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 09-11-2019, 02:17 PM
 
52,744 posts, read 42,379,799 times
Reputation: 33048

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Uhh ... I did, almost 4 years ago.
Don't waste your time with that poster, they're probably just racist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2019, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Boston
8,578 posts, read 2,500,677 times
Reputation: 6058
Simple solutions for these disgruntled federal workers. Just point out in their employment agreement where it says they can't be relocated....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2019, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Boston
8,578 posts, read 2,500,677 times
Reputation: 6058
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
Military members go in knowing they will be relocating throughout their careers. This issue though, there is no expectation and it is unprecedented.

Most jobs do not move, it is actually rare, and when it does happen, there is an actual reason for it. In this case, there is zero reason for it.
and apparently these federal workers went in assuming they wouldn't be moved. There are over 150,000 federal employees in California, 130,000 in Texas. It is certainly not unprecedented to be moved.

We have lots of federal employees everywhere.......There are more in Texas than in Virginia, which borders DC...

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workf...mbers/slide/1/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2019, 02:46 PM
 
11,991 posts, read 8,650,121 times
Reputation: 7304
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.
We moved 17 times in 30 years. DH was in M&A and then long range planning. Anytime they merged and/or had to downsize it took a year planning. And that was while everything was still kept secret

I don't think there was a plan. About 2 weeks ago my daily paper ran a story on the short time allowed to make the decision. Then the government reneged on the buyout offered to the ones who decided to stay in DC. It was not that much in the first place, then it was cut in half because so many decided to stay put.

When you have a working spouse, giving up their income for a move can be hard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2019, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Long Island
34,038 posts, read 14,320,419 times
Reputation: 7305
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy View Post
and apparently these federal workers went in assuming they wouldn't be moved. There are over 150,000 federal employees in California, 130,000 in Texas. It is certainly not unprecedented to be moved.

We have lots of federal employees everywhere.......There are more in Texas than in Virginia, which borders DC...

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workf...mbers/slide/1/

What does lots of employees everywhere have to do with the point.

It is rare to move offices out of DC but it has been done in the past. Usually with studies that last years and estimate the impact and loss of talent, it is costly up front. If this move was beneficial they should be able to back it up but $300M savings for 500 employees is around $40,000 per employee per year. They need to pay all relocation expenses for the employees that leave, rent a new office space and close the old one. The people mentioned in the article were in economic research, will they find talent in Kansas City.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2019, 07:00 PM
 
12,399 posts, read 15,394,690 times
Reputation: 8214
I'm sure the relocated employees could buy a mansion near KC after selling their small house in northern VA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2019, 07:50 PM
 
3,201 posts, read 866,541 times
Reputation: 1808
USDA ERS work includes analyzing questions like the effectiveness of public food assistance programs and the impact of climate change on food supply. ERS findings should not be compromised by political interference. Historically, it's been led by a career senior executive service administrator. Earlier this year, the Trump Administration moved the agency under the direct oversight of a political appointee.

Now this. Wonder what impact getting the majority to quit and moving across the country to start again with new employees totally unfamiliar with sometimes key institutional knowledge will have? In a Civil Service that is designed to be politically independent whose first obligation is to the public not an Administration, this is one way of shaping possibly pesky research conclusions. Like, for example, their finding that Trump's tax cut will largely benefit the wealthiest farmers.

After all, how could Congress object to their dismantling - oops, relocation? The Administration says that it will save money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
The USDA employs over 100,000 people... this move affects 547 of them.
And look which 547 people it impacted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
There is this new invention called the internet. You should look it up. It will probably save them a bunch of travel expenses if they are wise.
There is also the institution called Congress. Trump may think that the sole purpose of Executive Branch agencies (like Justice and the Attorney General) is to personally do his bidding but it really doesn't work that way. On politically important issues they provide guidance and assistance to Congress. Trying to get an employee in from Kansas City for a quick briefing just isn't the same as a cab ride down Independence Avenue. There's a reason most countries tend to have capital cities.

Last edited by EveryLady; 09-11-2019 at 08:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 04:17 AM
 
38,197 posts, read 16,522,540 times
Reputation: 8678
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
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.
I worked in headquarters and traveled all over the country to our field offices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 04:19 AM
 
38,197 posts, read 16,522,540 times
Reputation: 8678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy View Post
and apparently these federal workers went in assuming they wouldn't be moved. There are over 150,000 federal employees in California, 130,000 in Texas. It is certainly not unprecedented to be moved.

We have lots of federal employees everywhere.......There are more in Texas than in Virginia, which borders DC...

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workf...mbers/slide/1/
"There are over 150,000 federal employees in California, 130,000 in Texas." Denver has the highest number of fed employees outside of DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 04:21 AM
 
38,197 posts, read 16,522,540 times
Reputation: 8678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
What does lots of employees everywhere have to do with the point.

It is rare to move offices out of DC but it has been done in the past. Usually with studies that last years and estimate the impact and loss of talent, it is costly up front. If this move was beneficial they should be able to back it up but $300M savings for 500 employees is around $40,000 per employee per year. They need to pay all relocation expenses for the employees that leave, rent a new office space and close the old one. The people mentioned in the article were in economic research, will they find talent in Kansas City.
"It is rare to move offices out of DC but it has been done in the past", MANY offices have been moved out of DC in the last couple of decades. As usual the fed NEVER get ssmaller, it GROWS which requires more office space and DC doesn't have enough land to accommodate the growth of the fed.
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