7 ms·

75K federal workers accepted 'deferred resignation' offer

29 points by geox 2y ago

smithliam1308 2y ago
[flagged]
oldpersonintx 2y ago
if you want to get mad, get mad at the RTO orders in almost every case, these folks seems to be remote workers who can't/won't comply with RTO so they are taking a payout
- throwawaygovie 2y ago
  I am a dev who took a remote job with the US gov a few years ago. My options are: - Tear up my life in my hometown and relocate my family closer to an office so I can go there and do zoom calls - Take this deal I struggled with this, and ultimately took the deal. I know it might be a scam. But at this point I know I will eventually be laid off for refusing to relocate. Neither option is good, and making this choice was one of the most stressful experiences of my life.
duxup 2y ago
It's got to be a tough spot to be in to accept an offer that might be illegal. Not an easy position to be in / unfair.
erellsworth 2y ago
>The number of federal employees who are reported to have taken the offer amounts to less than 5% of the federal workforce. >In fiscal year 2023, the attrition rate of the federal workforce was 5.9%, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit organization that promotes government service. Sounds like most of this is people who were already thinking of leaving.
- GenerocUsername 2y ago
  Annual attrition goals met by February. Ahead of schedule
jfengel 2y ago
Many don't believe that the money is forthcoming. They're aware that this is coming from two individuals both famous for backing out of obligations. But if you were in a company whose management said, explicitly, that they hate you, then getting out early would surely be better than waiting. Maybe you'll get something extra, but just getting out might be enough. Unfortunately, getting your next job won't be easy. A lot of government workers are in Maryland and Northern Virginia. You'll be competing for new jobs with tens of thousands of other job seekers. And it's not just them; government contracts and service companies will also dry up. So you leave. Which is, of course, giving them what they want, which must be even more galling. But the American people literally voted that they hate you, and you have to live with that.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >But the American people literally voted that they hate you, and you have to live with that. Why does it have to be hate/personal? I can lay off a employee without hating them.
  - HelloMcFly 2y ago
    Let's use the word "disdain". I don't think the majority of voters have disdain for federal workers, but the people engaging in these actions certainly seem to.
    - aerostable_slug 2y ago
      The disdain I can personally speak to is with the system that creates job programs funded by my taxpayer dollars instead of using said dollars for effective governance. I have lived experience, lots of it, with people who are living stereotypes of government employees, whose entire work product serves to sustain a self-perpetuating bureaucracy and who contribute very little to the statutory mission of their employer. So do many other people. I don't blame those employees for thriving in the environment that was created for them. I don't wish them any ill. But I don't think I need to fund that kind of systemic dysfunction anymore.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Fun fact that a lot of people find surprising: the US federal government was already at or near its smallest size (headcount per capita) in American history. It’s honestly shocking that so many public services work under such resource-constrained conditions at all.
- sieabahlpark 2y ago
  [dead]
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  That's an interesting metric. Do you have a citation?
  - jhbadger 2y ago
    It's just the bare facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This WP article has a graph -- basically, at its height (the New Deal/WWII) the federal workforce was about 7% of the workforce and have been going downward since then to about 2% today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/12/federal-workers-trump-doge-cuts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/12/federal-w...
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Thanks, interesting. I wonder how much of that is the progression of women entering the workforce. It's quite a specific metric to use.
      - aerostable_slug 2y ago
        I suspect a fair bit of it is the elimination of Federal make-work programs established during the New Deal.
    - postalrat 2y ago
      IMO that's a poor measurement of "government size". Not that I have a better one though. But it doesn't account for technology or scaling.
ToDougie 2y ago
At the end of the day, we (the citizenry) cannot afford to stay in debt. It makes our country weak.
- frankbreetz 2y ago
  The total of all federal employees salary is only 4.3% of the budget. If you want to balance the budget using cuts you would have to make significant cuts to all of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Military. These, along with net interest, are not only the largest areas of the budget, but also the ones increasing their share of the budget. The biggest difference between the balanced budget of the 90s and today is the two large tax cuts pass by Bush and Trump. The reason you probably don't feel that you are paying significant less is because the lion's share of these cuts went to corporations and the upper class. As evidence by the expanding wealth inequality and share of corporate taxes.
- mahogany 2y ago
  > At the end of the day, we (the citizenry) cannot afford to stay in debt. It makes our country weak. Are you then opposed to the administration’s proposed tax cuts? Won’t that negatively impact the ability for the government to pay down its debt?
  - natch 2y ago
    No to the second question. The theory is to the extent that tax cuts stimulate the economy, the continued and/or increased growth that enables is better than the alternative of a crash or stagnation. You may argue that all the cuts go to the wealthy, but this is false, and even if they did, which they do not, the stimulus effect is still real. Now you can buy that theory, or not. Some people may bet on flying pink unicorns, and it’s your right to bet against Milton Friedman if you wish. But the people in charge are going by the theory of people like Milton.
    - hello_moto 2y ago
      Ah... The trickle down economy. That theory is what created Billionaires (and Oligarchs) that are rulling USA.
y33t 2y ago
One effect of this is that some people accepting this offer have a lot of institutional knowledge that can't be found anywhere else. They're talking about people lights going out because of resignations at my regional electric company.
frankbreetz 2y ago
This is less then the number of people who retire from the federal government every year. I would expect a significant number of these people to be people who were going to retire anyway and want get out a few months early: https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/ https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/
noja 2y ago
And if the government doesn’t pay up, what happens to the ex-employee? Spend years in court?
- hello_moto 2y ago
  This is how bad rich people win: don't pay up, fight in court with their legals that is already in the payroll.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    This is how the government wins*

