Post New

Now that the preliminary injunction was lifted (judge ruled plaintiffs didn't have standing), the Administration has apparently closed the books on their offer. It appears about 75K federal workers accepted the offer, give or take.

With a civilian federal workforce of about 2.3 million, that's below the 5-10% range that Musk had given as their expectation. A little more than 3%. What makes that really bad, though, is that the normal departure rate for federal workers (people resigning or retiring) is a little over 5% per year. Which means that the number of people taking deferred retirement (staying on the payroll for 7-8 months before leaving) is probably a little bit lower than the number of people who would have left the federal government over that eight months anyway.

Had there been more uptake, it would have been likely that this would have resulted in some reduced personnel expenditure for the government. But at this level, there's now a very good chance that the program did little more than give a paid vacation to all the people who would have left in the next 7-8 months anyway.

As I had posted here when this began: Only a tiny number of people will give up their gov't job.

Many of them cannot make it in the private sector. Some can, but many are so ingrained in their cushy robotic routines.

No links.

No articulate reason as to why all is good.

Just a fella who for decades hired people in the DC area from salaries ranging form $12 an hour to $300K in mid-2000's dollars.

Had there been more uptake, it would have been likely that this would have resulted in some reduced personnel expenditure for the government. But at this level, there's now a very good chance that the program did little more than give a paid vacation to all the people who would have left in the next 7-8 months anyway.

Packages are a very common thing in the private sector. A lot of federal employees are going to wish they'd taken Trump up on the offer.

Packages are a very common thing in the private sector.

They are, but they are not typically offered to every single employee in the entire organization like this - including positions that they would need to refill immediately if an employee took the offer.

They are, but they are not typically offered to every single employee in the entire organization like this - including positions that they would need to refill immediately if an employee took the offer.

Depends. I've worked places that offered exactly these kinds of things - to anyone.

Depends. I've worked places that offered exactly these kinds of things - to anyone.

It can happen, but it's not common. Typically they offer the voluntary severance package to the departments or activities or programs they want to thin out.

Here, though, not only are you likely giving voluntary severance to the people who were going to leave during that time anyway, but you'll end up giving voluntary severance to people you have to immediately replace. For example, if the X-ray technician at the VA clinic takes the buyout, that medical facility isn't just going to stop doing X-rays. They'll have to hire someone to fill the spot. The overwhelming majority of the civilian employees in the federal government are in the VA, the defense agencies, and national security agencies - all of which have a lot of positions that just can't go unfilled without causing a major problem. A more thoughtful voluntary severance program would have extended the offer only to people who were in jobs that wouldn't need to be re-filled.

But thoughtful takes time. So you end up with this kind of haphazard kludge that isn't going to accomplish its goals. They didn't spend the time to figure out what jobs they wanted to cut vs. those they needed to keep. They didn't spend enough time fixing the details of the offer in a way that employees knew it would be enforceable. So they got a really low uptake with no assurance that they won't end up paying out more money than if they had done nothing.

Plus - why bother doing this? Typically a private company will do voluntary programs instead of just laying off because they want to preserve employee morale or avoid brand damage....but DOGE doesn't want either of those things. They want federal employees to be upset and fearful for their jobs due to the threat of involuntary layoffs. They want to convey the message that the federal government is not a wonderful and well-managed organization. They want the public to perceive that not all is right with the status quo at the government, rather than preserve positive brand identity.

It's just....careless. It's a thing that Musk has done before, so why not do it again - even though the circumstances are completely wrong for this type of program, and it appears that it's been utterly unsuccessful.

For example, if the X-ray technician at the VA clinic takes the buyout, that medical facility isn't just going to stop doing X-rays.

You sure?

I'm pretty sure Musk, et al, want exactly that. They want many departments/agencies to close entirely. The easiest way to do that is to make it useless, and then declare "it's useless, we may as well close it". So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they wouldn't want to hire an X-ray tech (in your example).

m pretty sure Musk, et al, want exactly that. They want many departments/agencies to close entirely. The easiest way to do that is to make it useless, and then declare "it's useless, we may as well close it". So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they wouldn't want to hire an X-ray tech (in your example).
****

They don't want that.

