Ask The Experts: Retirement

By Reg Jones

Furloughs vs. buyouts

Bookmark and Share

Q. Can someone explain why furloughing workers would be the first step to save money? I would think  buyouts would be first. There are thousands of CSRS employees just waiting for a buyout; why aren’t they being offered?

A. You’re wrong. It’s far less expensive to the government to furlough employees than to pay them to leave. First, you don’t have to shell out any money. Second, you can furlough far more employees than you can get to take a buyout. Third, some of those who are furloughed will decide to retire at little additional expense to the government. Finally, needed employees will go back to work when the furlough is over.

Tags: , ,

Comments

  1. Commonsense Says:
    April 1st, 2013 at 7:34 am

    I’m suprised they dont offer early retirements without the buyout option, that would save a lot of money.

  2. 68gto Says:
    April 4th, 2013 at 6:08 am

    The poster framed his statement wrong. The real benefit of VERA/VSIP is getting people off the roles for this year and the out years. Sure you save more with a furlough assuming no one leaves. But if you get someone off the roles you’ve saved his entire salary and benefits for this year and forever (assuming position is not filled). So, yes VERA/VSIP would in fact save DoD a vast amount — and perhaps reduce the need for additional furloughs/RIFS next year

Leave a Reply

PLEASE NOTE! Do not submit ANY questions via the Comments form. Instead, please send your questions directly to fedexperts@federaltimes.com. Questions submitted via the Comments form will NOT be answered!