When Will The NASA HQ Relocations Begin?
Union: Mulvaney comments confirm agency moves meant to cut, AP
“A federal employees union charged Tuesday that recent comments by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney confirm the Trump administration’s “grand strategy” to cut the federal workforce by relocating agency offices out of Washington. Mulvaney said last week that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s plan to relocate several hundred of jobs from Washington to the Kansas City area is “a wonderful way to streamline government.” Speaking to a group of fellow Republicans in his home state of South Carolina, he said it’s “nearly impossible” to fire federal workers but added that many will not move to “the real part of the country.”
Mulvaney: Relocating Offices is a ‘Wonderful Way’ to Shed Federal Employees, Government Executive
“I don’t know if you saw the news the other day, but the USDA moved two offices out of Washington, D.C., I think to Kansas City, Missouri,” Mulvaney boasted, while encouraging applause. “Guess what happened. Guess what happened. More than half the people quit.” (USDA has not yet decided if the offices will be in Kansas or Missouri.)”
Mulvaney Comments on Transfers Are Telling, Says Union, FEDweek
“The AFGE union said that the comments “confirm what our union has been saying all along: the administration’s decision to transfer hundreds of USDA jobs from D.C. isn’t about helping federal employees do their jobs better or delivering better services to the American taxpayer. Their goal is to drive out hardworking and dedicated civil servants and silence the parts of the agencies’ research that the administration views as inconvenient.”
Keith’s note: OK NASA HQ employees (maybe GSFC employees too): Do you love your NASA job enough to be forcibly moved to a NASA field center? Sure, they pay all moving costs, adjust your salary, and all of that good stuff, but they move you away from your community. When will the NASA HQ reorganization plans be announced? I have not heard of any yet – but NASA is just another Federal agency and it is likely that this will happen since this Administration seems to be happy that the moving threat makes people quit.
Thoughts? (no non-NASA HQ employee comments, please). Technically, this is not a RIF. But, to reflect back to the very first post that led to the creation of NASAWatch in 1996 – then called “NASA RIF Watch” there is a value to “the use of fear as a tool in corporate downsizing.””
I work in the private sector, and if the company I work for decides to relocate from Long Island ( a very expensive area) to somewhere else to reduce costs, I’d have to either go or stay here and get another job. Why is it such a major problem to relocate a government office based on the same criteria (costs)?
I don’t think that’s the concern. And many planetary scientists outside of NASA are also forced to move or get a new job, when the PI of a major project moves and takes the contract with him. Normally they do. In the case of the Cassini/ISS instrument, it was seen as quite a commentary on the PI (well, team leader) when most did not.
But we aren’t talking about relocating for practical reasons like cost. Keith was suggesting, and the quote from White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney strongly implies, that the goal was to get people to quit. If you deliberately move the offices to a place no one wants to live, then people will quit and you can reduce the workforce without things like justifications for firing, severance pay, buyouts, etc. That’s a bit different than saying you have to move because operating costs at the current location are not viable. (Although, personally, I don’t see D.C. as that much more of a desirable place to live than many places in Kansas or Missouri, but that depends on where friends and family are.)
Because the reason to move the government office has nothing to do with cost or gaining some sort of efficiency. It is simply being done to get rid of the agency. Totally different from the military.
How about making it easier to fire poor performing civil servants? Then the lost of talent wouldn’t be so arbitrary. Unions would never go for it though.
Or moving higher-ups closer to the work, or areas of regulation? Most long distance managers I’ve seen were largely clueless pencilnecks. The better ones got their hands dirty.
Easier but not too easy. The reason job protections were put in place was to end the patronage system. You remember, ” To the Victor belongs the spoils!”. I can imagine what the EPA would look like under Trump without those protections.
I really hope HQ isn’t moved to Huntsville as compensation if/ when SLS is cancelled.
NASA headquarters isn’t going to move to Huntsville. But MSFC does already handle a fair amount of project and grant management. I doubt we’re going to see any changes to the positions which give you an office on the top floor. But moving people with less senior jobs is conceivable.
Keith; I can’t see NASA moving out of downtown, and as an “independent agency” of the Federal Government I don’t think they can be quite as pressured as a direct reporting agency under the Executive Office to do so.