BUT, neither musk nor trump has thought that thru.

No surprise.

>>They are, but they are not typically offered to every single employee in the entire organization like this - including positions that they would need to refill immediately if an employee took the offer.<<

Depends. I've worked places that offered exactly these kinds of things - to anyone. -Dope

----------------------------

Same here, the Fortune 200 I worked for did more or less the same thing two times as I recall during my fourteen year tenure. I say more or less because the incentive to accept was that the company would add a few years to the employees length of service which set him up for additional severance or would bring actual retirement within reach along with an increase in the amount receives as the benefit from our retirement program. AFAIK, the offer was made to all employees (not the EVP's and C-Suite for you literalists).

Separate from that were periodic layoffs driven by duplication resulting from acquisitions or internal re-organizations. Other layoffs were justified by efficiency studies administered by outside consultants that looked at the value of the outputs produced by each job. Layoffs were an easy was to dispose of problem or non-productive employees that otherwise you were stuck with unless they commit an egregious offense.

You sure?

I'm pretty sure Musk, et al, want exactly that. They want many departments/agencies to close entirely. The easiest way to do that is to make it useless, and then declare "it's useless, we may as well close it". So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they wouldn't want to hire an X-ray tech (in your example).

Musk might want that. Trump does not. One of his more significant political accomplishments was carving himself free of the "cut all entitlements" portion of the GOP. Trump doesn't want to cut Social Security. He doesn't want to cut Medicare. Those programs are immensely popular, and specifically are immensely popular among his base. And he is all about not doing anything that will cause him political pain just because other people want that thing to happen.

Musk is pleasing Trump, because he's making the liberals cry and causing a whole lot of cuts in areas that his people don't like. His voters don't like foreign aid or woke programs, so go nuts! They will eventually be a little unhappy when they start seeing more and more bodies of kids that have starved to death on their TV screens again (part of the reason we provide foreign aid to prevent kids in other countries from starving is because the American masses don't like seeing that kids have starved to death). But that's not going to sink in for a while! So screw Catholic Relief Services!

But if we start to see veterans unable to get their care? Well, then they call up the White House and complain. They get interviewed on TV complaining. They call their Reps and Senators and complain. Donald Trump wants to enjoy the tears of his political opponents, not the tears of his supporters. He doesn't actually care about budgets and efficiency and deficits - he wants to be a populist President that gives his voters what they want! And his voters want liberal/progressive stuff slashed, but hands off their Medicare! And their VA services!



https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/vat...

You would think, at least on the surface. But offering packages to everyone is inconsistent with that. It doesn't take a high school graduate to realize that if people leave, and aren't replaced, service will suffer. If he had exempted the VA and SS, that would have made sense under your paradigm. But he didn't. He wants lots of folks gone, damn the consequences.

And I'm not sure that will make right-wing news. The VA has been suffering for years. Decades. Reps have shown little interest in funding it more, and the right-wing media doesn't seem to cover it. "Rah-rah" war, and then they're a bunch of fakers ("Gulf War syndrome", PTSD, etc). If it penetrates the RW bubble, I agree...constituents will not be happy. But it has to pierce that bubble first.

You would think, at least on the surface. But offering packages to everyone is inconsistent with that. It doesn't take a high school graduate to realize that if people leave, and aren't replaced, service will suffer. If he had exempted the VA and SS, that would have made sense under your paradigm. But he didn't. He wants lots of folks gone, damn the consequences.

And I'm not sure that will make right-wing news. The VA has been suffering for years. Decades. Reps have shown little interest in funding it more, and the right-wing media doesn't seem to cover it. "Rah-rah" war, and then they're a bunch of fakers ("Gulf War syndrome", PTSD, etc). If it penetrates the RW bubble, I agree...constituents will not be happy. But it has to pierce that bubble first.

Musk wants to damn the consequences. Trump does not. So far, there haven't been any consequences. But if the local VA hospital doesn't replace their X-ray tech (or anyone else who has a job necessary to service patients), that's when the consequences start happening.

