Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day I don't care if these workers stay in DC or move to Kansas City. But I also know at the end of the day they, as individuals, are not important. The bosses have decided. And life goes on. Shrugs.

You ought to care that the the bosses, on your dime, are trying to get scientists to quit because they don't like what the scientists said. If you don't care, then you don't care, but you ought to care.

Scientists can not work on climate change in KC? Or that work can only be done in DC?

So, the way that this is being done seems appropriate to you? The speed, the reasoning (there is none), this doesn't strike you as an effort to antagonize and decimate this agency?

Ok. Now I know how people fall for MLM schemes.

No. The military gets relocated all the time. Private sector jobs get relocated, too. It's not like the work being done changes.

I can totally understand the surprise but they've had nearly a year to absorb what's happening. When we relocated it was more like 3 months, if that.

People who join the military do so knowing that they will be relocated frequently. They also have benefits that are meant to offset the inconvenience. People in the private sector are paid more. That is not analogous to a civil service job. A scientist in a job like this wants to be somewhere with the most opportunities and the ability to collaborate with colleagues in other agencies.

There may be advantages to having the jobs in KC that go beyond just COL/expense considerations. I don't know why they have made this decision but I would think that punishing the employees is not the primary goal of the move. There has to be some sort of strategic reason for this.

Yes, it's called sticking it to the scientist liberals. Trump's basic policies seem to be reverse anything that Obama did. His strategy is to reverse anything Obama did even if it made sense and do anything that sticks it to the liberal scientist who thinks he's a moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Evidence suggests that the relocation of these agencies is an attempt to hollow out and dismantle USDA science that helps farmers and protects our food supply," the union added.

Brain drain of top scientists doing federal research. I hope the new people will not simply be yes men, but that's probably the intent. I guess the MAGA folks are happy.

So they pre-emptily jump ship and leave the agency to flounder? Doesn't seem smart.

And correct me if I'm wrong - but shouldn't the agency focused on agriculture, food and rural communities be actually in the areas were that's most impactful? Seems smart to have the USDA hq'd in the heartland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day I don't care if these workers stay in DC or move to Kansas City. But I also know at the end of the day they, as individuals, are not important. The bosses have decided. And life goes on. Shrugs.

You ought to care that the the bosses, on your dime, are trying to get scientists to quit because they don't like what the scientists said. If you don't care, then you don't care, but you ought to care.

Scientists can not work on climate change in KC? Or that work can only be done in DC?

So, the way that this is being done seems appropriate to you? The speed, the reasoning (there is none), this doesn't strike you as an effort to antagonize and decimate this agency?

Ok. Now I know how people fall for MLM schemes.

No. The military gets relocated all the time. Private sector jobs get relocated, too. It's not like the work being done changes.

I can totally understand the surprise but they've had nearly a year to absorb what's happening. When we relocated it was more like 3 months, if that.

People who join the military do so knowing that they will be relocated frequently. They also have benefits that are meant to offset the inconvenience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be advantages to having the jobs in KC that go beyond just COL/expense considerations. I don't know why they have made this decision but I would think that punishing the employees is not the primary goal of the move. There has to be some sort of strategic reason for this.

Then find out the reason, before expressing your opinion about the reason.

I am not a scientist and I do not work at that agency so I don't know why you think I would have some sort of insider knowledge about why this move was planned. I do know that this sort of thing happens, though, and it's not because the company/agency/organization "hates" their employees and is trying to make them suffer. I do totally understand how it might not be a popular decision though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be advantages to having the jobs in KC that go beyond just COL/expense considerations. I don't know why they have made this decision but I would think that punishing the employees is not the primary goal of the move. There has to be some sort of strategic reason for this.

Then find out the reason, before expressing your opinion about the reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day I don't care if these workers stay in DC or move to Kansas City. But I also know at the end of the day they, as individuals, are not important. The bosses have decided. And life goes on. Shrugs.

You ought to care that the the bosses, on your dime, are trying to get scientists to quit because they don't like what the scientists said. If you don't care, then you don't care, but you ought to care.

Scientists can not work on climate change in KC? Or that work can only be done in DC?

So, the way that this is being done seems appropriate to you? The speed, the reasoning (there is none), this doesn't strike you as an effort to antagonize and decimate this agency?

Ok. Now I know how people fall for MLM schemes.

No. The military gets relocated all the time. Private sector jobs get relocated, too. It's not like the work being done changes.

