I feel for people in this situation. However, I'm seeing posts about these people losing their jobs on Facebook and, honestly, they make it act as if the government is the big bad bogeyman. No, they're not. They're just another employer, and that employers having to cut people off. The government doesn't owe you a job just like an employer doesn't owe you a job

Government has been allowed to expand uncontrolled and it needs to be fixed and unfortunately people are getting caught up in this and their livelihoods are being impacted. That doesn't mean that Trump is doing the wrong thing, but it is painful.

AggieRain said:

---

Very unfortunate, but the cuts have to happen and can't be personal. Good people are going to be swept up in the correction, but it has to be done just the same.

---

Exactly.

All's fair in...

Last in first out

Pretty common way to reduce head count in big layoffs.

combat wombat said:

---

I feel for people in this situation. However, I'm seeing posts about these people losing their jobs on Facebook and, honestly, they make it act as if the government is the big bad bogeyman. No, they're not. They're just another employer, and that employers having to cut people off. The government doesn't owe you a job just like an employer doesn't owe you a job

Government has been allowed to expand uncontrolled and it needs to be fixed and unfortunately people are getting caught up in this and their livelihoods are being impacted. That doesn't mean that Trump is doing the wrong thing, but it is painful.

---

Here are parts of a lengthy, emotional post by one terminated employee...

Quote:

---

I am absolutely heartbroken and completely devastated to have lost my dream job of an Education Park Ranger with the National Park Service this Valentine's Day.

Access to my government email was denied mid-afternoon and my position was ripped out from out under my feet after my shift was over at 3:45pm on a cold snowy Friday. Additionally, before I could fully print off my government records , I was also locked out of my electronic personal file that contained my secure professional records.

---

Quote:

---

I am being trimmed as a consequence of the popular vote
I am a United States flag raiser and folder
I am my son's "Junior Ranger" idol
I am of the place where I first told my spouse I loved her
I am a college kid's dream job

---

Quote:

---

I am a voice for 19 American Indian cultures
I am the protector of 2500 year old American Indian burial and ceremonial mounds
I am the defender of your public lands and waters

---

Quote:

---

I am gone from the office
I am the resistance
But mostly I'm just tired.
I am tired from weeks of being bullied and censored by billionaires
I am tired of waking up every morning at 2am wondering how I am going to provide for my family if I lose my job
I am tired of wiping away my wife's tears and reassuring her that things will be ok for us and our growing little family that she's carrying.
Things are not ok. I am not ok. (This is the second time in under five years a dream job I worked has been eliminated. Now I may need to uproot my FAMILY again.)

---

There was a lot more than that, mostly about the services he provided the public and his dedication, etc.

My thought process is that after all the bloat is trimmed, and people are fired for cause, all of these departments are gonna have to make new hires. Maybe these better qualified folks can then reapply for these jobs. I do understand that it's heartbreaking but businesses sometimes have to make these difficult decisions. In my opinion, the United States government is in this situation due to bad management and we can't continue that way.

BMX Bandit said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Do you know a better way than getting rid of unneeded workers?

---

Yes. Only use performance as the reduction criteria. Do not consider any other factors.

---

Huh? That still gets rid of unneeded workers.

Sucks, but this position appears to have not been needed. Wasteful spending

---

I don't understand your post. Mine was in response to the best way to conduct an employee reduction. So I guess Huh? back at you.

It sucks. There's no other way to describe it. But similar situations are occurring. One of my employees left FL. Our agency doesn't authorize relocation. He paid for that himself, along with selling his home. Fortunately, he was only renting here for now while looking for a home here. Now he's relocating back to FL where he'll need to get back in the housing market. I'm sure he took quite a financial hit. He's fortunate to have taken the deferred resignation and will have salary and benefits for 8 months.

I would think that if your family member had a relocation agreement, the agency is on the hook for that. There's paperwork and contracts that should be honored. Good luck to him and his family. It's tough, but just be there for them, and I'm sure they will land on their feet. I was RIF'd very early in my career. It hurts, and I was angry and bitter, but I got a new job fairly quickly and put it behind me until the next time.

OP should thank the union that represents the USDA for helping define HR rules for probationary employees and terminations.

Thumbs down for public sector unions.

mandevilleag said:

---

OregonAg03 said:

---

These probationary employees did not get the 8 month severance. They were fired with no notice and no severance given.

