Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many “boomerangs” at Meta and Amazon and other companies who are known for continually laying people off. I work in tech and got laid off recently, and I'm now in another job where it may happen again because that is the culture in these companies. I guess the main difference here is that until last year the government was not known for that. But I wouldn’t be surprised if many former employees reapplied because if they liked their jobs before and they have unique skills suited to these roles, it makes sense for them to put the hurt aside and go back to it.

I left and what's keeping me away isn't that they hurt me, it's that most of the reasons I left still apply. It's still a bad place to work.

Not every role has a good private equivalent

I understand there are many people who don't have better choices. But among people who are staying away, I've never heard anyone say it's because "oh, they hurt me."

You clearly don't have a lot of friends formerly at USAID, HHS, or State. I HAVE heard this multiple times.

If the private sector is so cut throat and demanding, then how come every dad I see picking up his kid at 4 pm on a Wednesday works for the private sector? Moms too.

Granted, most of the work for “government adjacent” companies, but still private sector.

The job market in DC is tough. Highest unemployment rate in the country. A good job is desirable, and those positions on paper at least are good jobs. (Agency and office climate these days is another thing.)

Many people really want to serve the American people in a position with the government. It’s a public service calling for many.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my agency you younger graduates will work for about 2 years or so and then move to private industry.

DOGE and republicans have pretty much made the working conditions worse than private industry and the pay is lower, so fed employment is just a step on the way to a career.

Assume the current administration doesn't want qualified people to actually stay, so it's a win win for them. Once the current supervisors who are constantly restraining everyone retire, we'll see what happens.

OPM doesn’t want longterm feds. I think they’re betting that AI can do everything Feds are currently doing.

Why do you say that?

https://fedscoop.com/two-year-tech-force-stints-aimed-young-approach-work-opm-director-says/

I would love to job hop and do different things, learning new things, but no one hires 50 years old that way. Also young people job hop because of remote work or more mobility (partly because they can’t afford to buy homes and have kids).

Honestly I am skeptical of what value an employee that is there for just 2 years even brings? They learn the systems and processes and then contribute for maybe 18 months, than leave? Unless they came in for a particular problem like a consultant or to build something simple like an ad campaign, it doesn’t support longer term multi year projects with staff churn. It works in tech because they are mostly making apps and such; I think with the AI efforts people will stay longer because those are much longer and more complicated engineering efforts.

Job hopping boosts income in a competitive job market, but has limited value to employers. So OPM wants basically to have a jobs program for young Republicans, and then leave for lobbying jobs? They aren’t going to do anything in that time, but I guess other hiring is down.

Yep the goal is a two year term workforce in perpetuity

https://nasaforce.gov/

I’m very open about trying different things and shaking up a system. I don’t automatically shut down ideas for idealogical reasons. I like to see where things take us.

This is stupid. Those early career folks won’t be able to find the bathroom within their term. They won’t have enough experience to hit the ground running. It will be a never ending cycle of teaching over and over and NASA not benefiting from was learned. I could see a term of 5 years being more realistic but 1-2 years is a waste of everyone’s time and energy.

NASA isn’t supposed to be benefiting from this. NASA and the federal gov is supposed to serve as a job training ground for the private sector. The private sector is who will benefit from this. Please read Project 2025.

Anonymous wrote:Generally speaking, career Feds are decent people who keep the trains running. They are the ones recruiting/hiring. The politicals are an annoyance to be tolerated until the next ones arrive. But the career staff endure.

Nobody anticipates more positions will be eliminated. Quite the opposite; they must recruit to keep the trains running.

This is only true if people think keeping trains running is important/necessary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The level of chaos and contempt for employees that was present before I left the agency I was at isn't normal anywhere. Individually, you can look at any particular personnel action and find somewhere else it's happening. Collectively, the agency was self-destructing because of political leadership. Leaving went fine for me and for many of my coworkers.

Amazon and Twitter come to mind.

If you don't know anything about those organizations and weren't a fed last year, I imagine they might.

Anonymous wrote:The level of chaos and contempt for employees that was present before I left the agency I was at isn't normal anywhere. Individually, you can look at any particular personnel action and find somewhere else it's happening. Collectively, the agency was self-destructing because of political leadership. Leaving went fine for me and for many of my coworkers.

Amazon and Twitter come to mind.

The level of chaos and contempt for employees that was present before I left the agency I was at isn't normal anywhere. Individually, you can look at any particular personnel action and find somewhere else it's happening. Collectively, the agency was self-destructing because of political leadership. Leaving went fine for me and for many of my coworkers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m contemplating applying to Fed jobs. And I worked as a contractor and have friends still in the system, so understand everything that is going on right now.

I think Feds underestimate how ruthless the private sector is, especially nowadays. I would gladly take 40 hours work weeks and being able to take sick time/PTO without worrying that I’ll be first to be targeted for a laid off.

Actually you will be the first one targeted for a layoff during your probationary period.

Yes, I understand. But there’s no arbitrary reasons behind it - the only people I know who were Feds that were let go were people who just started or worked in something explicitly DEIA. There is always layoffs in the private sector, just look that Meta is laying off 8% in May. That’s business as usual for them, whereas the federal layoffs were a big deal.

