|
|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 2, 2018 9:34:02 GMT -5
Government shutdowns have happened under Presidents of both parties. Eight times with Carter, Clinton, and Obama. Ten times with Ford, Reagan, and G H W Bush. I'm not fact-checking what's reported by CNN, so if the story is wrong, it's on CNN. I thought there had been more shutdowns than this, but I'm getting old and the brain just can't clear out all of the fog of some of these memories. www.cnn.com/2018/01/13/politics/us-government-shutdowns-budget-chart/index.htmlThere have been two more this year since the CNN story came out (probably not what you're forgetting), though the February '18 shutdown was a matter of hours and really only impacted the east coast (though we all were forced to be furloughed if we used any leave that day, even if it occurred after the funding bill was passed that morning). |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Aug 2, 2018 9:35:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Aug 2, 2018 10:03:33 GMT -5
Only if a "shutdown" truly meant absolutely no civil service employee could work, including the Air Traffic Controllers, and military service members; only then we would see how fast he would be willing to boastfully make these claims. If no civil servant worked a single day during a shutdown, and the Fed Gov't totally shutdown, not a single elected official would ever let it happen. Ever. Period. You are so right. For it to work, the government must be truly shut down, not just museums and monuments. I've worked through two government "shutdowns" that I can remember. My agency continued to work during both using some magic checking account of "prior years' unused funds." Definitely not good for morale, because while the rest of the feds got a paid vacation, my agency didn't even warrant a pat on the back and a "thanks for your dedication." |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Aug 2, 2018 10:44:19 GMT -5
Government shutdowns have happened under Presidents of both parties. Eight times with Carter, Clinton, and Obama. Ten times with Ford, Reagan, and G H W Bush. I'm not fact-checking what's reported by CNN, so if the story is wrong, it's on CNN. I thought there had been more shutdowns than this, but I'm getting old and the brain just can't clear out all of the fog of some of these memories. www.cnn.com/2018/01/13/politics/us-government-shutdowns-budget-chart/index.htmlThese all involved divided government situations except Carter's (and Trump's, which aren't on the CNN chart). Another big caveat, as noted in the article, is that prior to 1980, funding lapses did not shut down the government, people still worked despite no funding. So I would make a distinction there between a true shutdown and a “funding lapse.” |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 21:34:40 GMT -5
Has anyone else read this article? I would like everyone's thoughts on this development...
Work Underway to Shift OPM Policy Offices to White House; Phased Reorganization
"Working groups already are in place to shift OPM’s policy offices to the White House and break off its operating divisions, officials have said, adding that they expect the planned reorganization to be carried out in phases...
At a Senate hearing, OPM director Jeff Pon termed the recently announced reorganization plan an “opportunity to elevate the federal workforce management function and maximize the operational efficiency of human capital services . . . OPM can concentrate on centralized policy development in areas such as employee compensation, workforce supply and demand, identification of future workforce skill needs, leadership and talent management, and other important issues.”
"...Pon also said that given last year’s law requiring DoD to take over from OPM responsibility for background investigations for its own employees, it makes sense to shift the entire OPM background investigations bureau to the DoD and to have it take over responsibility for the entire federal workforce."
In a statement submitted to the hearing, the NTEU union said the proposal amounts to “breaking up” OPM, not elevating it. “We are concerned about the break-up of retirement and health care policy and operations, and the loss of needed independence from all White Houses for federal employee and workforce management policy-making and decisions,” it said...."
--
Is it odd that the military would be the entity determining whether civilians can hold a civilian job, or not, based on whether the military decides if they can have a security clearance of any level? Should not civilians be running the civil (i.e. Federal) government including the determination of who is fit to be so employed, and thereby retain the power and authority over the military?
