By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) offered approximately 80,000 employees a voluntary separation incentive payment, with a March 14th deadline. This follows HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s comments about wanting to remove certain staff and aligns with broader efforts by the Trump administration and Elon Musk to significantly reduce the federal workforce. The buyout program, offering up to $25,000, mirrors a similar initiative undertaken earlier this year. Experts warn that staff reductions at HHS could hinder the agency’s ability to implement Kennedy’s policy goals.
Read the original article here
HHS sends all employees a $25,000 voluntary buyout offer, and the reaction among employees is a potent cocktail of skepticism, anger, and outright disbelief. Many view the offer as insultingly low, especially considering the current economic climate and the years of service many employees have dedicated to the department. The amount barely covers a few months of expenses for most, and the taxation will further reduce the already meager sum. The idea that this would be sufficient incentive for long-term federal employees who have contributed to their retirement accounts is dismissed as absurd.
The timing of the offer is also suspicious. Some suspect it’s a thinly veiled attempt to purge employees deemed undesirable by the current administration, framing terminations as voluntary departures to avoid potential legal challenges. This interpretation aligns with the prevalent feeling that the administration is desperate to reshape the department according to its own agenda. The implication is that accepting the buyout allows the administration to avoid the optics and possible legal repercussions of mass firings.
The legality of the offer itself is questioned. Concerns are raised regarding whether Congress has approved the necessary funding. The possibility of the offer being merely a tactic to manipulate employees into leaving, without any guarantee of actual payment, generates widespread distrust. Many commenters express strong concerns that the money may never actually materialize.
Several employees highlight the inadequate nature of the buyout, comparing it unfavorably to the years of service and benefits forfeited. The fact that GS-5 and GS-15 employees receive the same amount is seen as further evidence of the offer’s unfairness and lack of consideration for seniority or experience. The consensus is that the offer is far below market value, especially given the expertise and qualifications of many HHS employees. The general feeling is that the number is low enough to be insulting.
There’s a pervasive sense of being manipulated. Many employees believe the offer is a deliberate attempt to undermine the department, possibly with plans to replace experienced staff with individuals less likely to challenge the administration’s policies. The cynical view is that this is simply a tactic to weaken the Department of Health and Human Services.
The financial implications are scrutinized, with calculations showing how much the buyout would shrink after taxes. The notion of using this paltry sum to step into the current job market without another position lined up is considered reckless. Employees express concern about the potential difficulty of finding comparable employment, making the buyout’s attractiveness questionable even for those who might be considering retirement. The fear is that the $25,000 is far from enough to cover a gap in employment, especially considering the increased expenses often associated with joblessness.
Furthermore, the perceived lack of respect shown to long-serving employees fuels outrage. Many view the offer as an insult, suggesting that their years of dedicated service and expertise are undervalued by the administration. This contributes to the overall sentiment of distrust and resentment towards the administration’s actions.
In short, the $25,000 voluntary buyout offer is viewed by many HHS employees as a poorly conceived, inadequately funded, and ultimately insulting attempt to manipulate and potentially dismantle the department. The skepticism, anger, and cynicism surrounding the offer suggest it is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose, and could instead lead to further discontent and instability within the department. The prevailing view is that the offer is a deeply flawed strategy that fails to recognize the value and dedication of its workforce.