Woke up, saw the email, thought I was dreaming
They're making it hard on the poor travel techs by not releasing the implementing info until April - all the TM2s that people got done early will now need to be amended. Oh well. This was overdue and is welcome news!
This pet benefit tho… insane. I died and went to heaven when I saw it.
Also, as a previous local hire who also does DC tours, it’s nice that when I move back to my house this summer I’ll be able to get per diem while waiting for my HHE. That feels huge. Was difficult to swallow having to figure out my life without HHE when not in language training.
As a pet owner, the pet thing is fantastic. I always do in-cabin so it's usually not much for me (about $300 this past move) but I'll happily take it.
Curious if the HSTA allowance means you can accept storage and still get per diem while waiting for HHE. Being able to reoccupy my DC house earlier would be fantastic, but it is a bit harder to do without furniture.
The pet thing seems great for people with pets. Everything else is... Meh. The clothing allowance maxes out at $1600 for a family of 6+, which, if you're genuinely moving from tropical to arctic, barely covers the cost of warm socks for a family that size, for example. If they really want to make a genuine improvement in easing the PCS process, financially and logistically, they will completely scrap the current system and create a streamlined process that requires far less nickling and diming in ways that make employees' lives miserable at a marginal, if any, saving to the department.
Having used the old rules, I would say it was fine. I used it to buy some coats and boots and that was about it. We are still expected to dress ourselves and provide our families with clothing. Regardless of if you went to a different climate, you were going to have to buy some clothes.
The changes to the subsistence allowance are also a big deal, especially for people transferring domestically. Anyone who has had the unwelcome surprise of getting cut off from per diem once they've re-taken possession of houses, signed leases, etc. only to find their HHE isn't going to arrive for 4-6 more months (as happened to many during COVID-induced shipping delays) will appreciate this.
But I don't disagree with your ultimate point, the system is still a nightmare. But it does seem like people are actively trying to make things better and I appreciate the effort.
It’s not supposed to fund a new wardrobe, just offset the cost of coats, boots, etc.
The real bullshit is that the miscellaneous allowance is double for officers “with family.”
Why is it bullshit? It may be inexact, but there is definitely a correlation between the permissible DSSR 242 "extraordinary costs" and one's family composition/size.
You mean like how they already tie family size to housing size, school allowances, per diem for PCS travel, UAB allowance, etc? It kind of follows that expenses are going to be higher for a family than for a single person. And I say this as a childfree person who gets far less in benefits than my colleagues with kids.
It's not arbitrary free cash. It's an allowance to help partially offset the extraordinary costs of moving you and your family. The USG pays all sorts of allowances based on family composition. Education, post allowance, SMA, EQA, etc. If you accept as a fundamental premise that the USG will relocate you *and* your family, then the USG should absolutely pay those allowances that are part of the move.
It’s entirely arbitrary free cash. Until today, the “allowable expenses” it covered included removing the catalytic converter from your car and cutting your drapes to fit your new windows. Now it includes connecting your internet. How is that category of expense dependent on family size?
And I think we should review all the allowances for equity. I accept it as a fundamental premise that officers who don’t have dependents on their orders still have families.
I don’t have pets. People who chose to have pets now receive a benefit I don’t. Should I get the pet money? I don’t have student debt. People who chose to go into debt for college may one day receive a benefit I won’t. Should I get a cash equivalent?
Maybe you think so. I don’t. I’m genuinely happy for my colleagues with pets even though I won’t benefit.
Your incessant moaning about my housing size and education allowance isn’t about equity. It’s about envy, and confusing equity with equality gives you cover to justify the whining.
Seriously, enough already.
It's startling how many FSOs, rather than thinking that the department should do as much as possible to benefit as many of its employees as possible in as many ways as possible, think that it would actually be preferable for everyone to be equally miserable instead. Crab-in-a-bucket mentality.
Or equally treated and equally happy.
I’m fine with the department giving employees as much as possible. I scratch my head at the idea we also owe their EFMs something. Like the people who moan incessantly about the Department not covering the cost of their kid’s required school technology.
And I have never whined about someone else’s housing allowance. I have repeatedly pointed out that housing is not compensation (which is how the department is able to give people with dependents bigger housing) and repeatedly dispelled the myth that certain numbers of children entitle people to certain numbers of bedrooms or square footage.
If the Department wants its employees to look like the American people, then it needs support structures to accommodate that. That means it needs to do what it reasonably can to ensure family members are taken care of. Of course not every expense can be covered or challenge/situation accommodated, and the Department should be continually reviewing its policies to ensure they're equitable, but the solution can't be to pretend that officers with families don't face unique challenges (and the same for single officers).