Yes, the VA has been suffering - but it still has ardent defenders on the Hill and can make a big stink. Many Administrations have made it less than a priority, but you can't break it without a whole lot of political blowback. Trump doesn't care enough about budgets or deficits or the philosophy of reducing government to be willing to tolerate any political consequences to this. If it starts causing pain to his voters, the VA will end up having to rehire these people. They can't just stop providing X-rays to vets.

Trump doesn't care enough about budgets or deficits or the philosophy of reducing government to be willing to tolerate any political consequences to this.

I'm not convinced he cares about anything, including that. What "political consequences"? Assuming our republic is still intact in four years, he's done. No more Oval Office. Probably no future aspirations. He may spout-off in X, but he's safely ignorable after that. He succeeded in what he wanted most: avoiding prison. From what I gather, he's now more interested in punishing everyone he doesn't like, even if it negatively affects "his people". Oh...and further enriching himself. Speculatively, if there is compromat out there, he might also be motivated to keep that under wraps. Though, maybe not even that (i.e. when he's done, it wouldn't make any difference at that point).

Trump doesn't care enough about budgets or deficits or the philosophy of reducing government to be willing to tolerate any political consequences to this. - albaby

-----------------

Reading minds now. I had always felt you were above this.

BTW Trump is tolerating tons of political consequences. He has the democrats swearing and singing their opposition, complete with f-bomns and threats of taking it to the streets. Then there are the myriad of lawsuits; the regular condemnations from what's left of MSNBC and CNN; whining from NGO's who have lost their grip on the Federal teat.

Yep lots of consequences that liberals cannot notice, since none of them have delivered the death blow that so many liberals counted on to collapse the Presidents support by his base.

I'm not convinced he cares about anything, including that. What "political consequences"? Assuming our republic is still intact in four years, he's done.

There are certainly policy things he cares about. He genuinely wants to change our immigration policy. He genuinely wants to re-orient our economy to a more mercantilist orientation. He also cares very much about what people think about him and his legacy - he's a narcissist with a massive ego (like nearly everyone else who ascends to high power in politics), and doesn't want anything to cause friction in getting his "cement my place in history" stuff done.

He very much knows where his power comes from. It doesn't come from cutting government spending - it comes from his base supporters being rabid for him. Veterans going without health care due to Musk's chainsaw doesn't help with that, and it doesn't gain him anything he wants.

Reading minds now. I had always felt you were above this.

BTW Trump is tolerating tons of political consequences. He has the democrats swearing and singing their opposition, complete with f-bomns and threats of taking it to the streets. Then there are the myriad of lawsuits; the regular condemnations from what's left of MSNBC and CNN; whining from NGO's who have lost their grip on the Federal teat.

Yep lots of consequences that liberals cannot notice, since none of them have delivered the death blow that so many liberals counted on to collapse the Presidents support by his base.

It's not reading minds. I could have caveated that by saying that Trump has given no indication that he shares the priorities or preferences of the "cut entitlements" wing of the party. The Grover Norquist faction has been utterly iced out of leadership, Trump has repeatedly insisted that Medicare and Social Security cuts are off the table, and has expressed support for making the debt ceiling go away. The "establishment" GOP - the old Paul Ryan wing of the party - cared very very much about those types of things. Trump has shown no sign of making them a priority. Or caring about levels of deficit or debt. All of his political policies are in line with a populist who wants to deliver the government services his voters support.

Trump isn't suffering any political consequences yet because he hasn't yet cut any services his voters support. He doesn't care about the recriminations of democrats or MSNBC or CNN or liberal-leaning NGO's. Those are good for him, politically. They strengthen his position with his base and help the party on the Hill.

But if veterans start losing access to basic and fundamental health services (like having someone on staff to take an X-ray at the VA facility), then that type of thing can cause him some political pain. Which is why I think that any employees who take early retirement from jobs that are in areas that conservatives support (which is most federal jobs) will end up being replaced, rather than this program offering any material savings. Given the low uptake, I think it's actually far more likely that this ends up costing the federal government more than if they had done nothing.

...doesn't want anything to cause friction in getting his "cement my place in history" stuff done.

