• jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    “A senior administration official told NBC News that they expect 5%-10% of the federal workforce to quit, which, they estimate, could lead to around $100 billion in savings.”

    If they quit now, and are paid for another 8 months, how does that save any money?

    Similarly, if they quit and need to be replaced, you’re going to spend more money hiring and training the replacement, so for 8 months you’re paying double salary, one for the person who quit and one for their replacement…

    • Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also it prevents them from joining another government position for 5 years or they have to repay it before they start the job

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      and the funds probably have to be allocated by congress… as it is they and NOT a diaper-wearing buffoon in lifted shoes, that controls the ‘purse’.

      even the maga nuts in congress should be pissed as hell at lord diaper’s unconstitutional power and money grab.

      • dnick@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Might have to look at that though, it’s possible once the funds have been allocated to a department Congress extra less control over how there are used. As long as there’s some loophole where the money can be spent on severance, and it doesn’t cost more money than was allocated for the year(how can it? It’s just paying people for not working)

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is what it looks like when some of the richest minds that russia can buy brainstorm ways to damage the US.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Apart from all the people who will suffer and possibly die from the lack of social services.

      Because I am guessing this offer doesn’t go to people involved in, for example, leasing federal land to oil drillers.

      • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 days ago

        Apart from all the people who will suffer and possibly die from the lack of social services.

        People will suffer and die due to Trump’s destruction of the country’s infrastructure.

        If all federal workers hypothetically quit, everybody in the US would sudenly realize very directly and immediately the disaster Trump has created and might decide to topple him and his henchmen.

        But realistically they won’t. So federal services wil slowly worsen and people will suffer more and more without doing anything about it, like the proverbial slowly-boiled frog.

        That’s how all dictatorships entrench themselves: things get slowly worse, but slowly enough that people don’t want to take up arms, until it’s too late to take up arms.

  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s not a buyout. They can continue to WFH until September if they swear to resign. That’s not a buyout, that’s just continuing to work until you resign in the future. It also doesn’t guarantee them their jobs, just that they won’t be fired for not returning to the office (which is something the administration will probably going to have a hard time doing).

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Paying people not to work? Sounds like the Department Of Government Efficiency at work

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Uh. Without regard to department?

    I mean, okay, if more people resign in department A than B, to some degree you can transfer people, but it’s not like there’s some generic “federal employee” skillset.

    EDIT: I guess if too many people did leave in one area, that you could re-hire there, and eight months severance isn’t actually that large. I guess if someone were that on-the-edge about their job, it might not be that big a deal anyway.

    Maybe it’s a standard practice in business layoffs. Not familiar with practice there. You’d rather have people on the edge of leaving leave then people that want to stay.

    I’m also kind of wondering if there are any jobs that hire full-time for limited periods of time, like maybe a Census poll worker. Like, if the government only planned to hire someone for three months and he just extended an offer for eight months severance if they walk out the door, that may wind up being a little awkward.

  • Zerlyna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    FTS. They got the best benefits. We need them to stay and just lay low. For all our sakes.

    • StayDoomed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      With the bills proposed by the house right now federal workers won’t have great benefits for long. Benefits are better on the county level in many cases already.