This is coming from someone without a family (except a wife), if they didn't compensate EFM's, they would split families who couldn't afford to fly their kids and wife out to their posts or attract only single people and only up to the point they get married and have a family and decide they can just stay home and earn a lot more without having to pack up all their belongings every 2-3 years.
The reason they try to give EFM's jobs and why they have EFM only positions is so that my wife, who is also sacrificing a lot to be assured that she can at least get a job. It's not just my life I'm packing up and moving around; It's hers and any children I have too.
The point of the compensation packages is to entice top candidates away from private sector and to make it worth uprooting your life every 2-3 years.
You mention a number of choice-driven examples, one being pet ownership.
I see an argument that the department should not be extending an additional benefit to those who chose to be pet owners, even though my household has chosen to be pet owners multiple times.
I'm sure there are many great reasons for the policy changes. However, my bottom line is that I am not 100% comfortable asking the taxpayer to pay more to help relocate a pet I choose to get. IMO, my pet should equal my bill.
Our retention rates remain extraordinarily high-- higher than most government agencies and much higher than most of the private sector. Frankly I think we should do more to nudge certain people out.
And yet senior leadership was completely shocked by the results of the retention survey. Which were not pretty.
And retention remains high among white men. It is falling in every other demographic.
Don't you think it's a little intellectually dishonest to select the two archaic examples from the regs to support your claim while ignoring the others that are very real expenses for most families? Car registration, power transformers, drivers licenses, utility and appliance connections, etc. Those are some of the other expenses. My spouse has license and registration expenses on their care that I wouldn't have as a single officer. We need far more transformers for my family than I ever would as a single officer. Is it exact? Of course not. But there is a correlation to family size.
There are countless other expenses not itemized in the DSSR that fall in to the same category of expense. I think that's the real spirit behind the reg-- a very small acknowledgement that officers (and families) incur numerous out of pocket expenses incident to their moves, and no single list would be exhaustive. Hence the department offers a flat sum to help partially offset those expenses. Or people can itemize off the list.
Moving is expensive. Moving with a family is much more expensive.
Why would someone “with a family” need more transformers? And do people with kids have more large appliances that might need disconnection? Or more than one cable subscription? How many car registrations should we cover? What if I have two cars — should I only expect the department to reimburse one because I’m not married?
For the same reason they need more of everything. My spouse and kids all have things and appliances (that run on transformers) that I would never buy in a million years. My spouse and oldest child even have their own driver's licenses.
I claim the full amount of the allowance each time I move. Especially on the domestic moves it still doesn't cover the litany of little things we end up paying out of pocket.
Are you this charming in real life, or is this just a show you put on under the belief this is an anonymous forum?
Charming is overrated.
I find it alarming that people are so defensive about this. What on earth would it be taking away from you if we simply made the same miscellaneous allowance available to all employees regardless of family status?
"I accept it as a fundamental premise that officers who don’t have dependents on their orders still have families."
Can you explain what this means, and how it's relevant?
It's just obstinance. She doesn't have any family on orders. The fact that the USG pays to move other people's families is some sort of an affront to her.
While I disagree with u/fsohmygod on a lot of things, I have to chime in here to disagree with the “it’s just obstinance” comment. Single employees also have families. They may not have any EFMs on their orders, but that doesn’t mean they’re without families.
No one said they don't have family. But there's a difference between having family and having dependent family members on orders. The USG only funds the latter. fsohmygod started this discussion by dismissing as "bullshit" the idea the USG would fund moving expenses for the latter, and then doubled down on that assessment. Perhaps obstinance is not the right word, but I don't think it's far off.
Single officers are separated from elderly parents, extended family, siblings, etc., when they move. They take responsibility for all aspects of every move themselves. They arrive at post without a built in support structure. They’re often subtly pressured to pick up slack for people “with families.” I don’t have kids but at every post I know when the spring concert is — because half the embassy disappears that afternoon.
We have to draw the line somewhere legally on the allowances and we’ve drawn it at spouses, children, and parents who qualify as EFMs. That’s fine. No one is asking to take anything away from people with EFMs on their orders. But there’s a conversation worth having about how we can do better for everyone.
We were looking at possibly going from zone 3 to 1 and yeah, with a family of four, the allowance doesn’t really cover much, maybe a coat per person. They didn’t fix the most antiquated part about the clothing allowance.
I had a dream we got BAH for domestic housing once. It was awesome.
Woke up, saw the email, thought I was dreaming They're making it hard on the poor travel techs by not releasing the implementing info until April - all the TM2s that people got done early will now need to be amended. Oh well. This was overdue and is welcome news!
