Anonymous
11/13/2013 16:31
Subject: Moving some federal functions to other places in the U.S.
Anonymous wrote:You "highly doubt" they think the same. That's your opinion. I have mine.
I'm gonna agree with PP, please don't try speaking for all fed employees because I would love to get the heck out of DC if I could. Most of my co-workers are NOT from DC and I the ones that I am close to hate living here. There are a ton of transplants just living here for a job with no real connection to the area.
Anonymous
11/13/2013 16:27
Subject: Moving some federal functions to other places in the U.S.
You "highly doubt" they think the same. That's your opinion. I have mine.
Anonymous
11/13/2013 15:21
Subject: Moving some federal functions to other places in the U.S.
Anonymous wrote:I have a better idea to save money- allow teleworking! Then employees could live wherever they want. Teleworking is supposedly encouraged, but most people aren't allowed because managers don't know how to manage unless your butt is warming a chair.
+1. I work in the DC area but almost all of my internal clients are located in other areas. Aside from monthly staff meetings, there is no need for me to be sitting at my desk in DC every day. I could do this job in my hometown or in a branch office and save my agency the locality allowance portion of my salary.
Anonymous
11/13/2013 08:36
Subject: Moving some federal functions to other places in the U.S.
Anonymous wrote:Feds don't like it but many would move for their jobs. They prefer to have "face-time" with others in Washington. I think a department move elsewhere is usually shortsighted. In addition, there is value to having agencies easily identifiable to visitors to Washington ~ they walk down the mall, they see the name on the building "The Department of Agriculture", "The Department of Housing and Urban Development" It is their federal city.
Hundreds of thousands of Feds in the DC area. I highly doubt they all think the same way. Many would love to go somewhere with a lower cost of living and less traffic.
Anonymous
11/13/2013 08:30
Subject: Moving some federal functions to other places in the U.S.
I have a better idea to save money- allow teleworking! Then employees could live wherever they want. Teleworking is supposedly encouraged, but most people aren't allowed because managers don't know how to manage unless your butt is warming a chair.
Anonymous
11/12/2013 21:59
Subject: Moving some federal functions to other places in the U.S.
Anonymous wrote:I love this idea! I'm a Fed and would prefer to live in a more affordable city closer to home. I am constantly conflicted by the choice of doing important and interesting work in my field vs. raising my children near family. I would love to not have to make those trade-offs.
If so many federal employees weren't crammed into DC, cost of living here would go down too. It would be great if whole departments could just move elsewhere... how much do the Secretaries really need to be physically in DC anyway? They can just hop on a plane for Cabinet meetings or meetings at the White House. It probably wouldn't be that often, right?
As a taxpayer, I love the idea of relocating some government functions to less expensive locales. It would also open up federal employment to whole new geographic areas, which could allow the government to get better employees (if they fixed their messed up hiring system).
I don't think it will happen, but it's absolutely worth exploring.
Better yet, VTC for most of their meetings. No need to waste money on overpriced government rate airfare (2-4 x the cost of the same ticket bought on Travelocity or orbitz)
Anonymous
11/12/2013 21:53
Subject: Moving some federal functions to other places in the U.S.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have friends who work in government policymaking, and have heard that there is increased discussion about the benefits of farming out some federal functions, agencies, workforce, and jobs outside of the DC area. The jobs would still be federal government jobs, but they would be relocated and distributed across the country -- to Kansas, Alabama, California, etc. How do federal workers here in the Washington metro area feel about this idea?
Would be terrible if to dumps like Kansas or Alabama, or to equally expensive places like CA; not bad if it were to places with good QOL and COL. But then again, the federal presence outside of DC (regional offices) seem to be second tier.
Should not be California, or Hawaii or New York, or any of the places with high cost of living.
They should move the jobs to the low cost of living states.
Anonymous
11/12/2013 21:51
Subject: Moving some federal functions to other places in the U.S.
Anonymous wrote:California has about 172,000 federal jobs, but the federal workforce in the DC metro area -- with about half a million or more (by now, that is a 2011 estimate) -- dwarfs even more populous regions (like CA).
Yes, but I bet a majority of those jobs are at military bases.
I think this is an excellent idea! The federal government could save soooo much money by moving those jobs that don't need to be in this expensive cost of living area to places like Kansas or Arkansas.