I can totally understand the surprise but they've had nearly a year to absorb what's happening. When we relocated it was more like 3 months, if that.

People who join the military do so knowing that they will be relocated frequently. They also have benefits that are meant to offset the inconvenience. People in the private sector are paid more. That is not analogous to a civil service job. A scientist in a job like this wants to be somewhere with the most opportunities and the ability to collaborate with colleagues in other agencies.

There may be advantages to having the jobs in KC that go beyond just COL/expense considerations. I don't know why they have made this decision but I would think that punishing the employees is not the primary goal of the move. There has to be some sort of strategic reason for this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day I don't care if these workers stay in DC or move to Kansas City. But I also know at the end of the day they, as individuals, are not important. The bosses have decided. And life goes on. Shrugs.

You ought to care that the the bosses, on your dime, are trying to get scientists to quit because they don't like what the scientists said. If you don't care, then you don't care, but you ought to care.

Scientists can not work on climate change in KC? Or that work can only be done in DC?

Anonymous wrote:

There may be advantages to having the jobs in KC that go beyond just COL/expense considerations. I don't know why they have made this decision but I would think that punishing the employees is not the primary goal of the move. There has to be some sort of strategic reason for this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day I don't care if these workers stay in DC or move to Kansas City. But I also know at the end of the day they, as individuals, are not important. The bosses have decided. And life goes on. Shrugs.

You ought to care that the the bosses, on your dime, are trying to get scientists to quit because they don't like what the scientists said. If you don't care, then you don't care, but you ought to care.

Scientists can not work on climate change in KC? Or that work can only be done in DC?

So, the way that this is being done seems appropriate to you? The speed, the reasoning (there is none), this doesn't strike you as an effort to antagonize and decimate this agency?

Ok. Now I know how people fall for MLM schemes.

No. The military gets relocated all the time. Private sector jobs get relocated, too. It's not like the work being done changes.

I can totally understand the surprise but they've had nearly a year to absorb what's happening. When we relocated it was more like 3 months, if that.

People who join the military do so knowing that they will be relocated frequently. They also have benefits that are meant to offset the inconvenience. People in the private sector are paid more. That is not analogous to a civil service job. A scientist in a job like this wants to be somewhere with the most opportunities and the ability to collaborate with colleagues in other agencies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

The cost of living in Kansas City vs. DC is 50-60% lower. It's a LOT lower.

But I still wouldn't want to live there.

So. Don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Evidence suggests that the relocation of these agencies is an attempt to hollow out and dismantle USDA science that helps farmers and protects our food supply," the union added.

Brain drain of top scientists doing federal research. I hope the new people will not simply be yes men, but that's probably the intent. I guess the MAGA folks are happy.

So they pre-emptily jump ship and leave the agency to flounder? Doesn't seem smart.

And correct me if I'm wrong - but shouldn't the agency focused on agriculture, food and rural communities be actually in the areas were that's most impactful? Seems smart to have the USDA hq'd in the heartland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day I don't care if these workers stay in DC or move to Kansas City. But I also know at the end of the day they, as individuals, are not important. The bosses have decided. And life goes on. Shrugs.

You ought to care that the the bosses, on your dime, are trying to get scientists to quit because they don't like what the scientists said. If you don't care, then you don't care, but you ought to care.

Scientists can not work on climate change in KC? Or that work can only be done in DC?

So, the way that this is being done seems appropriate to you? The speed, the reasoning (there is none), this doesn't strike you as an effort to antagonize and decimate this agency?

Ok. Now I know how people fall for MLM schemes.

No. The military gets relocated all the time. Private sector jobs get relocated, too. It's not like the work being done changes.

I can totally understand the surprise but they've had nearly a year to absorb what's happening. When we relocated it was more like 3 months, if that.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly what the Trump admin wants. Fill the slots with creationists and climate deniers. Jesus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day I don't care if these workers stay in DC or move to Kansas City. But I also know at the end of the day they, as individuals, are not important. The bosses have decided. And life goes on. Shrugs.

You ought to care that the the bosses, on your dime, are trying to get scientists to quit because they don't like what the scientists said. If you don't care, then you don't care, but you ought to care.

Scientists can not work on climate change in KC? Or that work can only be done in DC?

So, the way that this is being done seems appropriate to you? The speed, the reasoning (there is none), this doesn't strike you as an effort to antagonize and decimate this agency?

Ok. Now I know how people fall for MLM schemes.