Will SEC escape RIFs due to large number of exits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here from the different FIRREA: We were also told by our leadership that the SEC has now clamped down on the "independent" agency aspect, sort of like the Fed. Maybe they saw the success that the Fed was/is having, so they've decided to take this approach. I don't know because I am not in the SEC FO, but those would be the people to ask.

I couldn't answer why it's not coming down. I liaise with someone from the SEC quite a bit, and this person did hear that there is an alternative plan to RIF. People may not like it, as it involves a forced reduction in pay, but people would still be employed. Stay tuned, I guess.

Wait what the SEC isn't RIF-ing but now is saying "we're an independent agency, we'll do what we want like the Fed, so we'll reduce pay?" Uh those things don't coincide with each other. We'll do what we want doesn't seem to scream PAY CUTS.

The issue is that SEC still receives its appropriations from Congress. [That was a huge mistake to let happen.] Anyway, because of the congressionally appropriated funding, SEC will need to show reductions in operational funding. I'm guessing the alternative with the reduction in pay will obviate the need for an agency-wide RIF.

Why? None of these firings have been approved by Congress

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The union is saying it, and the leadership may be saying it, but has doge accepted it? We all know that’s the only thing that matters.

Also the union doesn't represent BCs and ADs...will the managers be riffed?

Managers could always be demoted rather than RIFd.

Actually this is what the PP may mean who is relaying the pay cut thing - demote people out of management to cut some costs.

PP from FIRREA, no I don't mean a demotion for some and not others. The approach that is on the table is across the board, everybody is "pitching in" equally. But our leadership agreed it was a very good way to approach this.

[Anonymous]

I’m sure your leadership are just salivating at the thought.

[Anonymous]

Lol so I guess everyone under 45 at SEC will be leaving bc we are expected to take a paycut AND we have nothing to offset that like full time remote allowing us to move to low cost of living places or even if we don't move - not spend money on parking/commuting/gas in the car. Lol.

[Anonymous]

If I had to choose between having a job or taking a pay cut, knowing what the market is going to look like for the next few years, the choice isn't hard for me.

[Anonymous]

I’m not buying the reduction in pay rumor. Nobody — not even Doge - has tee’d that up as an option. That would make NOBODY happy. Not even sure it’s legal given that Congress sets pay.

The most likely scenario is a hard hiring freeze for foreseeable future, mass attrition, and probably closing 2-3 regions.

[Anonymous]

How much of a pay cut? 5 pct? 20 pct? 1 pct? Simply forgoing this year’s pay increase would be a pay cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying the reduction in pay rumor. Nobody — not even Doge - has tee’d that up as an option. That would make NOBODY happy. Not even sure it’s legal given that Congress sets pay.

The most likely scenario is a hard hiring freeze for foreseeable future, mass attrition, and probably closing 2-3 regions.

+1. They want to cut staff, period. It's not about reducing operating costs but cutting people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I had to choose between having a job or taking a pay cut, knowing what the market is going to look like for the next few years, the choice isn't hard for me.

But that's you. There are others like me who'd say eff it - I've wanted to start a business/go out on my own anyway, why not now.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if they will float offering remote work to anyone willing to accept a cut down to ROUS locality pay. I know I would take that in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying the reduction in pay rumor. Nobody — not even Doge - has tee’d that up as an option. That would make NOBODY happy. Not even sure it’s legal given that Congress sets pay.

The most likely scenario is a hard hiring freeze for foreseeable future, mass attrition, and probably closing 2-3 regions.

+1. They want to cut staff, period. It's not about reducing operating costs but cutting people.

THIS. I mean at the Cabinet meeting Elon made it super clear that this is about FIRING people. Rubio said something like 1500 people at State had taken early retirement and sarcastically said what do you want me to bring them back so I can fire them? And Elon clarified that yes this was about firing and voluntarily leaving isn't the same. So this isn't about cost, it's about firing, media headlines, humiliating govt workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they will float offering remote work to anyone willing to accept a cut down to ROUS locality pay. I know I would take that in a heartbeat.

ROUS? I know I'd take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The union is saying it, and the leadership may be saying it, but has doge accepted it? We all know that’s the only thing that matters.

Also the union doesn't represent BCs and ADs...will the managers be riffed?

Managers could always be demoted rather than RIFd.

Actually this is what the PP may mean who is relaying the pay cut thing - demote people out of management to cut some costs.

Maybe, but 16 and 17s have the same cap, although I guess they could drop you to 14 and not 16.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying the reduction in pay rumor. Nobody — not even Doge - has tee’d that up as an option. That would make NOBODY happy. Not even sure it’s legal given that Congress sets pay.

The most likely scenario is a hard hiring freeze for foreseeable future, mass attrition, and probably closing 2-3 regions.

+1. They want to cut staff, period. It's not about reducing operating costs but cutting people.

THIS. I mean at the Cabinet meeting Elon made it super clear that this is about FIRING people. Rubio said something like 1500 people at State had taken early retirement and sarcastically said what do you want me to bring them back so I can fire them? And Elon clarified that yes this was about firing and voluntarily leaving isn't the same. So this isn't about cost, it's about firing, media headlines, humiliating govt workers.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. They don’t care about the people who are doing this for the money. They don’t care about the people who are doing this for the benefits. They want to get rid of the people who care about the mission, and who will hang onto that mission until they’re forced out. That’s the change they want to see, and they will keep going until they achieve it.

[Anonymous]

https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ja9cjv/march_13_2025_rfednews_daily_discussion_thread/mhko65p/

Bloombergs fishing for leaks, in case anyone’s feeling frisky.