8 months of pay
-
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
I'm making a SWAG they're shooting for a 10% RIF.
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
I was only joking
-
This seems to have no legal basis but there’s a chance the resignations will stick. I’d hold off, at least until it unfolds in court.
@jon-nyc said in 8 months of pay:
This seems to have no legal basis but there’s a chance the resignations will stick. I’d hold off, at least until it unfolds in court.
Frozen by courts.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/06/trump-federal-employee-buyout-court-challenge-.html
-
The people that took the buyout are 50/50 people that you want to keep. 70% of the people that didn’t take it need replaced…
-
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
Forgive my cynicism, but it's borne out of experience.
The place I used to work would have a big lay-off and they'd make a big fuss that they were cutting costs in the hope of increasing the share price. They never mentioned hiring people back to fill the void, frequently the same people. As you might imagine, it did wonders for morale.
I'm sure there's plenty of deadwood in the government. Whether those are the people who will take the offer is questionable.
-
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
Forgive my cynicism, but it's borne out of experience.
The place I used to work would have a big lay-off and they'd make a big fuss that they were cutting costs in the hope of increasing the share price. They never mentioned hiring people back to fill the void, frequently the same people. As you might imagine, it did wonders for morale.
I'm sure there's plenty of deadwood in the government. Whether those are the people who will take the offer is questionable.
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
Usually what happens in these things, is that everybody takes the offer who's gonna take it. Then all outside hiring is frozen, but usually in-house promotions are allowed.
As work then ramps up, the lazy or who doesn't want the stress quits.
You missed out the bit where they have to quietly rehire a bunch of people that left as contractors.
Sometimes. Sometimes they don't.
Forgive my cynicism, but it's borne out of experience.
The place I used to work would have a big lay-off and they'd make a big fuss that they were cutting costs in the hope of increasing the share price. They never mentioned hiring people back to fill the void, frequently the same people. As you might imagine, it did wonders for morale.
I'm sure there's plenty of deadwood in the government. Whether those are the people who will take the offer is questionable.
Forgive my experience. I went through a 6,000 employee RIF and three permanent hospital closures.
-
Any way you look at this it's a bad approach. The folks leaving are the ones who have options, are desired by other companies, or were planning on departing soon anyway and just got almost a year's salary for free. Yes there are a few folks who are taking who are deadwood (good term, @Doctor-Phibes) but the more effective way would be to require each agency to cut staff by 20% and let the managers weed out the folks who add the least value. It would suck but at least you'd reduce staff and NOT backfill positions (those leaving today, if they were doing an important job, you just have to rehire and train someone...costing more money). I'd imagine like 2-3% of the workforce will accept this offer, which probably is a net expense to the taxpayer (similar to the RTO mandate...all it's doing is costing taxpayers more), a complete backfire.
-
Any way you look at this it's a bad approach. The folks leaving are the ones who have options, are desired by other companies, or were planning on departing soon anyway and just got almost a year's salary for free. Yes there are a few folks who are taking who are deadwood (good term, @Doctor-Phibes) but the more effective way would be to require each agency to cut staff by 20% and let the managers weed out the folks who add the least value. It would suck but at least you'd reduce staff and NOT backfill positions (those leaving today, if they were doing an important job, you just have to rehire and train someone...costing more money). I'd imagine like 2-3% of the workforce will accept this offer, which probably is a net expense to the taxpayer (similar to the RTO mandate...all it's doing is costing taxpayers more), a complete backfire.
@89th said in 8 months of pay:
Any way you look at this it's a bad approach. The folks leaving are the ones who have options, are desired by other companies, or were planning on departing soon anyway and just got almost a year's salary for free. Yes there are a few folks who are taking who are deadwood (good term, @Doctor-Phibes) but the more effective way would be to require each agency to cut staff by 20% and let the managers weed out the folks who add the least value. It would suck but at least you'd reduce staff and NOT backfill positions (those leaving today, if they were doing an important job, you just have to rehire and train someone...costing more money). I'd imagine like 2-3% of the workforce will accept this offer, which probably is a net expense to the taxpayer (similar to the RTO mandate...all it's doing is costing taxpayers more), a complete backfire.
With civil service protections, I don't think managers and middle managers have that power.
At least with this, you get that 2-3%. You require people to go back to the office abd you get another what, 5%? Then, you institute a hiring freeze with any hiring done on a position by position approval by the appointing authority.
Before you know it, you're down total numbers in an agency 10-15%.
-
Oh maybe, I am all for a reduction in the workforce, don't get me wrong. I've seen plenty of deadwood in the federal agencies (and private companies, too). Regarding your first part, that is what needs to change, managers need more power to fire idiots. My wife used to work for the Dept of VA (helped veterans find jobs and educational options), and the stories of stuff colleagues did without punishment was insane. Fraud. Racism (against whites) in meetings. No one ever got fired. One guy did go to jail after he was caught funneling like $2 million to a fake college.
-
A federal judge in Boston just removed the injunction, clearing the way for this to move forward. Haven’t seen details.
-
Can't seem to find a source, I heard that after the judge removed the injunction, President Trump said that the offer was no longer available. If you signed up before, great!! If not, too late.
