Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...cut the cheapest employees who are most motivated to do good work?

Fire the people who are still in their probationary period and who would be entitled to minimal or no severance, I would guess. Of course, in this environment, if they were hired, they are also probably in jobs where they are really needed. But, I’m 50 and have been a Fed for 20 years. Fire me and you owe me 52 weeks severance.

Assuming that all 20 years count towards retirement, you won't receive any severance pay. Once you are eligible for retirement, there's no severance pay. You are either eligible for VERA (Voluntary) retirement or DSR (Involuntary) retirement, depending on what will be offered to you. So, you will get a pension with lifetime subsidized health insurance, but no severance pay.

Anonymous wrote:If they want to eliminate members of the Federal workforce, they need to make changes in the laws about that Feds are expected to do. I'm not suggesting we stop inspecting food or controlling air traffic, but if you cut the workforce, there has to be some cut in the workload that corresponds. There's not a ton a Feds doing no work (I am sure there are a few). So if there is some reasoned proposal on what work DOGE no longer wants done, they should put it forth, and ask Congress to act on eliminating those functions. Randomly cutting or firing people without this makes no sense.

Yup - lots of waste and sleepers in gvt but also lots of hardworking people putting in the work and extra hours. It would be lovely to think the cuts would be the waste and not the grinders, but I’m little hope of that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do probationary periods reset by position or are they once-per-person. My boss is talking about promoting me into a new role and I’m wondering if that means this DOGE idea would apply to me and I should turn it down.

Only if you’re becoming SES.

Ah, thank you. It would be a GS-14 to 15 leap. Appreciate it!

Depends what the promotion position is (different role or just a GS promotion of your current role) - it could re-start the probationary period; definitely ask and don’t assume it would not.

If they want to eliminate members of the Federal workforce, they need to make changes in the laws about that Feds are expected to do. I'm not suggesting we stop inspecting food or controlling air traffic, but if you cut the workforce, there has to be some cut in the workload that corresponds. There's not a ton a Feds doing no work (I am sure there are a few). So if there is some reasoned proposal on what work DOGE no longer wants done, they should put it forth, and ask Congress to act on eliminating those functions. Randomly cutting or firing people without this makes no sense.

Guys, read the article. The one piece about firing new workers is this:

"Even Musk has privately conceded to lawmakers that some of his ideas so far haven’t been very popular or won’t succeed, multiple sources told CNN, but emphasized that he wants the process to be collaborative. One such proposal that is percolating, according to two sources, is to cut all federal workers who were hired in the last year."

Nobody is actually pushing this idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who just trained new people, it'd just be a massive, stupid waste. We hired people because we needed rhem, we just spent a whole lot of money training them and to fire them now would mean we aren't going to get the investment back. Might as well just set money on fire.

How things are done currently is also a massive, stupid waste.

If they streamline many procedures and eliminate some unneeded programs, they can reduce the number of things the agency is tasked with and how many people required to do it. The posts here assume that you will all be doing the same amount of "stuff" long-term and that's short-sighted. Private companies eliminate or automate a lot of things the government still does with manpower. Inefficient.

Eh...I'm a former fed now in private sector. I now earn close to 10x what I did as a fed. I know that agencies vary, but my experience is that private sector, at least large corporations, wastes a lot more money. The biggest issue, though, is how much time feds spend on unnecessary reporting to Congress etc. That is inefficient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who just trained new people, it'd just be a massive, stupid waste. We hired people because we needed rhem, we just spent a whole lot of money training them and to fire them now would mean we aren't going to get the investment back. Might as well just set money on fire.

How things are done currently is also a massive, stupid waste.

If they streamline many procedures and eliminate some unneeded programs, they can reduce the number of things the agency is tasked with and how many people required to do it. The posts here assume that you will all be doing the same amount of "stuff" long-term and that's short-sighted. Private companies eliminate or automate a lot of things the government still does with manpower. Inefficient.

