Originally Posted by gsoltso

I find it difficult to disagree. The evidence is there for anyone that wishes to look for it.

I would support it for a completely self-centric reason first - GS would give me a pretty good pay raise. I would also support it because I think it would help with some of the retention issues we seem to consistently face. I also think that there is almost a zero percent chance that it will ever happen. In some cases, it would take someone making 40K to almost 70K in one fell swoop - multiply that by thousands of employees nationwide (in varying levels of that scenario), and the budget would be an even larger issue than it currently is.

Not funding vacancies is actually about the standard way that many agencies address budget shortfalls. If there is no one populating that position, it becomes an immediate savings of 35k+, + benefits cost, + training costs, + whatever else we spend on an employee each year. It adds up. It will also have an impact on retention, and the ability to flex as needed at times. I don't think this is a budget ploy, but it is going to be something that is a part of the discussion moving forward. I would love to see a streamlined budget process, but that has not been the trend since I was born, and I do not anticipate it will change any time soon.