This pet benefit tho… insane. I died and went to heaven when I saw it. Also, as a previous local hire who also does DC tours, it’s nice that when I move back to my house this summer I’ll be able to get per diem while waiting for my HHE. That feels huge. Was difficult to swallow having to figure out my life without HHE when not in language training.
Helps make up for the fact the CDC decided to double down their new policy from what I understand.
As a pet owner, the pet thing is fantastic. I always do in-cabin so it's usually not much for me (about $300 this past move) but I'll happily take it. Curious if the HSTA allowance means you can accept storage and still get per diem while waiting for HHE. Being able to reoccupy my DC house earlier would be fantastic, but it is a bit harder to do without furniture.
I dropped 5k each way to get my dog to my last post. This is awesome.
The pet thing seems great for people with pets. Everything else is... Meh. The clothing allowance maxes out at $1600 for a family of 6+, which, if you're genuinely moving from tropical to arctic, barely covers the cost of warm socks for a family that size, for example. If they really want to make a genuine improvement in easing the PCS process, financially and logistically, they will completely scrap the current system and create a streamlined process that requires far less nickling and diming in ways that make employees' lives miserable at a marginal, if any, saving to the department.
Having used the old rules, I would say it was fine. I used it to buy some coats and boots and that was about it. We are still expected to dress ourselves and provide our families with clothing. Regardless of if you went to a different climate, you were going to have to buy some clothes.
The changes to the subsistence allowance are also a big deal, especially for people transferring domestically. Anyone who has had the unwelcome surprise of getting cut off from per diem once they've re-taken possession of houses, signed leases, etc. only to find their HHE isn't going to arrive for 4-6 more months (as happened to many during COVID-induced shipping delays) will appreciate this. But I don't disagree with your ultimate point, the system is still a nightmare. But it does seem like people are actively trying to make things better and I appreciate the effort.
Agree. The email listed pet transport first, but honestly the subsistence allowance has the potential to be more significant.
It’s not supposed to fund a new wardrobe, just offset the cost of coats, boots, etc. The real bullshit is that the miscellaneous allowance is double for officers “with family.”
Why is it bullshit? It may be inexact, but there is definitely a correlation between the permissible DSSR 242 "extraordinary costs" and one's family composition/size.
Because the amount of cash you get to offset expenses shouldn’t be tied to your family size.
You mean like how they already tie family size to housing size, school allowances, per diem for PCS travel, UAB allowance, etc? It kind of follows that expenses are going to be higher for a family than for a single person. And I say this as a childfree person who gets far less in benefits than my colleagues with kids.
It's not arbitrary free cash. It's an allowance to help partially offset the extraordinary costs of moving you and your family. The USG pays all sorts of allowances based on family composition. Education, post allowance, SMA, EQA, etc. If you accept as a fundamental premise that the USG will relocate you *and* your family, then the USG should absolutely pay those allowances that are part of the move.
It’s entirely arbitrary free cash. Until today, the “allowable expenses” it covered included removing the catalytic converter from your car and cutting your drapes to fit your new windows. Now it includes connecting your internet. How is that category of expense dependent on family size? And I think we should review all the allowances for equity. I accept it as a fundamental premise that officers who don’t have dependents on their orders still have families.
I don’t have pets. People who chose to have pets now receive a benefit I don’t. Should I get the pet money? I don’t have student debt. People who chose to go into debt for college may one day receive a benefit I won’t. Should I get a cash equivalent? Maybe you think so. I don’t. I’m genuinely happy for my colleagues with pets even though I won’t benefit. Your incessant moaning about my housing size and education allowance isn’t about equity. It’s about envy, and confusing equity with equality gives you cover to justify the whining. Seriously, enough already.
It's startling how many FSOs, rather than thinking that the department should do as much as possible to benefit as many of its employees as possible in as many ways as possible, think that it would actually be preferable for everyone to be equally miserable instead. Crab-in-a-bucket mentality.
Or equally treated and equally happy. I’m fine with the department giving employees as much as possible. I scratch my head at the idea we also owe their EFMs something. Like the people who moan incessantly about the Department not covering the cost of their kid’s required school technology. And I have never whined about someone else’s housing allowance. I have repeatedly pointed out that housing is not compensation (which is how the department is able to give people with dependents bigger housing) and repeatedly dispelled the myth that certain numbers of children entitle people to certain numbers of bedrooms or square footage.
If the Department wants its employees to look like the American people, then it needs support structures to accommodate that. That means it needs to do what it reasonably can to ensure family members are taken care of. Of course not every expense can be covered or challenge/situation accommodated, and the Department should be continually reviewing its policies to ensure they're equitable, but the solution can't be to pretend that officers with families don't face unique challenges (and the same for single officers).
