What happens if large percentage take the buy out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re joking right? Or are you an idiot? Private sector does this literally all the time. Please don’t take the buyout, you’ll 100% get fired and we as taxpayers won’t need to pay morons until September.

[Anonymous]

No one with any sense is going to take an option to immediately resign at a later date in order to work remotely for a few months.

If I had less than a year as a fed I would start looking for another job, but otherwise it makes no sense.

The memo sounded like someone high on drugs and AI wrote it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100. In the private sector the only thing remotely comparable would be a retention period with a bonus at the end. sometimes so-called “garden leave” when you are left on the payroll and are not actually expected to work is used, but generally it’s one a one-off basis where there is some degree of trust between the parties, and the former employee wants to be able to say “I still work at Company” while they are looking for new jobs. Or it can be used when there is a noncompete or in place of it and the employee agrees to wait it out on payroll while not working elsewhere.

But Musk’s dumb stunt doesn’t correspond to any normal workforce management practice I know of, in the public or private sector. I think he stupidly believed that he actually could get thousands of takers by threatening RTO then making this “offer.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one with any sense is going to take an option to immediately resign at a later date in order to work remotely for a few months.

If I had less than a year as a fed I would start looking for another job, but otherwise it makes no sense.

The memo sounded like someone high on drugs and AI wrote it.

https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-musk-illegal-drugs-e826a9e1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one with any sense is going to take an option to immediately resign at a later date in order to work remotely for a few months.

If I had less than a year as a fed I would start looking for another job, but otherwise it makes no sense.

The memo sounded like someone high on drugs and AI wrote it.

https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-musk-illegal-drugs-e826a9e1

This deserves it's own thread, and a summary for us poors.

Elon Musk Has Used Illegal Drugs, Worrying Leaders at Tesla and SpaceX
Some executives and board members fear the billionaire’s use of drugs—including LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, mushrooms and ketamine—could harm his companies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re joking right? Or are you an idiot? Private sector does this literally all the time. Please don’t take the buyout, you’ll 100% get fired and we as taxpayers won’t need to pay morons until September.

not sure why you think anyone is fooled here. It’s not a buyout. My agency *had* an active legitimate buyout this year (VERA and VSIP). And of course Musk Is facing ongoing severance lawsuits from Twitter employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one with any sense is going to take an option to immediately resign at a later date in order to work remotely for a few months.

If I had less than a year as a fed I would start looking for another job, but otherwise it makes no sense.

The memo sounded like someone high on drugs and AI wrote it.

https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-musk-illegal-drugs-e826a9e1

This deserves it's own thread, and a summary for us poors.

Elon Musk Has Used Illegal Drugs, Worrying Leaders at Tesla and SpaceX
Some executives and board members fear the billionaire’s use of drugs—including LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, mushrooms and ketamine—could harm his companies

They’re all on cocaine over there now 😂

“ Some friends and directors felt they they had to take illegal drugs with Musk as it could otherwise upset him, the paper reported Saturday, citing some of the people. They also didn’t want to risk “losing the social capital” of being in his circle, the paper said.”

https://fortune.com/2024/02/04/elon-musk-took-drugs-with-tesla-board-members-report/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one with any sense is going to take an option to immediately resign at a later date in order to work remotely for a few months.

If I had less than a year as a fed I would start looking for another job, but otherwise it makes no sense.

The memo sounded like someone high on drugs and AI wrote it.

https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-musk-illegal-drugs-e826a9e1

This deserves it's own thread, and a summary for us poors.

Elon Musk Has Used Illegal Drugs, Worrying Leaders at Tesla and SpaceX
Some executives and board members fear the billionaire’s use of drugs—including LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, mushrooms and ketamine—could harm his companies

After reading that memo, I'm not at all surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People retiring will not take this deal. You do not get TSP matching or accrue leave while in a non pay status such as administrative leave. There is no benefit to a "deferred resignation"

Good point.

No it's not. Admin leave is paid leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a buyout. I hope that most feds will be smart enough to realize this and not take it.

This. It's "we will continue to allow you to work from home until September, at which time you will 'resign.' We may place you on leave during that time, but no guarantees."

The only people this is good for are those who were planning on quitting/retiring before September anyway, or those who truly can't do a commute for logistical reasons, and will use the 8 months to find a new job (while still working).

Yep, the only people I know who are entertaining it have one foot out the door already.

Anyone know what percentage of the fed workforce turns over each year anyway? Is a change of party inauguration year typically higher? Seems like that should be the baseline for measuring whether this did anything. Depending on the details, most who were going to leave anyway might take this carrot. Doesn't seem out of the ballpark that 5-10% would turn over in a new administrations first year (including retirements). Maybe more.

that’s people retiring. Nobody retiring is going to respond to this without knowing exactly how it impacts their retirement. People plan years to retire. If you want to move people along to retire you offer actual buy-outs, which this is not.

Yeah. I agree that no one should take the deal without understanding the exact details. But I know several who were already planning to retire in the next month or two who will see what the details are. If it turns out they can take this and get paid the rest of the FY instead of the two months they were planning then they might take it. If so, they'd show up as a "win" for this program when really they were going to be gone anyway as part of the natural process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a buyout. I hope that most feds will be smart enough to realize this and not take it.

This. It's "we will continue to allow you to work from home until September, at which time you will 'resign.' We may place you on leave during that time, but no guarantees."

The only people this is good for are those who were planning on quitting/retiring before September anyway, or those who truly can't do a commute for logistical reasons, and will use the 8 months to find a new job (while still working).

Yep, the only people I know who are entertaining it have one foot out the door already.

Anyone know what percentage of the fed workforce turns over each year anyway? Is a change of party inauguration year typically higher? Seems like that should be the baseline for measuring whether this did anything. Depending on the details, most who were going to leave anyway might take this carrot. Doesn't seem out of the ballpark that 5-10% would turn over in a new administrations first year (including retirements). Maybe more.

that’s people retiring. Nobody retiring is going to respond to this without knowing exactly how it impacts their retirement. People plan years to retire. If you want to move people along to retire you offer actual buy-outs, which this is not.

Yeah. I agree that no one should take the deal without understanding the exact details. But I know several who were already planning to retire in the next month or two who will see what the details are. If it turns out they can take this and get paid the rest of the FY instead of the two months they were planning then they might take it. If so, they'd show up as a "win" for this program when really they were going to be gone anyway as part of the natural process.

I’m not sure any “exact details” are forthcoming. Agencies probably spend months getting ready to offer VSIP and VERA and understanding the ins and outs and planning the rollout. I don’t think anything even remotely similar is going to emerge out of OPM to allow someone to evaluate the pluses and minuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People retiring will not take this deal. You do not get TSP matching or accrue leave while in a non pay status such as administrative leave. There is no benefit to a "deferred resignation"

Good point.

No it's not. Admin leave is paid leave.

yeah you’re not answering the question troll

[Anonymous]

It’s not a buy out.

[Anonymous]

Out of my 100 people, 1 person is considering it because they plan to retire before September anyway. But even in that case HR thinks this is too dangerous to try because there doesn't seem to be legal authorization for it. They obviously didn't get any warning either, though, so everyone is confused.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t guarantee that you will get admin leave (the agency could still make you work until your job is transitioned, which could be never if they don’t lift the hiring freeze), and there’s no money to fund admin leave past March. All you do by signing this is identify yourself as a person who didn’t want to return to the office.