29 points by geox 2y ago

[flagged]

if you want to get mad, get mad at the RTO orders in almost every case, these folks seems to be remote workers who can't/won't comply with RTO so they are taking a payout

throwawaygovie 2y ago
I am a dev who took a remote job with the US gov a few years ago. My options are: - Tear up my life in my hometown and relocate my family closer to an office so I can go there and do zoom calls - Take this deal I struggled with this, and ultimately took the deal. I know it might be a scam. But at this point I know I will eventually be laid off for refusing to relocate. Neither option is good, and making this choice was one of the most stressful experiences of my life.

duxup 2y ago

It's got to be a tough spot to be in to accept an offer that might be illegal. Not an easy position to be in / unfair.

erellsworth 2y ago

>The number of federal employees who are reported to have taken the offer amounts to less than 5% of the federal workforce. >In fiscal year 2023, the attrition rate of the federal workforce was 5.9%, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit organization that promotes government service. Sounds like most of this is people who were already thinking of leaving.

GenerocUsername 2y ago
Annual attrition goals met by February. Ahead of schedule

jfengel 2y ago

Many don't believe that the money is forthcoming. They're aware that this is coming from two individuals both famous for backing out of obligations. But if you were in a company whose management said, explicitly, that they hate you, then getting out early would surely be better than waiting. Maybe you'll get something extra, but just getting out might be enough. Unfortunately, getting your next job won't be easy. A lot of government workers are in Maryland and Northern Virginia. You'll be competing for new jobs with tens of thousands of other job seekers. And it's not just them; government contracts and service companies will also dry up. So you leave. Which is, of course, giving them what they want, which must be even more galling. But the American people literally voted that they hate you, and you have to live with that.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>But the American people literally voted that they hate you, and you have to live with that. Why does it have to be hate/personal? I can lay off a employee without hating them.
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  Let's use the word "disdain". I don't think the majority of voters have disdain for federal workers, but the people engaging in these actions certainly seem to.
  - aerostable_slug 2y ago
    The disdain I can personally speak to is with the system that creates job programs funded by my taxpayer dollars instead of using said dollars for effective governance. I have lived experience, lots of it, with people who are living stereotypes of government employees, whose entire work product serves to sustain a self-perpetuating bureaucracy and who contribute very little to the statutory mission of their employer. So do many other people. I don't blame those employees for thriving in the environment that was created for them. I don't wish them any ill. But I don't think I need to fund that kind of systemic dysfunction anymore.

llamaimperative 2y ago

Fun fact that a lot of people find surprising: the US federal government was already at or near its smallest size (headcount per capita) in American history. It’s honestly shocking that so many public services work under such resource-constrained conditions at all.

sieabahlpark 2y ago
[dead]
robertlagrant 2y ago
That's an interesting metric. Do you have a citation?
- jhbadger 2y ago
  It's just the bare facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This WP article has a graph -- basically, at its height (the New Deal/WWII) the federal workforce was about 7% of the workforce and have been going downward since then to about 2% today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/12/federal-workers-trump-doge-cuts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/12/federal-w...
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Thanks, interesting. I wonder how much of that is the progression of women entering the workforce. It's quite a specific metric to use.
    - aerostable_slug 2y ago
      I suspect a fair bit of it is the elimination of Federal make-work programs established during the New Deal.
  - postalrat 2y ago
    IMO that's a poor measurement of "government size". Not that I have a better one though. But it doesn't account for technology or scaling.

ToDougie 2y ago

At the end of the day, we (the citizenry) cannot afford to stay in debt. It makes our country weak.

frankbreetz 2y ago
The total of all federal employees salary is only 4.3% of the budget. If you want to balance the budget using cuts you would have to make significant cuts to all of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Military. These, along with net interest, are not only the largest areas of the budget, but also the ones increasing their share of the budget. The biggest difference between the balanced budget of the 90s and today is the two large tax cuts pass by Bush and Trump. The reason you probably don't feel that you are paying significant less is because the lion's share of these cuts went to corporations and the upper class. As evidence by the expanding wealth inequality and share of corporate taxes.
mahogany 2y ago
> At the end of the day, we (the citizenry) cannot afford to stay in debt. It makes our country weak. Are you then opposed to the administration’s proposed tax cuts? Won’t that negatively impact the ability for the government to pay down its debt?
- natch 2y ago
  No to the second question. The theory is to the extent that tax cuts stimulate the economy, the continued and/or increased growth that enables is better than the alternative of a crash or stagnation. You may argue that all the cuts go to the wealthy, but this is false, and even if they did, which they do not, the stimulus effect is still real. Now you can buy that theory, or not. Some people may bet on flying pink unicorns, and it’s your right to bet against Milton Friedman if you wish. But the people in charge are going by the theory of people like Milton.
  - hello_moto 2y ago
    Ah... The trickle down economy. That theory is what created Billionaires (and Oligarchs) that are rulling USA.

y33t 2y ago

One effect of this is that some people accepting this offer have a lot of institutional knowledge that can't be found anywhere else. They're talking about people lights going out because of resignations at my regional electric company.

frankbreetz 2y ago

This is less then the number of people who retire from the federal government every year. I would expect a significant number of these people to be people who were going to retire anyway and want get out a few months early: https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/ https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/

noja 2y ago

And if the government doesn’t pay up, what happens to the ex-employee? Spend years in court?

hello_moto 2y ago
This is how bad rich people win: don't pay up, fight in court with their legals that is already in the payroll.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  This is how the government wins*