You need to do more reading. There are tons of feds that were in their probationary period that were arbitrarily fired and it wasnt just DEI. There were even people that were probationary due to promotions that were fired.

That’s normal in the tech world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m contemplating applying to Fed jobs. And I worked as a contractor and have friends still in the system, so understand everything that is going on right now.

I think Feds underestimate how ruthless the private sector is, especially nowadays. I would gladly take 40 hours work weeks and being able to take sick time/PTO without worrying that I’ll be first to be targeted for a laid off.

Actually you will be the first one targeted for a layoff during your probationary period.

DP here. I’m a fed and I don’t see them pulling a mass probationary firing again. That was a stupid DOGE thing. I mean it’s so hard to hire new people now, why would they waste time firing them?

My agency is going through a reorg and entire divisions will be laid off. They got the easy low hanging fruit, but more layoffs are coming.

Why do you think OPM changed the seniority rule for RIF? Sheets and giggles?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m contemplating applying to Fed jobs. And I worked as a contractor and have friends still in the system, so understand everything that is going on right now.

I think Feds underestimate how ruthless the private sector is, especially nowadays. I would gladly take 40 hours work weeks and being able to take sick time/PTO without worrying that I’ll be first to be targeted for a laid off.

Actually you will be the first one targeted for a layoff during your probationary period.

DP here. I’m a fed and I don’t see them pulling a mass probationary firing again. That was a stupid DOGE thing. I mean it’s so hard to hire new people now, why would they waste time firing them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m contemplating applying to Fed jobs. And I worked as a contractor and have friends still in the system, so understand everything that is going on right now.

I think Feds underestimate how ruthless the private sector is, especially nowadays. I would gladly take 40 hours work weeks and being able to take sick time/PTO without worrying that I’ll be first to be targeted for a laid off.

Actually you will be the first one targeted for a layoff during your probationary period.

Yes, I understand. But there’s no arbitrary reasons behind it - the only people I know who were Feds that were let go were people who just started or worked in something explicitly DEIA. There is always layoffs in the private sector, just look that Meta is laying off 8% in May. That’s business as usual for them, whereas the federal layoffs were a big deal.

You need to do more reading. There are tons of feds that were in their probationary period that were arbitrarily fired and it wasnt just DEI. There were even people that were probationary due to promotions that were fired.

I get that people got fired that were in their probationary period. No job is guaranteed at most places of employment, but I still believe that Feds have more worker rights than most people. When I worked at a PE owned company, there were multiple rounds of layoffs every year. Even my current employer has a small layoff every year and it’s a much better employer than most private sector companies. I don’t think I’m going to convince you, but in my experience the federal government is a much better employer than the majority of companies.

The only thing I think it doesn’t match private sector is five days in person, I believe three days is average for private sector. But you can actually take your sick time for appointments and illness as a Fed and not be penalized. If I took all my sick time, I would be first to be laid off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m contemplating applying to Fed jobs. And I worked as a contractor and have friends still in the system, so understand everything that is going on right now.

I think Feds underestimate how ruthless the private sector is, especially nowadays. I would gladly take 40 hours work weeks and being able to take sick time/PTO without worrying that I’ll be first to be targeted for a laid off.

Actually you will be the first one targeted for a layoff during your probationary period.

Yes, I understand. But there’s no arbitrary reasons behind it - the only people I know who were Feds that were let go were people who just started or worked in something explicitly DEIA. There is always layoffs in the private sector, just look that Meta is laying off 8% in May. That’s business as usual for them, whereas the federal layoffs were a big deal.

You need to do more reading. There are tons of feds that were in their probationary period that were arbitrarily fired and it wasnt just DEI. There were even people that were probationary due to promotions that were fired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people dont know what happened. I get it as a fed this stuff is in our face but the general public generally isnt aware of the scale of what happened. I suspect there is also a group of people that think they will just tough it out for a few years and things will get better.

A lot of the general public saw zero negative effects from the rifs, so they are either indifferent about them or felt that it was a good decision to reduce the number of federal employees.

NP here. I agree with this. When the government does its job well, people don't notice anything out of the ordinary.

My dad had a lot of aggression with dementia and the police were called multiple times. My mom praised their response each time and how well they handled it. I noticed that their police department received a DOJ grant to fund training for first responders to deal with people in mental health crisis...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m contemplating applying to Fed jobs. And I worked as a contractor and have friends still in the system, so understand everything that is going on right now.

I think Feds underestimate how ruthless the private sector is, especially nowadays. I would gladly take 40 hours work weeks and being able to take sick time/PTO without worrying that I’ll be first to be targeted for a laid off.

Actually you will be the first one targeted for a layoff during your probationary period.

Yes, I understand. But there’s no arbitrary reasons behind it - the only people I know who were Feds that were let go were people who just started or worked in something explicitly DEIA. There is always layoffs in the private sector, just look that Meta is laying off 8% in May. That’s business as usual for them, whereas the federal layoffs were a big deal.