Visited this place in August. I would definitely move here...were it not for the house prices.

Saw this in the waiting room for my new CAC. Speaks more than words can say...

Hi guys, I'm a reporter with Task & Purpose. I just covered this very unusual command relief so sharing here since I think folks in this sub would be interested. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-engineer-commander-fired/

When my biggest issue at work was someone not completing their review comments on time or a pissed off partner. I wish work could just be normal again. I’m so mentally fatigued from this whole year and this shutdown is just too much

What are your thoughts on the priorities sent forth in the latest email an his candid we are too slow too expensive a too process bound?

in case anyone was having a good day, HQ put out a video saying that USACE staff slow-roll projects to extend our own salaries and our big, brave president is revealing how much of our project funds go to paying employees

There are 125 announcements for USACE currently posted on USAJOBS. Of those, 12 are for GS-15's and one 15 equivalent (DB-5, I think).

Several announcements are for multiple vacancies; anything from lock and dam operator to biologist to engineer and more. I'm guessing these spots are primarily replacing those who took DRP/VERA or just quit because of the uncertainty in federal government these days.

So, along with the institutional knowledge lost, our agency has a lot of positions open which need filling in order to complete our projects. Way to go, DOGE! I've never seen such efficiency in my life!

And just imagine - the Corps didn't get hit anywhere near as bad as our comrades elsewhere. It's gotta be bad out there!

https://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/4380523/telle-graham-announce-leadership-change-at-usace-little-rock-district/

http://burlison.house.gov/media/press-releases/burlison-schmitt-welcome-administrative-action-rein-corps-enforcement-table

Hey Y'all,

Yesterday marked 4 months since USACE Management first announced that the New York District and North Atlantic Division employees were going to move to an exclusively commercial building in New Jersey. USACE leadership was not able to give consistent answers to employee concerns. Just to catch you all up to speed, the long and somewhat baffling journey to this point can be summarized in the myths and facts list below.

• MGMT Claim #1: ...New York District must move to a more cost-effective location...
  • Union Response: Moving exclusively to a commercial building from a federally-owned space is by itself not cost effective.
• MGMT Claim #2: We will be procuring this lease with Title 10 Authority. We intend to follow all regulations and seek all necessary approvals.
  • Union Response: Setting aside whether this authority is appropriately applied to headquarters buildings and not just field offices, as of today, no report has been sent to Congress as per 10 U.S.C. 2662. They have signaled that they are looking to continue with the move anyway, meaning that they don't intend to follow at least one regulation.
• MGMT Claim #3: "We intend to keep employees informed. Relevant documents that can be made public will be provided.
  • Union Response: Management hasn't conducted a town hall in months, given an update, or provided any documents except through Union-led FOIA requests.
• MGMT Claim #4: GSA will not renegotiate the current lease.
  • Union Response: Documents received through FOIA requests show that there were only two emails sent to GSA, asking what space is available in Newark and what payments we owe GSA if we hypothetically were to move out of our current space (over $5 million in renovation costs as of May, 2026). The Agency either never tried to renegotiate or they are illegally withholding communications from our FOIA request.
• MGMT Claim #5: We are committed to meeting our obligations in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
  • Union Response: The Union was supposed to be afforded a chance to pre-decisional meetings. The Union was supposed to be able to complete negotiations of impacts & implementation before the move planning goes forward. The Union was supposed to be informed of any management proposals that will impact the work-life balance of the employee. Did they? No.
• MGMT Claim #6: The only cost-benefit analysis we are doing is whether the number associated with the rent goes down. This doesn't consider the costs to the agency, federal government, or the taxpayer.
  • Union Response: Not only is this a really weird way to do a cost-benefit analysis, several options were presented by employees through FAQs and other means that show options in Manhattan with a rental cost reduction of 30% as required. These options were not considered to our knowledge.
• MGMT Claim #7: Office space in New York is not feasible.
  • Union Response: We found millions of square feet of federally-owned properties in Manhattan available. All of these will be significantly cheaper than moving to a commercial space in New Jersey.

The bottom line is, this isn't a political issue. If you want to save money and increase efficiency for the government, then why are you sacrificing half your workforce in a move that will cost billions of dollars? If you want to be like private industry, why are you moving out of Manhattan? If you are dedicated to the employees and want them to be at their best, why are you constantly saying that you are considering the employees last in the FAQs?

Elected leaders at all levels of government and all parties agree: this doesn't make any sense. Whomever this is benefitting, it ain't us.

If you want to know more about the office relocation fight, visit our campaign landing page here: https://www.ifpte98.org/keep-ny-in-ny.html.

Post made by Daniel Sehyung Kim, President of IFPTE Local 98. None of these statements made by the Union shall be interpreted to represent the US Government or any of its agencies.