---

While true, everyone had the chance to take the deferred severance. Full disclosure, I'm a manager in the federal system, so I'm seeing this first hand. I lost four employees. One was probationary who I was planning to fire during the probationary period. We had had a few talks about their performance. He wisely took the deferred resignation. Another was retiring anyways on Feb 28. He took the deferred resignation and now has 8 more months of full benefits while not required to work. As an aside, he's an incredibly dedicated employee and will be helping to transition his work to another employee during the 8 month period. Another was probationary, but saw the writing on the wall, and took the deferred resignation. He just let me know that he's been offered a job, so he'll be "double dipping" for 8 months. The last was probationary, but decided not to take the deferred resignation. I had to let her know Friday morning. She knew it was a risk. She'll be fine, but she won't be getting the 8 months of full pay and benefits.

This is not without precedent in the federal system, but it's been a while. I support it, but it is hard not to take it personally. I think that's true in the private sector too. My agency is incredibly top-heavy, and I've witnessed the grade creep. I just hope that after right-sizing, that there are protocols in place to keep it from bloating again.

---

Thank you for your information, much appreciated. It is nice to know what is actually happening.

richardag said:

---

mandevilleag said:

---

OregonAg03 said:

---

These probationary employees did not get the 8 month severance. They were fired with no notice and no severance given.

---

While true, everyone had the chance to take the deferred severance. Full disclosure, I'm a manager in the federal system, so I'm seeing this first hand. I lost four employees. One was probationary who I was planning to fire during the probationary period. We had had a few talks about their performance. He wisely took the deferred resignation. Another was retiring anyways on Feb 28. He took the deferred resignation and now has 8 more months of full benefits while not required to work. As an aside, he's an incredibly dedicated employee and will be helping to transition his work to another employee during the 8 month period. Another was probationary, but saw the writing on the wall, and took the deferred resignation. He just let me know that he's been offered a job, so he'll be "double dipping" for 8 months. The last was probationary, but decided not to take the deferred resignation. I had to let her know Friday morning. She knew it was a risk. She'll be fine, but she won't be getting the 8 months of full pay and benefits.

This is not without precedent in the federal system, but it's been a while. I support it, but it is hard not to take it personally. I think that's true in the private sector too. My agency is incredibly top-heavy, and I've witnessed the grade creep. I just hope that after right-sizing, that there are protocols in place to keep it from bloating again.

---

Thank you for your information, much appreciated. It is nice to know what is actually happening.

---

But this isn't what happened to this particular employee. He has insurance until March, his relocation reimbursement is pending, and he will receive no other compensation. Nor was he given the opportunity to sign up for severance - I'm not entirely sure but if there was a window he fell outside of it due to his start date, etc.

88planoAg said:

---

mandevilleag said:

---

OregonAg03 said:

---

These probationary employees did not get the 8 month severance. They were fired with no notice and no severance given.

---

While true, everyone had the chance to take the deferred severance. Full disclosure, I'm a manager in the federal system, so I'm seeing this first hand. I lost four employees. One was probationary who I was planning to fire during the probationary period. We had had a few talks about their performance. He wisely took the deferred resignation. Another was retiring anyways on Feb 28. He took the deferred resignation and now has 8 more months of full benefits while not required to work. As an aside, he's an incredibly dedicated employee and will be helping to transition his work to another employee during the 8 month period. Another was probationary, but saw the writing on the wall, and took the deferred resignation. He just let me know that he's been offered a job, so he'll be "double dipping" for 8 months. The last was probationary, but decided not to take the deferred resignation. I had to let her know Friday morning. She knew it was a risk. She'll be fine, but she won't be getting the 8 months of full pay and benefits.

This is not without precedent in the federal system, but it's been a while. I support it, but it is hard not to take it personally. I think that's true in the private sector too. My agency is incredibly top-heavy, and I've witnessed the grade creep. I just hope that after right-sizing, that there are protocols in place to keep it from bloating again.

---

This was not his situation. They were to pay for his relocation, that is pending. He has insurance until March. Nothing else.

---

Where is he located?