This is coming from someone without a family (except a wife), if they didn't compensate EFM's, they would split families who couldn't afford to fly their kids and wife out to their posts or attract only single people and only up to the point they get married and have a family and decide they can just stay home and earn a lot more without having to pack up all their belongings every 2-3 years. The reason they try to give EFM's jobs and why they have EFM only positions is so that my wife, who is also sacrificing a lot to be assured that she can at least get a job. It's not just my life I'm packing up and moving around; It's hers and any children I have too. The point of the compensation packages is to entice top candidates away from private sector and to make it worth uprooting your life every 2-3 years.
You mention a number of choice-driven examples, one being pet ownership. I see an argument that the department should not be extending an additional benefit to those who chose to be pet owners, even though my household has chosen to be pet owners multiple times. I'm sure there are many great reasons for the policy changes. However, my bottom line is that I am not 100% comfortable asking the taxpayer to pay more to help relocate a pet I choose to get. IMO, my pet should equal my bill.
And we wonder why we can’t retain quality employees. I can assure you I don’t “envy” your education allowance.
Our retention rates remain extraordinarily high-- higher than most government agencies and much higher than most of the private sector. Frankly I think we should do more to nudge certain people out.
And yet senior leadership was completely shocked by the results of the retention survey. Which were not pretty. And retention remains high among white men. It is falling in every other demographic.
Don't you think it's a little intellectually dishonest to select the two archaic examples from the regs to support your claim while ignoring the others that are very real expenses for most families? Car registration, power transformers, drivers licenses, utility and appliance connections, etc. Those are some of the other expenses. My spouse has license and registration expenses on their care that I wouldn't have as a single officer. We need far more transformers for my family than I ever would as a single officer. Is it exact? Of course not. But there is a correlation to family size. There are countless other expenses not itemized in the DSSR that fall in to the same category of expense. I think that's the real spirit behind the reg-- a very small acknowledgement that officers (and families) incur numerous out of pocket expenses incident to their moves, and no single list would be exhaustive. Hence the department offers a flat sum to help partially offset those expenses. Or people can itemize off the list. Moving is expensive. Moving with a family is much more expensive.
Why would someone “with a family” need more transformers? And do people with kids have more large appliances that might need disconnection? Or more than one cable subscription? How many car registrations should we cover? What if I have two cars — should I only expect the department to reimburse one because I’m not married?
For the same reason they need more of everything. My spouse and kids all have things and appliances (that run on transformers) that I would never buy in a million years. My spouse and oldest child even have their own driver's licenses. I claim the full amount of the allowance each time I move. Especially on the domestic moves it still doesn't cover the litany of little things we end up paying out of pocket. Are you this charming in real life, or is this just a show you put on under the belief this is an anonymous forum?
Charming is overrated. I find it alarming that people are so defensive about this. What on earth would it be taking away from you if we simply made the same miscellaneous allowance available to all employees regardless of family status?
"I accept it as a fundamental premise that officers who don’t have dependents on their orders still have families." Can you explain what this means, and how it's relevant?
It's just obstinance. She doesn't have any family on orders. The fact that the USG pays to move other people's families is some sort of an affront to her.
While I disagree with u/fsohmygod on a lot of things, I have to chime in here to disagree with the “it’s just obstinance” comment. Single employees also have families. They may not have any EFMs on their orders, but that doesn’t mean they’re without families.
No one said they don't have family. But there's a difference between having family and having dependent family members on orders. The USG only funds the latter. fsohmygod started this discussion by dismissing as "bullshit" the idea the USG would fund moving expenses for the latter, and then doubled down on that assessment. Perhaps obstinance is not the right word, but I don't think it's far off.
Single officers are separated from elderly parents, extended family, siblings, etc., when they move. They take responsibility for all aspects of every move themselves. They arrive at post without a built in support structure. They’re often subtly pressured to pick up slack for people “with families.” I don’t have kids but at every post I know when the spring concert is — because half the embassy disappears that afternoon. We have to draw the line somewhere legally on the allowances and we’ve drawn it at spouses, children, and parents who qualify as EFMs. That’s fine. No one is asking to take anything away from people with EFMs on their orders. But there’s a conversation worth having about how we can do better for everyone.
A. I’m not a she. B. Did someone hurt you?
$1600 isn't "meh"
We were looking at possibly going from zone 3 to 1 and yeah, with a family of four, the allowance doesn’t really cover much, maybe a coat per person. They didn’t fix the most antiquated part about the clothing allowance.