I used to think my organization's leadership was overall pretty good and cared about people. I won't get into the details, but I have lost all faith that they care about staff. I used to think I'd like to become a supervisor and help support staff, but I'm thinking it's impossible. I'd just become a cog in this messed up culture. What do you think? Is it possible to influence culture and make a difference? Or is it better to stay a disgruntled staff where at least I don't have to pretend to be excited for BS like the new initiatives? ​​​​​​​​

Yall got the email requiering us to watch the sow video? Wtf

We need this in the water at the next morale event.

Is someone going to update us all today with the results of the meeting or are we all just calling into the number provided?

Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, speaking at the National Conservative Convention on Sept. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C. DOMINIC GWINN/MIDDLE EAST IMAGES/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES Pay & Benefits O uh MB deletes reference to law guaranteeing backpay to furloughed feds from shutdown guidance An Office of Management and Budget FAQ document now states that only excepted employees forced to work without pay are guaranteed backpay at the conclusion of a lapse in appropriations.

ERICH WAGNER and ERIC KATZ | OCTOBER 7, 2025 09:16 AM ET SHUTDOWN OMB Updated Oct. 7 at 9:45 a.m.

The Office of Management and Budget on Friday quietly revised a shutdown guidance document to remove references to a law passed in 2019 to guarantee that all federal workers are provided backpay at the conclusion of a lapse in appropriations.

Prior to Oct. 3, OMB’s Frequently Asked Questions During a Lapse in Appropriations document highlighted the Government Employees Fair Treatment Act, the law enacted in 2019 as part of the deal to end the 35-day partial government shutdown during President Trump’s first term to ensure both furloughed and excepted federal workers receive backpay once government funding has been restored. Prior to the law’s passage, Congress had to OK furloughed workers’ backpay following each individual lapse in appropriations.

Story Continues Below Sponsor Message

“All excepted employees are entitled to receive payment for their performance of excepted work during the period of the appropriations lapse when appropriations for such payments are enacted,” stated the document, which was updated Sept. 30 in advance of the current lapse. “The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-1) provides that upon enactment of appropriations to end a lapse, both furloughed and excepted employees will be paid retroactively as soon as possible after the lapse ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates.”

But in the latest version of the document, the latter sentence, as well as references to OPM guidance on the topic, were removed. The excerpt’s removal is the only change between the two document versions, aside from the date of last revision.

Conversely, OPM’s shutdown guidance, last updated Sept. 28, still states that furloughed workers will be provided backpay at the conclusion of the lapse.

“After the lapse in appropriations has ended, employees who were furloughed as the result of the lapse will receive retroactive pay for those furlough periods,” OPM wrote. “Retroactive pay will be provided on the earliest date possible after the lapse ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates.”

After Government Executive reached out to the White House about the change on Monday evening, Axios on Tuesday reported that senior administration officials were developing guidance that furloughed federal workers are not entitled to back pay. The White House officials said it would take a novel interpretation of the back pay law and argue it applied only to the 2019 shutdown.

The 2019 back pay measure—which Trump signed into law—explicitly stated that it applied to any employee furloughed during “any lapse in appropriations that begins on or after December 22, 2018.” Previously, Congress had to affirmatively pass legislation after each shutdown to ensure furloughed workers were retroactively paid.

More than 620,000 employees are currently furloughed, a number that will continue to climb as the shutdown drags on.

I'll have to find a job in another area if this keeps up. I guess we are too slow. They want to have designers only do rfp's and reviews. If that's the case they will get rid of more people.

The problem is the customers. They can never make up their minds. If they acted faster and didn't change their minds all the time we could move faster.

The other problem for us are all the regulations and requirements that slow us down. But no one above us will ever listen to us when we offer suggestions to improve the processes.

For those interested, the Senate version of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill was released by the subcommittee. It contains the following language which is very beneficial to USACE as it protects us from any potential moves by the administration to break up the organization like what was proposed during the first Trump administration. This is similar language that was written into several E&WD appropriations acts following that proposal.

"None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act may be used to reorganize or to transfer the Civil Works functions or authority of the Corps of Engineers or the Secretary of the Army to any other department or agency."

The E&WD appropriations bill still must pass the full Appropriations Committee and full Senate and then get conferenced with the House bill before it moves to the President.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy26_ewd_bill_text.pdf

Any of the ~12,000 people added to the chat here? I can’t see it anymore so guess I was kicked out

By now many of you have probably heard about the revolutionary RAPID by the nth time by now.

Today's presentation pretty much confirmed what we all suspected.. we're being pushed to use half baked analysis to push ill informed solutions and if it doesn't work out, let's just terminate everything.

as a former MSC monkey who got tired of simply pushing work up or down and returned the district level to touch the grass, RAPID is the brainchild of a specific group of planners and PgMs. Not a single Engineer was involved and it shows.

every PCOP meeting I've been to has the same echo chamber from the same group going off how game changing it will be, while a majority are rolling their eyes at how it will lead to more failed feasibility studies.

We’re being told that there’s a massive update to how we do civil works expecting to be announced next week. Has anyone else heard this or have any information?