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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Highly educated employees like lawyers, PhDs, etc., are being paid less in the government than the private sector because they want stability. To force a change like this so quickly on a whim shows them that this trade off may not be worth it.
If you want to treat me like the private sector, pay me like the private sector. Sorry for pp who is jealous of government employees. Maybe try asking for advice on the jobs forum instead?
So go work in the private sector. Or that's right -- no more lazy summers while congress is in recess, no teleworking two days a week, no leaving by 3 to pick up your kid, no pay grade increases without productivity, no 10 or 20 year job security, no more federal daycares on site, no more pension/FERS

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of people jealous of "entitled" public servants and wanting to punish them here...
Please, if you want to get a fed job, no one is stopping you!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They're getting a $50,000 lump sum settlement.
Citation? Besides someone with poor reading comprehension who thinks a modeled value in a cost-benefit analysis equates to an offer?
About that cost-benefit analysis:
https://www.aaea.org/UserFiles/file/Report-MovingUSDAResearchersWillCostTaxpayers-AAEAReport2019june19final.docx.pdf
The move was actually announced in Fall 2018.
KC was announced June 13th, obviously no one could make plans before then. And they still can't really make plans, since no one knows exactly where in the KC area the permanent offices will be located.
Lump sum is upthread.
Announcement (its public on the USDA's freaking website / employees have known this was coming since before Aug 2018) -
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced further reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), intended to improve customer service, strengthen offices and programs, and save taxpayer dollars. The Economic Research Service (ERS), currently under USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics mission area, will realign once again with the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) under the Office of the Secretary. Additionally, most employees of ERS and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will be relocated outside of the National Capital Region. The movement of the employees outside of Washington, DC is expected to be completed by the end of 2019.
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/08/09/usda-realign-ers-chief-economist-relocate-ers-nifa-outside-dc
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They're getting a $50,000 lump sum settlement.
Citation? Besides someone with poor reading comprehension who thinks a modeled value in a cost-benefit analysis equates to an offer?
About that cost-benefit analysis:
https://www.aaea.org/UserFiles/file/Report-MovingUSDAResearchersWillCostTaxpayers-AAEAReport2019june19final.docx.pdf
The move was actually announced in Fall 2018.
KC was announced June 13th, obviously no one could make plans before then. And they still can't really make plans, since no one knows exactly where in the KC area the permanent offices will be located.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
At the end of the day I don't care if these workers stay in DC or move to Kansas City. But I also know at the end of the day they, as individuals, are not important. The bosses have decided. And life goes on. Shrugs.
You ought to care that the the bosses, on your dime, are trying to get scientists to quit because they don't like what the scientists said. If you don't care, then you don't care, but you ought to care.
Scientists can not work on climate change in KC? Or that work can only be done in DC?
So, the way that this is being done seems appropriate to you? The speed, the reasoning (there is none), this doesn't strike you as an effort to antagonize and decimate this agency?
Ok. Now I know how people fall for MLM schemes.
No. The military gets relocated all the time. Private sector jobs get relocated, too. It's not like the work being done changes.
I can totally understand the surprise but they've had nearly a year to absorb what's happening. When we relocated it was more like 3 months, if that.[/quote
]
Of course, no private sector employer would pick up and move to a location with no existing employee talent pool, that wouldn't be attractive to new hires, and expect most of its employees to follow, because that would make no business sense.
Anonymous wrote:
They're getting a $50,000 lump sum settlement.
The move was actually announced in Fall 2018.
Anonymous wrote:
I do like the idea of move more government functions outside DC and spreading it around the country. I'm aware most government jobs are already outside DC (80%?) but don't see why more can't be moved either, it'll help those on government pay to live in more affordable regions. In today's age of telecommuting it's no big deal either. My office has staff who live in other states and work from home and only periodically turn up but who stay in touch all the time via conference calls.
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.
The union representing employees from the Economic Research Service cited that roughly two-thirds of more than 200 employees being reassigned from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City, Mo., won't go.
That is exactly what USDA leaders want and what the Trump administration budgeted to happen. USDA's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2020 that ERS would lose half its employees during the year.
At the end of last September, ERS had 319 full-time employees. The White House budget proposal for FY 2020 set the budget for 160 staff, a cut of 159 jobs for the agency.
The FY 2020 budget is set to start Oct. 1, or when Congress completes appropriations for the year. Democrats have a rider in the House appropriations bill to block the ERS move, but the relocation likely will happen before Congress passes its final FY 2020 appropriations.
The Trump administration proposed FY 2020 budget for ERS was $60.5 million for 160 staff and a $26.7 million budget cut from FY 2019.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Go back and read. They’re getting full relocation benefits. Anyone selling a house will be made whole. Government relocation is very comprehensive.
Anonymous wrote: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
This. It’s not the headquarters that is moving. It’s relatively few employees out of the whole USDA. But, these particular jobs would be better off staying in DC.