Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Evidence suggests that the relocation of these agencies is an attempt to hollow out and dismantle USDA science that helps farmers and protects our food supply," the union added.

Brain drain of top scientists doing federal research. I hope the new people will not simply be yes men, but that's probably the intent. I guess the MAGA folks are happy.

So they pre-emptily jump ship and leave the agency to flounder? Doesn't seem smart.

And correct me if I'm wrong - but shouldn't the agency focused on agriculture, food and rural communities be actually in the areas were that's most impactful? Seems smart to have the USDA hq'd in the heartland.

+ a million.

It would make a lot of sense.

But of course some entitled "public servants" believe the public exists to serve them at their convenience...

Makes sense to people who have no clue as to what these scientists do...

What’s more, neither agency works directly with farmers: ERS employees conduct research on and analyze the agricultural and food markets, including looking at food stamps and food security; NIFA employees fund research and provide grants on agriculture-related science.

Even the estimated savings have come under question. An analysis by the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association found that the relocation would actually cost taxpayers between $83 and $182 million

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percentage of these employees have working spouses. I bet it’s close to 90%. And I bet most of those spouses are highly educated people who work in niche fields (such as other phds). People like this just can’t move on a dime—it takes them years to find jobs in nearby locations. The admin knows this and is hoping people will quit because they don’t believe in government and they don’t believe in science. It’s very transparent.
PS I know people who live outside KC and love it, so I’m not anti-KC. But the idea that dual scientist or dual PhD families are going to be able to find work for the trailing spouse there is just....unlikely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know folks in this office. They are good people who care about what they do. As academics, they’re far more likely to be working more than 40 hours a week, not less, because they’ll do whatever needs to be done to get papers in shape for publication or to prepare to present at conferences. They are getting screwed over, pure and simple, as a political maneuver. I’m absolutely disgusted by it.

Screwed over how, though?

They're getting a $50,000 lump sum settlement.
The move was actually announced in Fall 2018.
They can now afford housing for their family if desired.
The feds are paying other relocation expenses.

What more do you want? Did the government sign a certificate promising you you could spend 50 years living in the Washington, D.C. bubble when you joined?

$50k will barely cover realtor expenses for most DC house sales. It’s better than nothing, but hardly a windfall, especially if this move means the trailing spouse giving up his or her career prospects - and for no good reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Evidence suggests that the relocation of these agencies is an attempt to hollow out and dismantle USDA science that helps farmers and protects our food supply," the union added.

Brain drain of top scientists doing federal research. I hope the new people will not simply be yes men, but that's probably the intent. I guess the MAGA folks are happy.

So they pre-emptily jump ship and leave the agency to flounder? Doesn't seem smart.

And correct me if I'm wrong - but shouldn't the agency focused on agriculture, food and rural communities be actually in the areas were that's most impactful? Seems smart to have the USDA hq'd in the heartland.

I think it's this in a nutshell.

Most USDA jobs are located where the impact is. The staff in DC is typically HQ level staff who provides policy and guidance to those located across the country while also being able to easily provide information to Congress and collaborate with other HQ employees. Not every single USDA employee needs to "be in the heartland".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know folks in this office. They are good people who care about what they do. As academics, they’re far more likely to be working more than 40 hours a week, not less, because they’ll do whatever needs to be done to get papers in shape for publication or to prepare to present at conferences. They are getting screwed over, pure and simple, as a political maneuver. I’m absolutely disgusted by it.

Screwed over how, though?

They're getting a $50,000 lump sum settlement.
The move was actually announced in Fall 2018.
They can now afford housing for their family if desired.
The feds are paying other relocation expenses.

What more do you want? Did the government sign a certificate promising you you could spend 50 years living in the Washington, D.C. bubble when you joined?

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percentage of these employees have working spouses. I bet it’s close to 90%. And I bet most of those spouses are highly educated people who work in niche fields (such as other phds). People like this just can’t move on a dime—it takes them years to find jobs in nearby locations. The admin knows this and is hoping people will quit because they don’t believe in government and they don’t believe in science. It’s very transparent.
PS I know people who live outside KC and love it, so I’m not anti-KC. But the idea that dual scientist or dual PhD families are going to be able to find work for the trailing spouse there is just....unlikely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Evidence suggests that the relocation of these agencies is an attempt to hollow out and dismantle USDA science that helps farmers and protects our food supply," the union added.

Brain drain of top scientists doing federal research. I hope the new people will not simply be yes men, but that's probably the intent. I guess the MAGA folks are happy.

So they pre-emptily jump ship and leave the agency to flounder? Doesn't seem smart.

And correct me if I'm wrong - but shouldn't the agency focused on agriculture, food and rural communities be actually in the areas were that's most impactful? Seems smart to have the USDA hq'd in the heartland.

I think it's this in a nutshell.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not what I like for them, but if I were them I’d relocate.

I’d relocate bc if the current feds don’t move with the job, who is going to fill it? I’m sure of the new recruits would be OK, but ... I think that’s the real strategy here... change everything by changing all employees.

Again, it is the worst, but I’d love if I were them. There are some nice areas both in MO and KS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Evidence suggests that the relocation of these agencies is an attempt to hollow out and dismantle USDA science that helps farmers and protects our food supply," the union added.

Brain drain of top scientists doing federal research. I hope the new people will not simply be yes men, but that's probably the intent. I guess the MAGA folks are happy.

So they pre-emptily jump ship and leave the agency to flounder? Doesn't seem smart.

And correct me if I'm wrong - but shouldn't the agency focused on agriculture, food and rural communities be actually in the areas were that's most impactful? Seems smart to have the USDA hq'd in the heartland.

+ a million.

It would make a lot of sense.

But of course some entitled "public servants" believe the public exists to serve them at their convenience...

What’s more, neither agency works directly with farmers: ERS employees conduct research on and analyze the agricultural and food markets, including looking at food stamps and food security; NIFA employees fund research and provide grants on agriculture-related science.

Even the estimated savings have come under question. An analysis by the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association found that the relocation would actually cost taxpayers between $83 and $182 million

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

The cost of living in Kansas City vs. DC is 50-60% lower. It's a LOT lower.

But I still wouldn't want to live there.

So. Don't.

And so I don't. ^PP was trying to make KC more attractive by saying col is lower.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Evidence suggests that the relocation of these agencies is an attempt to hollow out and dismantle USDA science that helps farmers and protects our food supply," the union added.

Brain drain of top scientists doing federal research. I hope the new people will not simply be yes men, but that's probably the intent. I guess the MAGA folks are happy.

So they pre-emptily jump ship and leave the agency to flounder? Doesn't seem smart.

And correct me if I'm wrong - but shouldn't the agency focused on agriculture, food and rural communities be actually in the areas were that's most impactful? Seems smart to have the USDA hq'd in the heartland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be advantages to having the jobs in KC that go beyond just COL/expense considerations. I don't know why they have made this decision but I would think that punishing the employees is not the primary goal of the move. There has to be some sort of strategic reason for this.

Then find out the reason, before expressing your opinion about the reason.

I am not a scientist and I do not work at that agency so I don't know why you think I would have some sort of insider knowledge about why this move was planned. I do know that this sort of thing happens, though, and it's not because the company/agency/organization "hates" their employees and is trying to make them suffer. I do totally understand how it might not be a popular decision though.