You said he moved his family across the country last month. That's well within the "Fork in the Road" memo offering the deferred resignation. It was open for over a week, and then the court order kept it open for another week plus. He should have had plenty of time to weigh his decision. Now it's possible that USDA exempted some positions from being able to take the deferred resignation, and his position fell under that. If so, that's messed up. Even before the Fork in the Road memo, we were required to provide a list of all probationary employees to HQ. Most of us felt like they would likely be terminated, so why an agency would exempt probationary employees from that opportunity is a head scratcher. I counseled my probationary employees to take their time and really consider their path. Eight months is a very generous offer, and provides a lot of time to search and find a new job.

I think one of the issues many of them struggled with was the information they were hearing from unions, and fellow employees. Even after OPM and departmental heads verified that it was a valid proposal, there were still a lot of very vocal employees and union reps disagreeing and basically acting like they knew better, and this was illegal and wouldn't be allowed. They really did a lot of these employees a disservice.

redcrayon said:

---

88planoAg said:

---

mandevilleag said:

---

OregonAg03 said:

---

These probationary employees did not get the 8 month severance. They were fired with no notice and no severance given.

---

While true, everyone had the chance to take the deferred severance. Full disclosure, I'm a manager in the federal system, so I'm seeing this first hand. I lost four employees. One was probationary who I was planning to fire during the probationary period. We had had a few talks about their performance. He wisely took the deferred resignation. Another was retiring anyways on Feb 28. He took the deferred resignation and now has 8 more months of full benefits while not required to work. As an aside, he's an incredibly dedicated employee and will be helping to transition his work to another employee during the 8 month period. Another was probationary, but saw the writing on the wall, and took the deferred resignation. He just let me know that he's been offered a job, so he'll be "double dipping" for 8 months. The last was probationary, but decided not to take the deferred resignation. I had to let her know Friday morning. She knew it was a risk. She'll be fine, but she won't be getting the 8 months of full pay and benefits.

This is not without precedent in the federal system, but it's been a while. I support it, but it is hard not to take it personally. I think that's true in the private sector too. My agency is incredibly top-heavy, and I've witnessed the grade creep. I just hope that after right-sizing, that there are protocols in place to keep it from bloating again.

---

This was not his situation. They were to pay for his relocation, that is pending. He has insurance until March. Nothing else.

---

Where is he located?

---

He moved from Kansas to New Jersey

I asked if he received severance and the answer is no.

I'm trying to untangle the timeline further, and am asking directly if he turned down offered severance or if there was nothing offered.

ETA - His mother said he didn't receive any offer for severance, deferred or otherwise.

mandevilleag said:

---

You said he moved his family across the country last month. That's well within the "Fork in the Road" memo offering the deferred resignation. It was open for over a week, and then the court order kept it open for another week plus. He should have had plenty of time to weigh his decision. Now it's possible that USDA exempted some positions from being able to take the deferred resignation, and his position fell under that. If so, that's messed up. Even before the Fork in the Road memo, we were required to provide a list of all probationary employees to HQ. Most of us felt like they would likely be terminated, so why an agency would exempt probationary employees from that opportunity is a head scratcher. I counseled my probationary employees to take their time and really consider their path. Eight months is a very generous offer, and provides a lot of time to search and find a new job.

I think one of the issues many of them struggled with was the information they were hearing from unions, and fellow employees. Even after OPM and departmental heads verified that it was a valid proposal, there were still a lot of very vocal employees and union reps disagreeing and basically acting like they knew better, and this was illegal and wouldn't be allowed. They really did a lot of these employees a disservice.

---

This is correct, I know my new hire probationary from mid December got the email.

Is there a difference between probationary and career conditional? I'm trying to figure out what co-workers may be affected based on length of service.

clw04 said:

---

Is there a difference between probationary and career conditional? I'm trying to figure out what co-workers may be affected based on length of service.

---

Edit to delete my previous passage and say I don't know what I'm talking about. I just looked it up on the OPM website. It's very complicated and you might want to talk to HR.

I'm not sure how other agencies addressed probationary employees, but our probationary vets were not placed on the list for termination, so not every probationary employee was fired. The next step is likely to be reorganizations and RIFs. That's also very complicated based on positions, seniority, vet preference, etc.

