U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 10:51 AM
 
38,163 posts, read 16,494,357 times
Reputation: 8669

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
Yes, I found it odd, but not surprising, that out of all the employees there are, they found that social unicorn to focus on, lol.

The move is pure BS, zero reason for it. Unlike the military, these positions have zero expectation of moving like this and this move is unprecedented. A person goes into the military with the expectation of transferring around, a person does not go into such gov position, especially at the HQ level, and expect to be relocated out of the geographic area.
"The move is pure BS, zero reason for it." "estimates will save $300 million over 15 years,"

" moving like this and this move is unprecedented." Brac I and BRAC II says otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:55 AM
 
38,163 posts, read 16,494,357 times
Reputation: 8669
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Do they mention that the reason those employees probably don't want to move is they lose their locality pay. A lot higher in DC than Kansas City. Now you might say, "Well, the cost of living is lower in Kansas City. They shouldn't get it." True, but employees in DC tend to be older and more toward the end of their careers and their high 3 goes into figuring their pension.
" but employees in DC tend to be older and more toward the end of their careers"

Not in the 2 agencies where I worked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:59 AM
 
38,163 posts, read 16,494,357 times
Reputation: 8669
Quote:
Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress View Post
I know this administration wants to break up different agencies and get them out of DC as a cost cutting measure. Great idea.
Most of their programs should be abolished but the dem would never go for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:01 AM
 
38,163 posts, read 16,494,357 times
Reputation: 8669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
What is the point in "getting them out" of DC other than removing expertise, since when is Trump concerned about cutting costs whether its his cabinets vacations on the taxpayer or his trips to Florida.
"What is the point in "getting them out" of DC other than removing expertise," Didn't read the article I see. And WE are called the UN-educated!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
5,349 posts, read 4,099,782 times
Reputation: 2866
"It's unprecedented!" - so what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:03 AM
 
38,163 posts, read 16,494,357 times
Reputation: 8669
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoOnMyMind View Post
I also like the idea of decentralization of federal departments outside of DC. KC makes sense for the department of agriculture, being nearer to our agriculture and all. I would live in KC over DC any day, save yourself 3 hours a day in traffic and low cost of living.
DC was created so he fed gov't would be in the middle of the country. Move ALL fed gov't to KC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:06 AM
 
38,163 posts, read 16,494,357 times
Reputation: 8669
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder View Post
The issue is that you have suddenly moved a big organization from D.C to KC. Do people actually realize that alot of very talented people will not make this move. All that does is make the USDA much less effective and productive. Seriously. I would love to see the business plan on this move. Only supposed motivation is cost savings. Well if you have 75% staff turn over ( and that is the case) you can say good bye to staff savings.

Imagine a fortune 500 company on the spur of the moment effecting 75% staff change. It would be a disaster. It would be very bad business.
"Do people actually realize that alot of very talented people will not make this move" and how many have you ACTUALLY talked with about this?


Where are they going to go when their dept's are moved? Do you think they can us move to another agency?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,870 posts, read 33,989,716 times
Reputation: 52348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
" but employees in DC tend to be older and more toward the end of their careers"

Not in the 2 agencies where I worked.
Did you have field operations? Most people in my agency took headquarter (DC) jobs when they were at the point in the field where their grades aren't going to get any higher. I got to a GS12 in the field and did not want to manage. There were very few GS12 jobs (section chief level) in the field for non-managers but at headquarters (DC), I could get up to a 14 without managing and the small number of non-management jobs were a 15. If I was a 15 in the field I would have been a Division Chief and had 300 or more employees under me as well as managers, section chiefs and branch chiefs.

When I say "older" I'm not necessarily just talking about their age but their years of service which is also relevant to when they could retire under CSRS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:03 PM
 
10 posts, read 849 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker View Post
Not to mention who the hell would volunteer to move to Kansas City anyway? If the Dotard wanted to save money, maybe he should stop playing golf so much and forcing the military and others to stay at his resorts which cost so much more than other places. This move was pure political and just outright mean.
Just curious - how did he FORCE military and others to stay at his resorts? Please provide details.

What was the political aspect?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:45 PM
Status: "45 is a Puppet" (set 2 days ago)
 
18,507 posts, read 11,367,508 times
Reputation: 9756
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Do they mention that the reason those employees probably don't want to move is they lose their locality pay. A lot higher in DC than Kansas City. Now you might say, "Well, the cost of living is lower in Kansas City. They shouldn't get it." True, but employees in DC tend to be older and more toward the end of their careers and their high 3 goes into figuring their pension.
Then why have so many quit instead of moving? Because their lives are in DC and VA. They don't want to live in Kansas City. Not complicated. And yes, the next Democratic president should just move them back along with rehiring all the scientists the GOP is trying to get rid of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top