These USDA employees face a stark choice: Move to Kansas City or be fired

[mahatmakanejeeves]

PowerPost • Perspective
These USDA employees face a stark choice: Move to Kansas City or be fired
Relocation could seriously disrupt the work of two agencies

By Joe Davidson, Columnist
July 1 at 6:00 AM

The Agriculture Department is offering employees a rare choice: accept a forced transfer to a post 1,000 miles away or be fired. ... The Trump administration’s plan to move two agencies from the District to the Kansas City area includes a document with two blank boxes on it, sent to employees on June 13. Check one, it instructs: Accept the transfer by July 15 or “be separated by adverse action procedures.”

That means getting fired, with an opportunity to appeal the dismissal through what could be an expensive process. Getting fired could also make it more difficult to find another federal job in an area where the government dominates. ... Although a limited number of buyouts and early retirement opportunities will be available for what union officials expect to be fewer than 15 percent of those affected, and while some USDA employees might find work in government positions elsewhere in the D.C. area, the disruption to employees generally will be substantial.

“Adverse action” can have another meaning that goes beyond the affected employees and more broadly hits taxpayers, organizations and businesses. In addition to the big hassle for workers, relocations could have an adverse impact — a major brain drain — on the work of the two agencies, the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. ... Union officials estimate a strong majority of employees will decline reassignment. If that happens, the work of the small but important agencies could be seriously upset. Even before Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced the Kansas City region as the new location, but after officials said the agencies would be moving out of the District, department employees quit in droves, my colleague Ben Guarino reported last month.

“The current and projected attrition will curtail research data products that encompass commodity estimates, agricultural sector forecasts, food and farm economic and statistical indicators for U.S. agriculture, conservation, and food policy and markets,” said Kevin Hunt, a 10-year USDA employee, speaking as acting vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 3403 representing research service staff. ... What the government calls “directed reassignments” to a different city are “very rare in the federal government. That's not something that is a common practice,” said Joanna Friedman, a federal employment lawyer with the Federal Practice Group. “This is unprecedented.”
....

Columnist Joe Davidson covers federal government issues in the Federal Insider, formerly the Federal Diary. Davidson previously was an assistant city editor at The Washington Post and a Washington and foreign correspondent with the Wall Street Journal, where he covered federal agencies and political campaigns. Follow https://twitter.com/JoeDavidsonWP

[trev]

1. This is unusual for a government agency

but it's standard procedure with a corporation. And of course, the Republicans want corporations running the government. Remember how Bush touted his MBA, stating he would run the government like a business?

[democratisphere]

2. More chaos and tension each day.

Damn. It has got to end.

[shanti]

9. They're really trying

to overwhelm us with outrage. One after the other, every damn day.

[MosheFeingold]

3. Hard choice

But moving a farm agency to a farming hub is pretty logical -- and, apparently, cheaper.

I was a government employee of one kind or the other for most of my adult life. Sometimes, you get a mentality that the agency is there to serve the employees. No, it's there to accomplish whatever its mission is -- as cheaply as possible.

While I feel for the employees (and, yes, there is a third choice -- move to a comparable position in another agency), that's not where the focus should be.

[atreides1]

5. Okay

And you actually believe that the head of the USDA is doing this for the benefit of the farmers?

Did it ever occur that this is being done so this administration can effectively gut both of those organizations...

The Economic Research Service (ERS) is a component of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and a principal agency of the Federal Statistical System of the United States. It provides information and research on agriculture and economics.

The mission of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is to stimulate and fund the research and technological innovations that will enhance American agriculture and make it more productive and environmentally sustainable while ensuring the economic viability of agriculture and production...more to do with economics then with actual farming!

As for the savings...put the brakes on...it's not going save $300 million dollars as reported by the USDA, it will end up costing between $83 and $182 million...because the USDA failed to take into account the fact that “the lost value of research from staffers who resign or retire rather than move”!

Here are a list of four USDA offices that would be a better fit in the farming hub, then the two being exiled there...

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Agricultural Marketing Service

[canetoad]

12. Thank you

Rachel Maddow has aired regular segments on the move. They are doing important climate research among other things.

[csziggy]

7. The agencies being moved are primarily for policy and study

Economic Research Service:

The mission of USDA's Economic Research Service is to anticipate trends and emerging issues in agriculture, food, the environment, and rural America and to conduct high-quality, objective economic research to inform and enhance public and private decision making.

ERS shapes its research program and products to serve those who routinely make or influence public policy and program decisions. Key clientele include White House and USDA policy officials; the U.S. Congress; program administrators/managers; other Federal agencies; State and local government officials; and organizations, including farm and industry groups. ERS research provides context for and informs the decisions that affect the agricultural sector, which in turn benefits everyone with efficient stewardship of our agricultural resources and the economic prosperity of the sector.

As a federal statistical agency covered by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directives, ERS is responsible for ensuring the quality, objectivity, and transparency of the statistical information it provides. Our policies and procedures for publishing research and data are designed to ensure that we provide high quality and objective analysis.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/about-ers/

National Institute of Food and Agriculture:

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) provides leadership and funding for programs that advance agriculture-related sciences. We invest in and support initiatives that ensure the long-term viability of agriculture. NIFA applies an integrated approach to ensure that groundbreaking discoveries in agriculture-related sciences and technologies reach the people who can put them into practice.

Since the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) authorized its creation, NIFA has taken significant strides toward enhancing the impact of food agriculture, natural resources, and human sciences.

NIFA collaborates with leading scientists, policymakers, experts, and educators in organizations throughout the world to find innovative solutions to the most pressing local and global problems. Scientific progress, made through discovery and application.

Advances the competitiveness of American agriculture
Bolsters the U.S. economy;
Enhances the safety of the nation’s food supply
Improves the nutrition and well-being of American citizens;
Sustains natural resources and the environment
Builds energy independence

In partnership with other federal science agencies, NIFA also serves as a vital contributor to science policy decision-making.
https://nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa

They need to be close to where policy is made, not stuck far away from Washington in a state that has been moving backwards for thirty years.

I believe this move is intended to dump long term, knowledgeable employees who provide a deep base of experience to their agencies. Now the Trump administration will bring in more of their ignorant, biased cronies to warp policies to fit their points of view.

[Thyla]

4. This is essentially why we are now in Spain

My wife's agency was relocating from Brussels and we had the choice of Prague or Paris, neither of those appealed to us in the slightest so after a job hunt she left.
It's a normal process really, disruptive for sure but not something you could litigate here which I feel is the angle of the article.

[murielm99]

6. Years ago, my husband's job

was moved to Kansas. We decided not to go. They closed the place in Kansas a couple of years later, and reopened here. It was nothing but a big tax write-off for them. We had a hard time for a couple of years, until he found a job. Then, it took a long time to recover from unemployment.

I am sorry for these people. Given the 45 administration corruption, I don't think this is to save money or to benefit farmers. Someone is getting rich off this. An agency is being gutted and research is being curtailed.

[shanti]

8. This is outrageous!

Rachel did a piece on it tonight. Grover Nordquist is probably very proud of himself.

[appalachiablue]

10. Just watched Rachel Maddow's report on this, it's disruptive with a plan

to drop experienced scientists who decline to move.

[MichMan]

11. Once we take back the government...

Congress can pass legislation that prohibits any federal agency from moving anywhere else