Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP as someone with no dog in this fight it's clear from your responses that you really want to take the state job. So go for it, as long as you understand the risks.

OP here. No, I'm genuinely torn! I promise, haha. It boils down to a trade-off between flexibility and work I feel excited about. Both matter. It feels very painful for me to walk away from my fed job. I really thought I would be a fed until I retired, and this is my only opportunity to stay a fed; I don't think I could come back.

I'm grateful for the responses in this thread.

I've been a fed for decades. One of the ways I remain excited about work is that I've switched practice areas and agencies over the years. If I stayed at the same place for life I would have gone crazy. Most feds I know do this. Why can't you?

I live in an area without a large fed footprint. Without the ability to work remotely for an agency based elsewhere, there is no other match for my particular skill set. There are actually a lot of long-term feds at my particular agency; it's not unusual at all. Sounds like you may work someplace different.

This administration might close your facility. I would take the state job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP as someone with no dog in this fight it's clear from your responses that you really want to take the state job. So go for it, as long as you understand the risks.

OP here. No, I'm genuinely torn! I promise, haha. It boils down to a trade-off between flexibility and work I feel excited about. Both matter. It feels very painful for me to walk away from my fed job. I really thought I would be a fed until I retired, and this is my only opportunity to stay a fed; I don't think I could come back.

I'm grateful for the responses in this thread.

I've been a fed for decades. One of the ways I remain excited about work is that I've switched practice areas and agencies over the years. If I stayed at the same place for life I would have gone crazy. Most feds I know do this. Why can't you?

I live in an area without a large fed footprint. Without the ability to work remotely for an agency based elsewhere, there is no other match for my particular skill set. There are actually a lot of long-term feds at my particular agency; it's not unusual at all. Sounds like you may work someplace different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP as someone with no dog in this fight it's clear from your responses that you really want to take the state job. So go for it, as long as you understand the risks.

OP here. No, I'm genuinely torn! I promise, haha. It boils down to a trade-off between flexibility and work I feel excited about. Both matter. It feels very painful for me to walk away from my fed job. I really thought I would be a fed until I retired, and this is my only opportunity to stay a fed; I don't think I could come back.

I'm grateful for the responses in this thread.

I've been a fed for decades. One of the ways I remain excited about work is that I've switched practice areas and agencies over the years. If I stayed at the same place for life I would have gone crazy. Most feds I know do this. Why can't you?

I live in an area without a large fed footprint. Without the ability to work remotely for an agency based elsewhere, there is no other match for my particular skill set. There are actually a lot of long-term feds at my particular agency; it's not unusual at all. Sounds like you may work someplace different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

It's a state job, not private sector, and there is a pension with it too. In fact believe it or not it's even more generous than the federal pension; I just have to stay around long enough to vest, of course. I actually don't factor my pension into my retirement planning anyway so while it's a consideration, it's not a huge deciding factor for me. I was not able to negotiate leave unfortunately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP as someone with no dog in this fight it's clear from your responses that you really want to take the state job. So go for it, as long as you understand the risks.

OP here. No, I'm genuinely torn! I promise, haha. It boils down to a trade-off between flexibility and work I feel excited about. Both matter. It feels very painful for me to walk away from my fed job. I really thought I would be a fed until I retired, and this is my only opportunity to stay a fed; I don't think I could come back.

I'm grateful for the responses in this thread.

I've been a fed for decades. One of the ways I remain excited about work is that I've switched practice areas and agencies over the years. If I stayed at the same place for life I would have gone crazy. Most feds I know do this. Why can't you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP as someone with no dog in this fight it's clear from your responses that you really want to take the state job. So go for it, as long as you understand the risks.

OP here. No, I'm genuinely torn! I promise, haha. It boils down to a trade-off between flexibility and work I feel excited about. Both matter. It feels very painful for me to walk away from my fed job. I really thought I would be a fed until I retired, and this is my only opportunity to stay a fed; I don't think I could come back.

I'm grateful for the responses in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP as someone with no dog in this fight it's clear from your responses that you really want to take the state job. So go for it, as long as you understand the risks.

OP here. No, I'm genuinely torn! I promise, haha. It boils down to a trade-off between flexibility and work I feel excited about. Both matter. It feels very painful for me to walk away from my fed job. I really thought I would be a fed until I retired, and this is my only opportunity to stay a fed; I don't think I could come back.

I'm grateful for the responses in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

It's a state job, not private sector, and there is a pension with it too. In fact believe it or not it's even more generous than the federal pension; I just have to stay around long enough to vest, of course. I actually don't factor my pension into my retirement planning anyway so while it's a consideration, it's not a huge deciding factor for me. I was not able to negotiate leave unfortunately.

Which State?

West Coast

Anonymous wrote:OP as someone with no dog in this fight it's clear from your responses that you really want to take the state job. So go for it, as long as you understand the risks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

It's a state job, not private sector, and there is a pension with it too. In fact believe it or not it's even more generous than the federal pension; I just have to stay around long enough to vest, of course. I actually don't factor my pension into my retirement planning anyway so while it's a consideration, it's not a huge deciding factor for me. I was not able to negotiate leave unfortunately.

Which State?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

It's a state job, not private sector, and there is a pension with it too. In fact believe it or not it's even more generous than the federal pension; I just have to stay around long enough to vest, of course. I actually don't factor my pension into my retirement planning anyway so while it's a consideration, it's not a huge deciding factor for me. I was not able to negotiate leave unfortunately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumping for other thoughts! Here is the slightly revised decision following tons of negotiation on the new role and developments on the old role.

What would you choose?

1) Current fed role, over a decade in with all the benefits that come from being around that long (accrued pension, tons of accrued leave, etc). Really not enjoying the work I do and no real path for this to change, some toxic personalities that won't leave me alone, have tried to negotiate an internal transfer without success. This is literally my only opportunity to stay with this federal agency in my area so either I suck it up for this less-fulfulling job or I close the door on federal employment probably forever. In-office 5 days/week but on a flex schedule so I can flex my start/end times each day based on kid commitments which has been enormously helpful.

2) New non-fed role. Salary essentially the same once I factor in loss of TSP match and other savings vehicles that I would need to fill in the gap for. Benefits different but good. I would start over with leave balances at ZERO, losing several months of leave. Demotion in title. However, the work speaks to my soul, a MUCH better fit than what I do now, and I see a real professional growth path. Ability to regularly telework a few days a week which is marvelous but start/end times are fixed so the in-office days are less flexible. Commute on in-office days is a little longer than current role.

What would you choose?

What kind of company is non fed role? Those seem like pretty bad tradeoffs. You need 30% bump to make up loss of pension, did you factor that in? You should be able to negotiate some leave and accelerated leave accrual as a mid career— thats standard.

Does the growth path seem likely, and you see others like you in those roles?

Anonymous wrote:At 50 I would stay out.