Please indulge me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 21:56:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Aug 6, 2018 22:33:25 GMT -5
The Government Publishing Office (GPO) will be taking the Federal Digital System (FDsys) offline in December 2018. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action To avoid extensive links on this forum that will be dead in a few months, please try to use links to its successor, and update your bookmarks. www.govinfo.gov |
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Aug 6, 2018 22:43:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Aug 7, 2018 10:59:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 11:16:52 GMT -5
This Story is extremely Disturbing. ALJs better listen to Management Directives or be fired expeditiously is the premise. |
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Aug 7, 2018 20:26:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Jan 23, 2019 21:48:07 GMT -5
The Government Publishing Office (GPO) will be taking the Federal Digital System (FDsys) offline in December 2018. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action To avoid extensive links on this forum that will be dead in a few months, please try to use links to its successor, and update your bookmarks. www.govinfo.gov It looks like FDsys is offline, but the home page URL takes you to the new website. |
|
|
|
Post by Serious, J. on May 2, 2019 21:45:30 GMT -5
It’s Time to Fix an Unfair Federal Retirement Rule.
By Rep. Derek Kilmer (U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer represents Washington’s 6th congressional district. He serves on the House Appropriations Committee). I introduced the Federal Retirement Fairness Act. It is a simple solution to this complex problem. Workers in this situation can make up for the years they didn’t pay into the retirement system with a one-time “catch up payment” which amounts to a deposit of 1.3 percent of their base pay for each year spent in temporary status, plus corresponding interest, and the amount the government would have contributed during those years, as calculated by the Office of Personnel Management. www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2018/04/its-time-fix-unfair-federal-retirement-rule/147830/?oref=river I wonder, is this 1.3% of current base pay? Or 1.3% of base pay received during the years you are trying to buy back? Either way, it would be a nice chunk of money going into FERS. The deposit would be 1.3% of base pay received during the years you are trying to buy back. Thanks, SPN Lifer. I'd do it even if they used my current base pay. For someone like me, the interest would be a much bigger issue, as my two-year federal judicial clerkship occurred near the beginning of my legal career. As with you, I think it would be worth it. For judicial clerkships, there is a provision where the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) may exempt positions of temporary or uncertain duration from FERS withholding and contributions. 5 U.S.C. § 8347(p), available at www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/8347 . Presumably a subsequent employing agency could request the AO to remove the exemption and allow the employee to make a deposit including interest. This option should indeed be open to all former temporary employees from whom FERS contributions were not withheld. The law should be changed. The issue surfaces once again: www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2019/05/lawmakers-push-allow-pension-contributions-former-temporary-feds/156722/?oref=channeltopstory |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 22:10:02 GMT -5
OPM Moves to Implement Parts of Trump Order Easing Firing of Feds... The proposed regulation would insert a new step into the process by which new hires graduate to become full federal employees: reminding managers of when the end of an employee’s one-year probationary period is 90 days and 30 days away. “OPM is proposing . . . to require agencies to notify supervisors that an employee’s probationary period is ending . . . and advise a supervisor to make an affirmative decision regarding the employee’s fitness for continued employment or otherwise take appropriate action.” Additionally, OPM proposes streamlining the process by which agencies can demote or fire workers for “unacceptable” performance, clarifying that agencies are not required to help employees improve or provide an improvement period longer than federal law requires. Members of the public have until Oct. 16 to submit comments on the proposed rules at Regulations.gov. www.govexec.com/management/2019/09/opm-moves-implement-parts-trump-order-easing-firing-feds/159904 The proposed rules are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/17/2019 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2019-19636, and on govinfo.gov Or are here: s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-19636.pdf Ouch. By 2024 all federal employees are mandated to have a Twitter Account so they can be fired via app |
|
|
|
Post by willowby on Oct 6, 2019 9:20:28 GMT -5
