Our division head did the professional for several hundred people on a Team meeting version: significant questions raised about legality and implementation. We urge you to wait to decide until there is more clarity, so that you make the best decision for your situation. Because it’s once you commit, it may not be possible to it take back if subsequent information reveals there is a sticking point for you. Said calmly with a straight face, but I swear she rolled her eyeballs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said it was bullshit and to ignore it

Who? Are agency HR offices saying that? I doubt it. Even if they believe it

Yes. It’s widely accepted now it should be ignored.

Which is why we should also not be that concerned about RTO. This administration doesn’t understand how the government works and has lost credibility.

+1. I’m a lot less concerned about RTO than I was a week ago, when I thought there was an actual plan this time. Of course, I have a CBA and no office to return too (leased space was given up) and no agency building with excess space, so I’m even less concerned— because Irealoze things like CBAs being enforceable contracts and not suggestions and lack of space to RTO never occurred to these clowns.

Same. I think for many of us it’s unfathomable that an executive memo and OPM guidance was shared without a full understanding of the circumstances.

It will take years to lease additional space, relocate employees, place remote employees in other federal buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I hate the voting choices of Trump voters, but I don't think they all voted for this. They largely voted against immigration, inflation and probably a fair amount are annoyed by DEI and trans rights. That sucks and I disagree with them, but I don't think most of them hate federal workers.

This is important to remember. Most of the feds I know that voted for trump were single issue voters - immigration (particularly hispanics). And to be fair the democrats were in fact terrible on immigration (or at least had the appearance of being terrible). Their news bubble wasn't reporting on project 2025 or the whole fascism thing, just migrant crime.

You can't say they didn't vote for it. They did. The vote is a package. They voted for this package.
Trump was very clear about what he was going to do. They should own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said it was bullshit and to ignore it

Who? Are agency HR offices saying that? I doubt it. Even if they believe it

Yes. It’s widely accepted now it should be ignored.

Which is why we should also not be that concerned about RTO. This administration doesn’t understand how the government works and has lost credibility.

+1. I’m a lot less concerned about RTO than I was a week ago, when I thought there was an actual plan this time. Of course, I have a CBA and no office to return too (leased space was given up) and no agency building with excess space, so I’m even less concerned— because Irealoze things like CBAs being enforceable contracts and not suggestions and lack of space to RTO never occurred to these clowns.

Same. I think for many of us it’s unfathomable that an executive memo and OPM guidance was shared without a full understanding of the circumstances.

It will take years to lease additional space, relocate employees, place remote employees in other federal buildings.

Thus forked up email plus the funding freeze fiasco plus RTO are reminding us that most of what Trump wants doesn’t happen because he doesn’t have the patience to develop a policy compliant plan and execute it. RTO scared me because it was one of the first out of the gate. I thought he had outsourced planning and logistics to Project 2025, and they already answers on space constraints and CBAs and remote workers, etc. That scared me. It’s now apparent he outsourced logistics to Elon and his 19 year old lackey who think the federal operated like Twitter. That scares me much less.

What Trump wants can be done. In a 2-5 year timeframe. If they point up the cash for leased space, dedicate significant resources to the logistics and planning, wait for CBAs to expire or be eligible to reopen, etc. a month is ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said it was bullshit and to ignore it

Who? Are agency HR offices saying that? I doubt it. Even if they believe it

Yes. It’s widely accepted now it should be ignored.

Which is why we should also not be that concerned about RTO. This administration doesn’t understand how the government works and has lost credibility.

+1. I’m a lot less concerned about RTO than I was a week ago, when I thought there was an actual plan this time. Of course, I have a CBA and no office to return too (leased space was given up) and no agency building with excess space, so I’m even less concerned— because Irealoze things like CBAs being enforceable contracts and not suggestions and lack of space to RTO never occurred to these clowns.

Same. I think for many of us it’s unfathomable that an executive memo and OPM guidance was shared without a full understanding of the circumstances.

It will take years to lease additional space, relocate employees, place remote employees in other federal buildings.