Oh, his place in history will be 'well cemented'. As either the worst or one of the worst POTUS's we've ever had. That is certain. Unless we go full autocracy and no longer have factual history.

Is it possible they are being smarter about the dismals than first thought?

VA dismisses more than 1,000 employees
Mission-critical positions are exempt from the reductions, which will enable VA to redirect over $98 million annually to health care, benefits and services for VA beneficiaries.
https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-dismisses-more-t...

There are currently more than 43,000 probationary employees across the department, the vast majority of whom are exempt from today’s personnel actions because they serve in mission-critical positions – primarily those supporting benefits and services for VA beneficiaries...

Is it possible they are being smarter about the dismals [sic] than first thought?

Maybe. But I'd want a source other than the VA, since all government sources are controlled (or potentially controlled) by Felon loyalists, instead of career civil servants. Given that the VA is notorious for wait times, this may exacerbate that problem. If a "mission critical" employee is forced to take up the slack from someone who was fired, they will have less time to focus on their critical mission.

But I'd want a source other than the VA, since all government sources are controlled (or potentially controlled) by Felon loyalists, instead of career civil servants. Given that the VA is notorious for wait times, this may exacerbate that problem. If a "mission critical" employee is forced to take up the slack from someone who was fired, they will have less time to focus on their critical mission.

NPR?

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/nx-s1-5296910/trump...

Goggin is among roughly 75,000 federal employees who agreed to resign, according to OPM. But she is also one of an unknown number of people who have since learned they can't take the deal, because their positions are exempt.

That was really a story about one family. Even the excerpt you provided says "unknown number of people".

I'm sure it will shake-out in time, though hopefully the numbers won't get filtered through a Felon appointee. This administration is already scrubbing a lot of data and resources for information, web pages disappearing, etc.

controlled (or potentially controlled) by Felon loyalists, instead of career civil - servants - 1pg

----------------

Control is a pretty strong word. Do you really mean that the civil servants should be in control even with Obama or Kamala as our president?

Control is a pretty strong word. Do you really mean that the civil servants should be in control even with Obama or Kamala as our president?

That's their default position - yes. This way even when democrats lose elections they still get to have their stuff enabled.

It's one of the many Calvinball contradictions of the left. On the one hand shout We believe in Democracy! but when the time comes to accept that the government's positions will change then the Civil Service is now a sacrosanct 4th branch of government (to those who doubt that, go read the ACLU's suit from last week).

when the time comes to accept that the government's positions will change then the Civil Service is now a sacrosanct 4th branch of government - Dope

--------------

Sometimes it appears the libs don't factor in that the sacred civil servants are unelected too as they lament unelected people making significant policy and spending decisions.

Do you really mean that the civil servants should be in control even with Obama or Kamala as our president?

Too broad. They should not control the politics or policy. They are non-partisan, and should be allowed to do their jobs properly in accordance with the law(s) passed by Congress.. So, in that respect, yes. That means reporting the data without partisan filtering or meddling, for example.

That's why the civil service is protected by the two laws albaby keeps mentioning. If they become a partisan arm full of lackeys and minions, you lose the professionalism and competence.

Do you really mean that the civil servants should be in control even with Obama or Kamala as our president?

They don't control. The job is to translate the law and/or direction given so the it works inside the government and achieves the best ends with conflicting laws and priorities. You want to give the bottom of the pyramid clear directions with bright lines that can easily be implemented if possible. This means that there usually is a main direction with exceptions, and that there are changes as you go along as they understand how to fit the law in with all of the conflicts.

"The Trump Administration has ordered most agencies to let go of nearly all probationary employees who haven’t yet gained civil service protection."

Yet probationary workers are having their termination tied to job performance when there has never been an issue with their work.

"At a staff meeting on Friday, he says leadership told them they were finding out about the terminations at the same time as the rest of the agency’s staff, and that the decisions were being made by a small group in the Office of Personnel Management backed by DOGE. “We're paralyzed because we don't know what's happening tomorrow,” he adds.

The HR manager noted that he voted for Trump in the last three presidential elections and “will never make that mistake again.” "

The leopard eating people's faces party will eat your face.

Only a tiny number of people will give up their gov't job.