I am one of the NTE 4 year term hires from this past year. I am a former federal employee from the judiciary (20+ years). I am wondering how many attorneys who were hired last year as NTE term attorney advisors have been fired from other offices and what rights, if any, we NTE attorneys have. (Why did the SSA hire so many new attorneys when, by calculations, the SSA could have figured out how quickly the backlog would be eliminated? The SSA must have known that it would fire many of the new hires). I have been told by someone in management at SSA that my prior federal employment gives me some kind of extra protection. I don't think it is much but I would like to know what it is and if there is a place where I can find that kind of information. I am still struggling to meet the DWPI. I have had a slow uphill battle to get there but am close. However, it seems that the SSA looks at the DWPI over the long term and not just by month. I know that two other attorneys who were hired in NTE term slots in my office are meeting the DWPI. One has met the DWPI requirement since she hit her 6 month mark and the other one has hit it for the last three months (including September). They started earlier than me but the one who has hit her DWPI for the past three months only started about 45 days before me so I am definitely lagging behind. Any information that you can provide to me would be very much appreciated. I very much want to keep my job and have worked my butt off to keep it but I think I am likely to be fired soon. I am also worried that, if I am fired, the SSA will fight my application for unemployment.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Oct 6, 2019 10:26:53 GMT -5
I am one of the NTE 4 year term hires from this past year. I am a former federal employee from the judiciary (20+ years). I am wondering how many attorneys who were hired last year as NTE term attorney advisors have been fired from other offices and what rights, if any, we NTE attorneys have. (Why did the SSA hire so many new attorneys when, by calculations, the SSA could have figured out how quickly the backlog would be eliminated? The SSA must have known that it would fire many of the new hires). I have been told by someone in management at SSA that my prior federal employment gives me some kind of extra protection. I don't think it is much but I would like to know what it is and if there is a place where I can find that kind of information. I am still struggling to meet the DWPI. I have had a slow uphill battle to get there but am close. However, it seems that the SSA looks at the DWPI over the long term and not just by month. I know that two other attorneys who were hired in NTE term slots in my office are meeting the DWPI. One has met the DWPI requirement since she hit her 6 month mark and the other one has hit it for the last three months (including September). They started earlier than me but the one who has hit her DWPI for the past three months only started about 45 days before me so I am definitely lagging behind. Any information that you can provide to me would be very much appreciated. I very much want to keep my job and have worked my butt off to keep it but I think I am likely to be fired soon. I am also worried that, if I am fired, the SSA will fight my application for unemployment. Are you on probation? Maybe your prior federal service counts toward your probationary period and you are not on probation (double check that)? That would give you extra rights over someone still in a probationary period. As for DWPI, focus on knowing the law (SSRs, listings, ARs, POMS, CFR, etc.). Once you know the law, you will know what is relevant to the decision and what to look for in the file (can spot issues where a claimant meets a listing or special medical vocational profile, etc.) (you can use the DWS tool to quickly locate things in the file, like an operative report, etc.). POMS pretty much breaks down the law for you. Also, know how where to find things in the file quickly (e.g., use DWS tool, 3368 tells you claimant's allegations, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Oct 6, 2019 11:29:25 GMT -5
I am one of the NTE 4 year term hires from this past year. I am a former federal employee from the judiciary (20+ years). I am wondering how many attorneys who were hired last year as NTE term attorney advisors have been fired from other offices and what rights, if any, we NTE attorneys have. (Why did the SSA hire so many new attorneys when, by calculations, the SSA could have figured out how quickly the backlog would be eliminated? The SSA must have known that it would fire many of the new hires). I have been told by someone in management at SSA that my prior federal employment gives me some kind of extra protection. I don't think it is much but I would like to know what it is and if there is a place where I can find that kind of information. I am still struggling to meet the DWPI. I have had a slow uphill battle to get there but am close. However, it seems that the SSA looks at the DWPI over the long term and not just by month. I know that two other attorneys who were hired in NTE term slots in my office are