Further in terms of moving it somewhere I would think GSFC would be the logical choice as the nearest center to DC. NASA HQ’s main function after all is to coordinate overall policy and direction with the Congress and White House. (oh and lobby for funds and budget priority from both entities) Location far distant from DC would interfere with that daily operation.
Actually, the people at NASA headquarters do quite a bit more than coordinate policy with Congress and the White House. They also coordinate all the contracts and grants, are responsible for the oversight of every project (flight or otherwise) NASA is involved in, and some supervision of work at the NASA centers. I’m trying to count, but not sure if I’ve got it right: I think there are probably six rows in the org chart before you get down to administrative, clerical or IT support. Only the top two or three are coordinating things with the White House and Congress. The rest could do the same work just about anywhere.
But the fact that the could doesn’t justify moving all those people. If the rent in D.C. it too high (it is, at least in those parts of town), they could just move to the suburbs. The National Science Foundation did; they’re in Alexandria, Virginia. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did; they’re in Silver Spring, Maryland. That’s still expensive by the standards of many parts of the country, but not insanely so. And the commute wouldn’t be very different for people working there.
NASA HQ footprint in DC has been proposed for reductions and moves out of DC multiple times. The most recent round was under Rex Geveden as AA. It never happens. HQ footprint in DC should be about like MDA, 200 to maybe max 400 (leg affairs, legal, international, etc). The MDs could easily be moved out of DC which would be much more in line with DOD. I also don’t meant to start a big squabble, but there is no question that closing some centers and transferring people would be an effective execution of Mulvaney’s idea. Don’t see 100 percent of people moving from Ames to “x” or DFRC to “x” or Glenn to “x” etc. The catch is it is likely easy to convince congressionals to move stuff out of DC to districts (no representation) but practically impossible to do so with Centers to other Centers ala DOD BRAC like activity. Also, any political battleground states are safe not just from congressionals but from white house. (i.e. Glenn, KSC (which has made itself uncloseable by reinventing itself anyway, JSC (would never happen EVER), then you can go from there….)
Org appx govt Budget (B) Emp per B$
Missile Defense Agency 3000 8.2 366
NASA 17000 21.5 791
DARPA 240 3.5 69
Not equivalent because above orgs have support contractors, however at least interesting
Org tot emp appx 2017 Revenues Emp per B
Space X 7000 2.5 B 2800
Boeing 153000 100B 1530
Lockheed 105000 54B 1944
ULA 3400 1.8B 1888
But they are doing the actual work
Space X is likely skewed since they do almost all their work in-house
Saying nothing about performance of the above primes or the effectiveness of govt oversight (nobody is unblemished on that front except maybe the Israeli Missile Defense Org which surely has set the record for empl/billion with few cost overrruns, etc.)
Does it take almost half as many people as Boeing to manage a Boeing??? And if it did, shouldn’t the results be better? The cost of a model where the cost of failure must be quantified at the avoidance of the cost of “tragedy”
NRO payloads which have alot of scrutiny and little appetite for failure. Compare that with NASA?
All this being said, you can also have a hands off approach like commercial crew, but if the criteria are flawed (which they may be in fact – whether you have 100 people reviewing or 1000 people reviewing may not make a difference)
Regardless on that point, you need a design that may have a failure eventually but does not lead to tragedy. Why a very effective Launch Abort System is an absolute must with a robust design. Thank God the Russian flight that system worked. Ok, off on a tangent, but I think the numbers above are food for thought on the “effectiveness” of govt employees, which is hard for me to say since I was one.
Could you reformat those data? As I received it, it was pretty much incomprehensible. You might start by expanding `Org tot emp appx 2017 Revenues Emp per B” into actual words. It’s really hard to say if I agree or disagree when you do not clearly express yourself.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
In your “Employees” figure for NASA you’ve neglected to include contractors. The ~17k employee figure is for civil servants *only*. According to:
https://employeeorientation…
there are ~60k NASA contractors. So the NASA budget per employee is more like $300k/employee.