Many of them cannot make it in the private sector. Some can, but many are so ingrained in their cushy robotic routines.

What utter and complete BULLSHIT. I live in the DMV area and have many friends and acquaintances that work in the DoD, NSA, FBI, Justice Department, EPA, SSA, etc. etc. and to the person they are all hard working, well educated, and PATRIOTIC employees of the US government. Many are so stupidly patriotic that they have left many dollars on the table in order to do poorly remunerated work in the interest of American national security (security that is currently being surrendered by a Putin pandering buffoon and his Nazi sympathizing sidekick).

When, exactly, did conservatives start hating America?

The HR manager noted that he voted for Trump in the last three presidential elections and “will never make that mistake again.” "

I see 3 possible reasons he said that.

1 He is that stupid.
2 He was being ironic.
3 He thinks Trump crown himself emperor.

>>Do you really mean that the civil servants should be in control even with Obama or Kamala as our president? - bhm

They don't control. - Lapsody

-------------------

Why are you telling me that? I made no assertion one way or the other but simply asked a question when 1pg posted,

But I'd want a source other than the VA, since all government sources are controlled (or potentially controlled) by Felon loyalists, instead of career civil servants. - 1pg

I asked my question when his wording suggested "career civil servants" should be in control instead of "Felon loyalists. I didn't think he really meant "control" in the full sense of the word , so I asked him to clarify. That's all.

sheesh!

I asked my question when his wording suggested "career civil servants" should be in control instead of "Felon loyalists. I didn't think he really meant "control" in the full sense of the word , so I asked him to clarify. That's all.

I didn't mean to suggest that at all. Hopefully my previous reply cleared it up for you.

As an add-on:

My job was failure analysis. I went into the lab, diagnosed the problem, and -if all went well- got to root-cause. More than once, my supervisor at the time would tell me what he thought I should do. He was a manager with no F/A experience. I'd just nod, and then go do it the right way. I would accept instructions about which jobs had priority, but when I went to the lab I did it right based on my experience and knowledge. In the end, all the teams cared about was getting the right answer.

That is pretty much how the civil service works. You set them priorities (usually via legislation of policy), they get the job done. Don't tell them how to do it.

When, exactly, did conservatives start hating America?

When they realized that that was the only way of getting elected and remaining in power despite being in the minority.

Hopefully my previous reply cleared it up for you. = 1pg

--------------

It did. Thank You.

but many are so ingrained in their cushy robotic routines.

You are talking out of your ass. Are they lazy people in the world? Yes. Some of them in government? Of course.

But most of them are not. You are just parroting nonsense fed to you by your oligarch overlords and the RW media they control.

When, exactly, did conservatives start hating America?

Decades of RW propaganda have delivered us to this insanity.

Decades of RW propaganda have delivered us to this insanity. - ges

-----------------

What delivered us to this insanity?

Decades of WFA by both sides; plus the dem's tolerance for a porous border while ignoring all the expense and crime that came with it; and the final straw was the price of eggs.

Main street was thirsty for change; Trump represented change; Kamala represented status quo. So it is simple why Trump was elected. But the libs need to open themselves up to the concerns of main street citizens in order to see it.

I asked my question when his wording suggested "career civil servants" should be in control instead of "Felon loyalists.

Because his wording didn't imply career civil servants should be in "control". View this as a hostile takeover, like 1pg does. Career civil servants are custodians with rules, laws, etc. The felon and crew don't care about rules or laws - those are viewed as impediments to King Trump's rightful power as expressed by Vance, etc. They can't be equated.

Bit of an old thread, but any number of folks I know who left federal service did so for wages that eclipsed our four star directors salary, easily. Some got RSUs that were well above their salary as a fed. Some simply reported 150, 200, 250% increases in pay. I have to think hard of ones who took a pay decrease - I can think of three, but those were lifestyle changes. One really wanted to be an RN and that wasn't really something my agency did. One quasi-retired and we joked they were going to be a slumlord as they were going to manage a modest family rental property. One simply wanted a very different type of change to express their creativity and art (again, not really a DoD type enterprise).

But those scores of other early or mid career (or a few late career) departures were for higher pay.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.