Trump and Musk screwed to pooch on this one. A regular "RIF" might have been better and nailed upper folks with the lower people and saved more money. It may have been fine for some agencies, but they used a blunt instrument instead of a scalpel in some cases. Taking all the new hires wasn't smart in my old agency where it's getting harder and harder to find new employees with solid ag backgrounds. Face it - farmers are getting older, farms are getting bigger, and Jr wants out of ag. They already had to drop some standards because not enough college graduates took the course load required. Ultimately, as always, it screwed the worker bees in the field doing the work and left the drones they really wanted to get rid of.

88planoAg said:

---

I agree with taking a chopping block to the federal bloat. I've been cheering on DOGE. But is this the right way to go about trimming the fat?

A family member got a new job and moved his young family across the country last month for the opportunity. Has a 3 year old and one on the way. USDA was his new employer. He was just fired because he was just hired.

I am brokenhearted for them. This is a job in the agricultural industry, his degrees are in botany.

---

As Judge Smails famously said, "the world needs ditchdiggers."

I have a hard time feelling sorry for people who work for the government, a cush where you don't have to produce in order to keep your job Working in Oil and Gas most of my life, I've experienced the layoff more than once.

My number one complaint about working for the government was the people in the office that acted like I was a throj in their side rather than the person they were hired to support.

My crew and I were all over the world in support of the navy and it was night impossible to get someone to answer an email, let alone answer a phone call.

B-1 83 said:

---

Trump and Musk screwed to pooch on this one. A regular "RIF" might have been better and nailed upper folks with the lower people and saved more money. It may have been fine for some agencies, but they used a blunt instrument instead of a scalpel in some cases. Taking all the new hires wasn't smart in my old agency where it's getting harder and harder to find new employees with solid ag backgrounds. Face it - farmers are getting older, farms are getting bigger, and Jr wants out of ag. They already had to drop some standards because not enough college graduates took the course load required. Ultimately, as always, it screwed the worker bees in the field doing the work and left the drones they really wanted to get rid of.

---

I suspect the majority hired in the last year are true Dem believers that checked all the DEI checkboxes, not the most qualified.

B-1 83 said:

---

Trump and Musk screwed to pooch on this one. A regular "RIF" might have been better and nailed upper folks with the lower people and saved more money. It may have been fine for some agencies, but they used a blunt instrument instead of a scalpel in some cases. Taking all the new hires wasn't smart in my old agency where it's getting harder and harder to find new employees with solid ag backgrounds. Face it - farmers are getting older, farms are getting bigger, and Jr wants out of ag. They already had to drop some standards because not enough college graduates took the course load required. Ultimately, as always, it screwed the worker bees in the field doing the work and left the drones they really wanted to get rid of.

---

Olds are next, just more legally challenging. Probationary employees have very few rights and no guarantees, so it was an easy first step. Partly this move was to scare the olds into taking the next deal that is presented so they don't have to fire too many of them.

Prayers for this young family and the OP, life is tough, and hopefully someone warned them about this decision, because the tea leaves were certainly out there given this move took place in January with Trump coming in, as he's been pretty vocal about his plans to reduce the Federal Govt.

I don't really care, but I hope your guilt seeking post makes you feel better.

Texags search is hard, but I'm not finding a post by you worried about the welder who lost it all because Biden unilaterally shut down the Keystone XL pipeline.

Welcome to the real world. I'm sure botany is a hot field.

valvemonkey91 said:

---

Don't work for the government. Pretty simple.

---

Don't work for anyone. Start a small business and work for yourself

General Jack D. Ripper said:

---

I don't really care, but I hope your guilt seeking post makes you feel better.

Texags search is hard, but I'm not finding a post by you worried about the welder who lost it all because Biden unilaterally shut down the Keystone XL pipeline.

Welcome to the real world. I'm sure botany is a hot field.

---

If I had a family member who was impacted by the keystone decision I might have posted about that. I don't express an opinion on TexAgs about every political decision made. I didn't agree with any of what went on during that time, on a macro or micro scale, as compared to now.

Currently I'm sad for my family member and wonder if starting at the bottom rung is the way to go, but am thrilled that we might actually be solving the federal budget issues that will lead to our economic downfall if not addressed. Like I said in the OP.

My brother's friend worked for USAID. He has 2 kids and a wife. I feel bad for him on a personal level, but if we apply feels to every case, we will be in the same spot in 4 years. It's not the fed's job to do what is "right". Nor is it the job of the fed to be a mass employer. The fed's job is to serve needs of the American taxpayer. Anything beyond that is a violation of the social contract.