Thus forked up email plus the funding freeze fiasco plus RTO are reminding us that most of what Trump wants doesn’t happen because he doesn’t have the patience to develop a policy compliant plan and execute it. RTO scared me because it was one of the first out of the gate. I thought he had outsourced planning and logistics to Project 2025, and they already answers on space constraints and CBAs and remote workers, etc. That scared me. It’s now apparent he outsourced logistics to Elon and his 19 year old lackey who think the federal operated like Twitter. That scares me much less.

What Trump wants can be done. In a 2-5 year timeframe. If they point up the cash for leased space, dedicate significant resources to the logistics and planning, wait for CBAs to expire or be eligible to reopen, etc. a month is ludicrous.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assuming federal spending went from 3T to 7T since 2009, why didn't fed salaries double? Who is getting all the extra cash? Reports say fed workforce is roughly same size.

Contractors. Ours make a lot more than Feds and have much cushier jobs. I bet a lot more Feds will move to contracting.

But really- most of the federal spending is Medicare, Medicaid and social security

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hate the voting choices of Trump voters, but I don't think they all voted for this. They largely voted against immigration, inflation and probably a fair amount are annoyed by DEI and trans rights. That sucks and I disagree with them, but I don't think most of them hate federal workers.

This is important to remember. Most of the feds I know that voted for trump were single issue voters - immigration (particularly hispanics). And to be fair the democrats were in fact terrible on immigration (or at least had the appearance of being terrible). Their news bubble wasn't reporting on project 2025 or the whole fascism thing, just migrant crime.

You can't say they didn't vote for it. They did. The vote is a package. They voted for this package.
Trump was very clear about what he was going to do. They should own it.

Most Trump voters are pleased. This is actually what they wanted. I can confirm because my in laws are thrilled. I think they think it will happen to all the “lazy feds” and not their son and DIL who are feds.

I feel like feds need cheerleaders. The only feds most people meet are postal workers, social security or tsa. My in laws truly couldn’t imagine what regulatory policy work is. Or what is involved working with other countries.

What should have happened was to give managers more ability to fire bad employees. Instead the best will leave and all the bad remain.

[Anonymous]

Our acting undersecretary (career, in place until a political is confirmed) sent an email that didn't mention the "fork," but talked about how proud they are of the amazing work that we all do, and how much we're valued.

[Anonymous]

We got an organization-wide email saying, yeah, we don't know.

[Anonymous]

They acknowledged it by reiterating the talking points.

What left a bad taste in my mouth was the way our director addressed us in an email afterwards. Our director stated that there was “opportunity to re-envision Agency Name” no matter what decision we make.

Was disappointed but I understand they’re under extreme pressure from the political appointee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I hate the voting choices of Trump voters, but I don't think they all voted for this. They largely voted against immigration, inflation and probably a fair amount are annoyed by DEI and trans rights. That sucks and I disagree with them, but I don't think most of them hate federal workers.

This is important to remember. Most of the feds I know that voted for trump were single issue voters - immigration (particularly hispanics). And to be fair the democrats were in fact terrible on immigration (or at least had the appearance of being terrible). Their news bubble wasn't reporting on project 2025 or the whole fascism thing, just migrant crime.

Americans hate inflation. They hated inflation 50 years ago too. One way to bring down inflation is to lower government spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assuming federal spending went from 3T to 7T since 2009, why didn't fed salaries double? Who is getting all the extra cash? Reports say fed workforce is roughly same size.

Entitlements. For example Social Security is now $1.6 trillion for all SS programs. Another example, food stamps have grown 600 percent since the year 2000. The US spends close to $110 billion just on food stamps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming federal spending went from 3T to 7T since 2009, why didn't fed salaries double? Who is getting all the extra cash? Reports say fed workforce is roughly same size.

Entitlements. For example Social Security is now $1.6 trillion for all SS programs. Another example, food stamps have grown 600 percent since the year 2000. The US spends close to $110 billion just on food stamps.

Pretty sure that DOD and defense contracts are hoovering up most federal spending. Anyone wanting to reduce spending and who does not mention defense spending is selling you a hill of garbage.