Anonymous wrote:Elon and Vivek will run the Dept. of Efficiency. They plan identify the waste and inefficiencies and get the cuts to budgets approved by congress which will be republican within 1st yr.

I will be happy to send them a list of all the waste and inefficiencies in my office.

Elon and Vivek will run the Dept. of Efficiency. They plan identify the waste and inefficiencies and get the cuts to budgets approved by congress which will be republican within 1st yr.

Anonymous wrote:Obviously risky agencies/departments: Interior, EPA, FDA, CDC, Education, Labor, HUD

Maybe OK: state, commerce, DOJ civil rights

Probably OK: most doj components (antitrust, consumer protection, USAOs, most criminal components, all LE agencies except FBI), DHS, DOD, energy

Labor here: we will be fine. Trump will appoint a management attorney to be secretary of labor and and we know all the other characters from the first Trump administration. Our agency has a ton of lifers eligible to retire and some of them are already announcing their retirement after the election.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I’m naive but the work to shut down or move agencies will take a little while. It will be more about the impact of not backfilling vacancies, resignations from younger people who haven’t been in the govt long and older people who can retire, and just generally very low morale.

Also, I am not sure what is really safe - eg, what if you go from epa with 10 years tenure to dod with none and with no leadership vested in keeping you? Is it really more secure? Not sure. They are talking about cuts everywhere. Certainly, if you make it through in both, the working conditions would likely be better in dod, from a morale perspective. I would prefer to wait a few months before making big moves.

I had this conversation with a coworker earlier today about another coworker who is considering jumping to another agency. That's not a prudent move-- no federal agency is safe. If I jump, it will be entirely from the fed and possibly into a form of consulting. I no longer have the energy to deal with any more company bs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not a Trumper, but the federal government has a lot of dead weight in personnel. There's no way that Trump can clear all the dead weight, but hopefully, with Elon's help, Trump can remove most of the underperformers.

I’m not a Trumper but I blindly parrot MAGA talking points. LOL.

Not a Trumper either but there IS dead weight and has been for years. Have had friends come in as political appointees (Dems, mind you) and be frustrated beyond belief by the clearly incompetent and unmotivated. I don't want a patronage system of nothing but political hacks, but would like to see the ability to fire the underperforming greatly streamlined. Along with requiring the feds to go back to work. It is obscene to me that you can sit in your PJs at home getting paid and only have to show up at the office once every two weeks.

So bizarre to me that you care what I’m wearing as I put in 70 hours a week and get paid for 40.

Agree. Also at my agency we do not have space for all the employees to be in the building so allowing work from home is our only option

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously risky agencies/departments: Interior, EPA, FDA, CDC, Education, Labor, HUD

Maybe OK: state, commerce, DOJ civil rights

Probably OK: most doj components (antitrust, consumer protection, USAOs, most criminal components, all LE agencies except FBI), DHS, DOD, energy

Also probably OK, Treasury (except maybe cuts at IRS).

Can you say more about why you think State is or is not OK?

Lots of reasons why I think State employees will be fine.

One, our diplomatic relationships with large portions of the world are noncontroversial, even with trump. Obviously this analysis doesn't apply with as much force if you work closely with Russia/Mexico/Israel/Iran. Two, unlike other agencies, Trump can't move the State Department to a random flyover state. Third, he picked Marco Rubio to be SoS. That's a very positive sign. I don't like the guy, but he's a career politician who understands how government works. Considering the nutjobs in Trump's orbit, Rubio is as conventional and pro-establishment as you could hope for. And last, the State Department generally has a positive public perception and does not have a reputation for being bloated/wasteful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are at a risky agency then start looking around.

Besides for EPA and Education, which ones are risky?

https://www.afge.org/article/project-2025-seeks-to-dismantle-agencies-terminate-up-to-1-million-federal-workers/

I think that Project 2025 is insane, but this analysis is even more insane. No, they will not get rid of 1 million federal employees. The government would not function at that level.

Trump’s insane though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are at a risky agency then start looking around.

Besides for EPA and Education, which ones are risky?

https://www.afge.org/article/project-2025-seeks-to-dismantle-agencies-terminate-up-to-1-million-federal-workers/

I think that Project 2025 is insane, but this analysis is even more insane. No, they will not get rid of 1 million federal employees. The government would not function at that level.

A federal employees union is probably not the best source of news.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are at a risky agency then start looking around.

Besides for EPA and Education, which ones are risky?

https://www.afge.org/article/project-2025-seeks-to-dismantle-agencies-terminate-up-to-1-million-federal-workers/

I think that Project 2025 is insane, but this analysis is even more insane. No, they will not get rid of 1 million federal employees. The government would not function at that level.

That's the point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are at a risky agency then start looking around.

Besides for EPA and Education, which ones are risky?

https://www.afge.org/article/project-2025-seeks-to-dismantle-agencies-terminate-up-to-1-million-federal-workers/

I think that Project 2025 is insane, but this analysis is even more insane. No, they will not get rid of 1 million federal employees. The government would not function at that level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are at a risky agency then start looking around.

Besides for EPA and Education, which ones are risky?

https://www.afge.org/article/project-2025-seeks-to-dismantle-agencies-terminate-up-to-1-million-federal-workers/

Maybe I’m naive but the work to shut down or move agencies will take a little while. It will be more about the impact of not backfilling vacancies, resignations from younger people who haven’t been in the govt long and older people who can retire, and just generally very low morale.

Also, I am not sure what is really safe - eg, what if you go from epa with 10 years tenure to dod with none and with no leadership vested in keeping you? Is it really more secure? Not sure. They are talking about cuts everywhere. Certainly, if you make it through in both, the working conditions would likely be better in dod, from a morale perspective. I would prefer to wait a few months before making big moves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously risky agencies/departments: Interior, EPA, FDA, CDC, Education, Labor, HUD

Maybe OK: state, commerce, DOJ civil rights

Probably OK: most doj components (antitrust, consumer protection, USAOs, most criminal components, all LE agencies except FBI), DHS, DOD, energy

Also probably OK, Treasury (except maybe cuts at IRS).

Maybe I’m naive but the work to do more than that will take a little while. It will be more about the impact of not backfilling vacancies, resignations from younger people who haven’t been in the govt long and older people who can retire, and just generally very low morale.

Also, I am not sure what is really safe - eg, what if you go from epa with 10 years tenure to dod with none and with no leadership vested in keeping you? Is it really more secure? Not sure. They are talking about cuts everywhere. Certainly, if you make it through in both, the working conditions would likely be better in dod, from a morale perspective. I would prefer to wait a few months before making big moves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously risky agencies/departments: Interior, EPA, FDA, CDC, Education, Labor, HUD

Maybe OK: state, commerce, DOJ civil rights

Probably OK: most doj components (antitrust, consumer protection, USAOs, most criminal components, all LE agencies except FBI), DHS, DOD, energy

Also probably OK, Treasury (except maybe cuts at IRS).

Can you say more about why you think State is or is not OK?

What are the credentials of the OP?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously risky agencies/departments: Interior, EPA, FDA, CDC, Education, Labor, HUD

Maybe OK: state, commerce, DOJ civil rights

Probably OK: most doj components (antitrust, consumer protection, USAOs, most criminal components, all LE agencies except FBI), DHS, DOD, energy

Also probably OK, Treasury (except maybe cuts at IRS).

Can you say more about why you think State is or is not OK?