meeting the DWPI. One has met the DWPI requirement since she hit her 6 month mark and the other one has hit it for the last three months (including September). They started earlier than me but the one who has hit her DWPI for the past three months only started about 45 days before me so I am definitely lagging behind. Any information that you can provide to me would be very much appreciated. I very much want to keep my job and have worked my butt off to keep it but I think I am likely to be fired soon. I am also worried that, if I am fired, the SSA will fight my application for unemployment. I believe the issue of whether you have MSPB appeal rights will turn on whether you have 2 years (assuming you are a non-preference eligible in the excepted service) of current and continuous service (without a break in service) in the same or similar position. My MSPB is a bit rusty though. |
|
|
|
Post by briscoej on Oct 7, 2019 20:12:00 GMT -5
I am one of the NTE 4 year term hires from this past year. I am a former federal employee from the judiciary (20+ years). I am wondering how many attorneys who were hired last year as NTE term attorney advisors have been fired from other offices and what rights, if any, we NTE attorneys have. (Why did the SSA hire so many new attorneys when, by calculations, the SSA could have figured out how quickly the backlog would be eliminated? The SSA must have known that it would fire many of the new hires). I have been told by someone in management at SSA that my prior federal employment gives me some kind of extra protection. I don't think it is much but I would like to know what it is and if there is a place where I can find that kind of information. I am still struggling to meet the DWPI. I have had a slow uphill battle to get there but am close. However, it seems that the SSA looks at the DWPI over the long term and not just by month. I know that two other attorneys who were hired in NTE term slots in my office are meeting the DWPI. One has met the DWPI requirement since she hit her 6 month mark and the other one has hit it for the last three months (including September). They started earlier than me but the one who has hit her DWPI for the past three months only started about 45 days before me so I am definitely lagging behind. Any information that you can provide to me would be very much appreciated. I very much want to keep my job and have worked my butt off to keep it but I think I am likely to be fired soon. I am also worried that, if I am fired, the SSA will fight my application for unemployment. The issue largely comes down to whether or not you are an employee per the statute. See 5 U.S.C. § 7511. The MSPB also has some helpful information www.mspb.gov/studies/adverse_action_report/14_IdentifyingProbationers.htm. The probationary terminations I am aware of have either been for conduct or people whose productivity was such that there was no reasonable expectation that the person will be able to be successful. I haven’t seen any hint that the probationary period is being used other than as it is intended, which is to evaluate an individual’s ability to be successful in the job. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 16, 2019 19:33:38 GMT -5
I certainly enjoy the benefits of being a federal worker, and no one, federal or not, likes to contemplate cuts to his compensation. However, I am probably at least as fed up with the inability to get rid of non-producers and low-quality producers as the authors of the proposal in question. Those people make my job harder. If we did a better job policing ourselves then maybe we wouldn't have to contemplate reductions for all. I guess I just don't understand why it HAS to be so much harder to fire a lousy fed than any other lousy worker in America. Maybe because its in our interest to have a professional civil service and not a revolving door like so much of the private sector. Bismarck understood this. I agree that there are legions of underperforming feds. I attribute that to lazy superiors who can't stand the inherent confrontation of PIPing a deserving employee. |
|
|
|
Post by bradydarcy on Oct 16, 2019 22:25:15 GMT -5
I certainly enjoy the benefits of being a federal worker, and no one, federal or not, likes to contemplate cuts to his compensation. However, I am probably at least as fed up with the inability to get rid of non-producers and low-quality producers as the authors of the proposal in question. Those people make my job harder. If we did a better job policing ourselves then maybe we wouldn't have to contemplate reductions for all. I guess I just don't understand why it HAS to be so much harder to fire a lousy fed than any other lousy worker in America. Maybe because its in our interest to have a professional civil service and not a revolving door like so much of the private sector. Bismarck understood this. I agree that there are legions of underperforming feds. I attribute that to lazy superiors who can't stand the inherent confrontation of PIPing a deserving employee. I always thought it had something to do with the constitution and federal employment as a property right. |
|
