I see this as a good thing. We had similar buyout programs where I worked. The offer was made to employees 55 years and older having been with the company at least 10 years.
The optional programs gracefully allowed older employees to move on and to make room for younger employees. Because my wife hadn’t yet reached 65, I opted not to accept and instead retired when my wife turned 65.
The Trump administration is offering millions of federal workers the option to accept buyouts through a government-wide “deferred resignation” program.
The offers come as President Donald Trump’s administration pushes federal employees to return to the office five days per week.
The White House expects up to 10% of federal employees to take the buyout, an official told NBC News.
From what I read this is not just positions that are not needed. Its a way to reduce headcount. Its quite possible this could backfire with critical positions needing to be filled, losing the most capable employees, no transition plans or handover.
I just do not understand this obsession about returning people to the office. Sell the buildings, which are an incredible drain on finances.
Then again Trump is in the real estate business so obviously he is not a fan of work from home.
If you have the right tools and guard rails working from home will work for both employee and employer.
At my place of employment, everyone over 55 years of age with at least 10 years on the job, was offered a buyout. There were no exceptions.
Several valuable employees accepted the buyout. The company survived. I later found out, after I retired, that a second round of buyouts was offered. The company continues to thrive.
If the federal buyout works as advertised, we should see at least a 10 percent reduction in the federal workforce. That would be unprecedented.
I’m skeptical. My aunt has worked for the federal government for 30 years. She is the head of HR on a large AFB. She got the email and might take it.
The thing is, she will need to be replaced because she is the head of HR . It’s a NH-4 I believe.
I imagine most of the positions will need to be backfilled by either civilians or contractors. Then there is also the risk of talent drain. The ones who are talented will leave with an 8 month severance and a job in 3 months. The ■■■■■■ employees stay.
It’s why private industry never does a blanket RIF for anyone who wants it. It is more targeted.
Ummm, for now, you can give credit for this to Joe Biden or Barack Obama or whomever you want, but we do NOT have a “not enough tax dollars coming in” problem.
Any deficit-related problem we have is not related to “too few tax dollars coming in.” Ergo, it must be related to something else.
You’re right. I was not really serious. Then again it was not a seroous question.
Anyway there are at least 3 ways toget someone health insurance
1.) A bloated bureaucratic care-denying out-dated socialized system
2.) Pay for private care in the free market,
3. Pay fo private care but restrict it to one of the many many many many non profit systems available.
I am not sure which is better but I find it amazing that some people are so dead set in favor of “everything not govenrment-owned is terrible.”
Socialism never did anything better. Why would it miraculusly start work with healthcare?
. It’s a NH-4 I believe.
