We Took The Buyout: Federal Employees On Why They Accepted The Offer To Quit

More than 75,000 workers eventually accepted the Deferred Resignation Program, or buyout, which came as part of the administration’s broader efforts to shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy. Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, the government has already laid off hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors.

As the federal government concludes a second round of buyout offers to nudge still more government workers out of the bureaucracy, The Epoch Times spoke with several employees who took the first buyout—and one who was not allowed to take it—about how the decision has affected their lives.

It wasn’t just Democrats who took the buyout, either: All who spoke to The Epoch Times about their decision were Trump supporters, and their accepting the offer was based on personal, rather than political, reasons. Most asked to remain anonymous over privacy concerns.

A former meteorologist told The Epoch Times that the buyout was too good to pass up. He was already eyeing retirement, and the government’s offer simply allowed him to jump-start those plans.

Bill Page, a former curriculum manager for Army University, said he and most of his colleagues were in the same situation.

“Almost everybody in my section also took it. We were all older, or most of us were older, and were thinking about retiring anyway. And this opportunity came up.”

Page said his department was somewhat superfluous anyway. The employees who were too young to retire—or simply wanted to keep working—were allowed to move to other departments. Those who were already eligible for retirement had their buyout compensation extended to December, making the transition into retirement easier.

“I’m 71, my next chapter is probably dying or something,” he joked. “But one of the reasons I didn’t retire until now was because I didn’t know what I would do with myself. I thought I wouldn’t have anything to do, and I was wrong. I’ve done all kinds of things ... and I’m enjoying myself.”

A former cybersecurity agent told the Epoch Times that the buyout was “a blessing.”

On Jan. 20, eight days before the buyout offer was announced, Trump asked federal agency heads to bring employees back into the office “as soon as practicable.” For years, and especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, many federal employees have been permitted work remotely, rarely or never coming into the office physically.

By this time, the cybersecurity agent said, he and his wife had moved to the midwest and had little desire to return to the east coast.

“So it worked out for me. Like I said, I don’t know if everybody has that experience, but for me, it worked out real well.”

One man, a 58-year-old in asset management, told The Epoch Times that he was essentially forced to accept the buyout due to the prohibition on remote work.

He said he had worked remotely for years when the call to return to the office came in. His agency had a building that was only about a 20 minute drive that he hoped would suffice.

However, he later learned that, due to his particular set of duties, he might be required to work out of the Washington office, on the opposite side of the country. He said he didn’t find such a move desirable or financially feasible. Thus, he felt forced to take the buyout and retire two years early.

But he said available information at the time “wasn’t full and complete.” His department pushed off any final decision on remote workers beyond the window to take the buyout.

Uncertain about whether he'd have to move, he took the offer just to be safe, he said. But he expressed concern that the reduced retirement benefit may cause a bit of financial strain in the future.

Not everyone was allowed to take the buyout, which was only available to those not considered “essential.”

One young woman, an acquisitions specialist, jumped at the chance to live her dream of being a full-time homemaker when she learned about the offer. She said the lagging economy had forced her to work for over a decade, since she and her husband needed the extra income to support their two small children.

Her husband expects to receive enough military disability benefits to support the family, but not until later this year. In the interim, she suggested the family is struggling.

“It’s just kind of hard right now, with just things being so expensive and just not having enough resources.”

She had hoped to use the buyout to allow her to leave work early and begin homeschooling her 5-year old. But the government rejected her request, labeling her an “essential” worker.

“It was kind of frustrating. They promised you, you know, you’re gonna get paid out till September, and then they made it seem like everybody would get approved.”

She had been told beforehand that rejections would be rare, but in her department the opposite turned out to be true. Less than 20 employees were approved, perhaps because the department’s work was deemed to be especially crucial. But she insisted there was still plenty of fat to trim there.

“I do see a lot of positions in our agency that they could do away with to save the government money. I feel like they have a lot of employees that do similar jobs that they could kind of cut, especially in our headquarters.”

Although everyone who spoke to The Epoch Times was in favor of the program—and the reduction in the size of government that prompted it—they also generally felt the Trump administration’s plans had all been conducted a bit hastily.

Some, like the meteorologist, noted that while there was substantial federal bloat to remove in some agencies, their own departments were already “woefully understaffed.”

One former employee said that his younger colleague was set to be promoted, but had to wait until workforce reductions were comp.leted. If he had taken the promotion when it was scheduled, it would have put him in “probationary status,” and there was a chance he might have been targeted for firing.

RE: More than 75,000 workers eventually accepted the Deferred Resignation Program,

If 75,000 employees accepted the offer to quit federal government employment, that would represent about 2.5% of the total federal employees (including the US Postal Service). It’s a good start but not a lot IMHO.

This site tracks all the federal employees who have left so far—the article just covered some of them:

https://layoffs.fyi/

The grand total is 160K to date.

We are probably looking at 300K or so by the end of September.

These are due to:

—Requirement to return to office—caused folks to retire or quit
—Firing probationary employees
—DRP 1.0
—DRP 2.0
—Elimination of divisions and other functions
—Elimination of local offices
—Final step if all else fails to meet administration numbers—formal Reduction in Force (RIF)—has not started yet in any agency

Most who've been in the military have witnessed this.

They inevitably cut too deep in some areas that never recovered. Once short-staffed, it becomes a race for the exits. No one wants to be 1 of 5 people working in what should be a 10-employee operation.

Staff are told to "do more with less", and "work smarter, not harder".

Those who had talent and options were the first to go.

Training gets cut and after they cut too deep they tell people they'll have train themselves and the new hires. That goes over as expected.

Documentation and standardization also get cut. Then small problems become very large ones.

Everyone who stays behind gets a harsh slap of reality;"We never realized so-and-so did so much." I've seen those who hit the exit get replaced not with one or two people but with a team of up to five. The bosses wanted to pretend it was a manpower issue but it was really an experience issue.

The team of newbies would flounder, then unravel, and inevitably the bosses would throw gobs of money at someone to bring them out of retirement as a consultant. The latest variation is to have a junior consultant for the day-to-day BS with the retiree doing the heavy brain work behind the scenes. After 2-3 years, the junior consultant moves up or out and a replacement comes in, all the while the retiree expert is only getting older.

Having spent most of my life in the Detroit area, mass layoffs were common due to the vagaries of the auto industry.

I’ve actually never quit a job. A couple employers went out of business while I was there. I was laid off permanently twice when the economy tanked.

Both lasted six months until I found other employment.

One was pretty tough as there was no severance. The second came with several months severance but I had to move 600 miles and live apart from the family for 8 months till we could sell the house.

Life goes on.

One piece of advice from what I’ve seen, (I was never given this opportunity) If the employer offers a voluntary separation the first offer is always the best offer.

The next offer usually isn’t voluntary and it’s never as good.

I plan to retire in the next 3-4 years and it will be the first time I’ve ever quit a job on my terms.

These are all valid points.

However there is a hidden assumption there—so let us spell it out.

Hidden assumption—the work being done is good.

In the private sector presumably it is generating a solid and consistent return on investment for shareholders.

In the public sector—things get a lot trickier.

There it is all about who gets to decide what is “good”.

I do not want teams of subject matter experts identifying the hardest core left-wing NGOs to shower grants on...

Nor do I want teams of propaganda experts covering up government criminality or pushing agendas hostile to my interests.

Lol.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.