Once again, let's talk about how governments are not private companies. The budget is drafted by the White House and given to the House. Congress passes all the appropriation laws for all the programs that Federal employees work on. We did not come to work and make up a bunch of programs to administer. We have no power to "eliminate some unneeded programs", which is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Lots of stuff gets automated, PP, but lots of programs get added and we can't just whip up programming immediately. That costs money. I realize some of you out here are young and semi-trolling, but Jesus.

Anonymous wrote:“cut all federal workers who were hired in the last year”

So those who were hired within 2024 or in 2023?

lol! Here's where DOGE finds out the difference between calendar year and fiscal year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who just trained new people, it'd just be a massive, stupid waste. We hired people because we needed rhem, we just spent a whole lot of money training them and to fire them now would mean we aren't going to get the investment back. Might as well just set money on fire.

How things are done currently is also a massive, stupid waste.

If they streamline many procedures and eliminate some unneeded programs, they can reduce the number of things the agency is tasked with and how many people required to do it. The posts here assume that you will all be doing the same amount of "stuff" long-term and that's short-sighted. Private companies eliminate or automate a lot of things the government still does with manpower. Inefficient.

What procedures and programs, specifically? And how will randomly firing everyone hired within the past year perfectly align with those?

See this is the key -- once you get to specific programs then support starts going away. My expectation is DOGE will propose a lot and department heads will not follow through.

Border patrol and ICE have been on hiring sprees that last few years. I bet a very large percentage of those agencies are one year or less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who just trained new people, it'd just be a massive, stupid waste. We hired people because we needed rhem, we just spent a whole lot of money training them and to fire them now would mean we aren't going to get the investment back. Might as well just set money on fire.

How things are done currently is also a massive, stupid waste.

If they streamline many procedures and eliminate some unneeded programs, they can reduce the number of things the agency is tasked with and how many people required to do it. The posts here assume that you will all be doing the same amount of "stuff" long-term and that's short-sighted. Private companies eliminate or automate a lot of things the government still does with manpower. Inefficient.

This is so tiresome. Agency budgets are already cut to the bone: if there was a task we could eliminate, we've eliminated it. Congress is welcome to eliminate tasks but we're obligated to do the ones they directed agencies to do.

I'm not sure what you think can be automated but IME that costs more money not less. And you end up still having to keep a manual process because a decent chunk of the population doesn't have internet (to e-file, for example) or has complicated identity documents because they were a home birth, or whatever. I would welcome people applying actual thought and funding to these problems but i resent the idea that agencies have left the cheap and easy fixes on the table. If it was doable on our budget we would have done it.

This is a really dumb idea which means there’s a good chance Trump will do it. The results will be disastrous for the GOP. Anytime there is a bad news that falls under the subject matter of a department (like an airline network outage being a DOT issue), the media and the public will be quick to blame it on the GOP for getting the civil service.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do probationary periods reset by position or are they once-per-person. My boss is talking about promoting me into a new role and I’m wondering if that means this DOGE idea would apply to me and I should turn it down.

Only if you’re becoming SES.

Ah, thank you. It would be a GS-14 to 15 leap. Appreciate it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who just trained new people, it'd just be a massive, stupid waste. We hired people because we needed rhem, we just spent a whole lot of money training them and to fire them now would mean we aren't going to get the investment back. Might as well just set money on fire.

How things are done currently is also a massive, stupid waste.

If they streamline many procedures and eliminate some unneeded programs, they can reduce the number of things the agency is tasked with and how many people required to do it. The posts here assume that you will all be doing the same amount of "stuff" long-term and that's short-sighted. Private companies eliminate or automate a lot of things the government still does with manpower. Inefficient.

What procedures and programs, specifically? And how will randomly firing everyone hired within the past year perfectly align with those?

Anonymous wrote:As someone who just trained new people, it'd just be a massive, stupid waste. We hired people because we needed rhem, we just spent a whole lot of money training them and to fire them now would mean we aren't going to get the investment back. Might as well just set money on fire.

How things are done currently is also a massive, stupid waste.

If they streamline many procedures and eliminate some unneeded programs, they can reduce the number of things the agency is tasked with and how many people required to do it. The posts here assume that you will all be doing the same amount of "stuff" long-term and that's short-sighted. Private companies eliminate or automate a lot of things the government still does with manpower. Inefficient.