Also, SpaceX has NASA development contracts and external investors, so I’d imagine the money coming in is probably $1-2 billion higher than launch revenues. For a comparison to other high tech companies (granted non-aerospace) the top 20 range is from $521k (AMD) to $1.9M (Apple) per employee. See:
https://www.visualcapitalis…
Agreed. Hard to define which contractors are ssercice vs primes so this was more of a relative thing. The important takeaway is whether you believe government is too large…
If the answer is that the primes are poor performers, that doesn’t seem to be a function of the amount of oversight. Politics aside, OMB believes (and I agree) ther govt is way too big. At the same time contractors and acquisition are as bad as ever. More talk of acq reform but large projects both civil and DOD are atrocious. Whether it’s space X or whoever we need disruption.
Of course minus the 737 max, Boeing 787 is a traditional example but done right. Interesting how DOD programs don’t operate that way.
BUT mostly this was all to get w conversation going which appears successful.
must be a slow news day at NW – why invent a crisis? – why give anyone any ideas?
I am not inventing anything. OMB is doing what it is doing and plans to do more of it.
The results of your article, whether intended or not, creates its own type of fear, especially since you say it hasn’t happened at NASA.
It is called news. NASA is a federal government agencies. OMB and OPM are considering various means to reduce work force size and costs. Not to raise this issue would be irresponsible.
Having spent 22 years as a military officer I had moved 18 times. I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for government employees that are transferred to other locations. Let us not over dramatize.
Did your spouse have a job? If so, was it financially necessary for your family to have two people working? That is the situation many, if not most NASA employees are in. If you are ordered to move from one place to another, that might be fine. But can your spouse quit his or her job, and manage to get another in whatever location you have been sent to?
Considering how poorly the military is paid, yes my wife had a job. Companies and government transfer people that is the nature of the beast. It leads to all kinds of disruptions. Better than most I am deeply aware of this fact. However, if I wasn’t willing to accept this characteristic of the job I had the opportunity to quit. Life is filled with compromises and decision points. It never will be perfect and greater good of the organization is management mandate over the ideal life style of individual. Those offered transfer need to make their decisions.
I guess I’m too used to thinking in terms of scientists and academics. In most cases, those aren’t terribly portable jobs. A university professor can’t quit and expect to get a comparable position where ever and when ever a spouse is transferred. Nor can a planetary scientist working at a place like JPL or NASA Ames. When people in those fields change jobs or have to move, making sure there is a comparable job for spouses is a deal and involves some negotiations with employers.
But I also question contrasting the “greater good of the organization” with the “life style of the individual.” The location of a job, and how desirable a place that is to live, can be a very powerful recruiting tool. I can think of one company which did very well by opening a branch office somewhere scientists would want to move (Boulder) as opposed to somewhere where they’d be less enthusiastic about (San Antonio.) Of course, that’s a matter of taste and opinion, but it did work for them.
Thank you for your service and the hardships you and your family endured. But also, respect the career and personal situations of others. There is no need to talk down to them as many in Washington seem to think is appropriate.
You need to dial it back dude.
This thread is all about respect.
If some in Washington are making office relocations simply
to encourage people to quit, then that is not respect.
If someone in an otherwise honored role is essentially telling people to, “suck it up”, then that is not respect. Just as cabinet members and others close to the administration were telling people the same thing during the Jan., 2019 shutdown. It does not go down well for a member of the military to be talking this way to civilians. That’s not how it works.
For your part, Mr. Cowing, as one who gives out a lot of criticism, respect is gained by accepting criticism as well. In addition, since
we are not acquainted, referring to me as “dude” is not respect.
There is nothing to suggest that NASA will have its HQ relocated. If you can quote sources, please do. Back when “directed re-assignments” (from one Center to another)
were being discussed, two things shut that off.
1) Complaints to congressional representatives over family impacts, and
2) the fact that there were no slots available at any Center that was nominated
to receive re-assigned individuals.
I suppose one option will be for you respond angrily as you often do – which is why many remain anonymous – and even ban (censor) me from the site. No problem, as there are many other venues to get the message out.
And that message is that we need to strive to restore respect as much or more than
ever
You knew that would be the case when you joined the military. This has not been how the civil sector side of the house operates.
Your situation is not comparable. You were moved to support the mission of the military. These people are being moved for no other reason than to strongly encourage them to resign.
The private sector deals with this all the time. Companies reorganize or get bought out and employees get moved or laid off. The government rarely does this. Even in the 1960 when NASA opened new centers in Houston and Florida or expanded others (Marshall) they moved people to them, but kept the old ones. I agree people relocating should have their expenses covered.