|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 26, 2020 0:36:36 GMT -5
How timely! Seila Law v CFPB is due to come out tomorrow, which may overturn Humphreys Executor. That would remove a major obstacle to the at-will removal of any employees requiring appointment under Lucia (ie ALJs).
|
|
|
|
Post by Wynona Writer on Jun 26, 2020 12:49:14 GMT -5
Tweet from the White House just a little while ago.
Today, President @realdonaldtrump will sign an executive order to transform the federal hiring process—and replace one-size-fits-all, degree-based hiring with skills-based hiring.
With a lovely video announcement by Ivanka.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jun 26, 2020 13:07:28 GMT -5
The Rule of Law no longer exists in our country. I hope they grant early outs so i can retire sooner than later and move to another country
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jun 28, 2020 7:17:04 GMT -5
Tweet from the White House just a little while ago. Today, President @realdonaldtrump will sign an executive order to transform the federal hiring process—and replace one-size-fits-all, degree-based hiring with skills-based hiring. With a lovely video announcement by Ivanka. I hear she is the perfect example of “skills-based hiring.” |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jun 28, 2020 8:48:05 GMT -5
In a former life I did a lot of federal hiring. I wish I had had this flexibility. I had lots of psych, soc and art history majors who were scored higher than people with real-time relevant work experience. It hit minority applicants very hard as many of them did not complete college. Sorry pals, but I think this exec order will really help improve the federal workforce as a place of opportunity.
I don't get the original post here. If it were true, why would the administration have waited this long to actually do the things predicted? Maybe this "top aide" was not taken seriously if he even existed. I cancelled my Gov Exec subscription because of goofy stories like this back in the Clinton administration. National Enquirer is a much more accurate news source.
|
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Jun 28, 2020 10:31:32 GMT -5
The article has links to the NewYork Times reporting on the memo and the memo itself. The memo seems consistent with some of the other things written by the aid (publicly available) and the 3 executive orders issued. It is also consistent with the unitary executive theory that seems to pushed right now by some. I wouldn’t be so dismissive.
As to why they didn’t do it, the memo suggests exploring the option. My guess is that the legal opinion wasn’t supportive.
|
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 28, 2020 12:37:00 GMT -5
So did he sign this EO (which would be 13931) or what? I don't see it anywhere. I do not judge EOs by their descriptions in tweets, I like to read the actual text (I am a throwback I know).
As for the Goc exec/NY times article, this is not some conspiracy. Read the SGs brief in Lucia. Read the concurring opinions of Thomas/Gorsuch in Lucia. Does anyone think that a return to the spoils system is not the endgame here?
|
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Jun 28, 2020 13:56:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jun 29, 2020 7:24:08 GMT -5
this is how it starts. While it may be well-intentioned, removing experience requirements and allowing agencies to do their own hiring is the type of loophole that allows the blind-testing requirements of OPM to be replaced with hiring as a favor. The old system was clunky because it required SSA, et al, to consider the top three scores for every cert/city. This EO seems to allow an agency to (for example) hire a new law school graduate as ALJ at the executive’s direction, if their experience includes such qualifications as being related to someone from whom a favor is being sought. I’m not saying it will happen across the board—I’m saying it can happen. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jun 29, 2020 9:04:06 GMT -5
this is how it starts. While it may be well-intentioned, removing experience requirements and allowing agencies to do their own hiring is the type of loophole that allows the blind-testing requirements of OPM to be replaced with hiring as a favor. The old system was clunky because it required SSA, et al, to consider the top three scores for every cert/city. This EO seems to allow an agency to (for example) hire a new law school graduate as ALJ at the executive’s direction, if their experience includes such qualifications as being related to someone from whom a favor is being sought. I’m not saying it will happen across the board—I’m saying it can happen. You don't think this happens now? Think about registers cancelled and same jobs readvertised because a RIF or veteran "blocks" an insider or friend. How about a job posting for one day? Remember the lengthy SKAPS applications that required 40 pages of repetitive verbiage for outsiders when an insider could just request a simple transfer?
Civil service reform is essential to modernize the federal workforce to keep it fair. Pretend that someone else is president and maybe you won't have knee-jerk opposition to it. I had to hire a political bigshot back in the Obama days for a GS-15. Very simple: Politicals from DC were "added" to my regional hiring committee. They favored one candidate. Guess what? We all got the hint.
|
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 29, 2020 9:47:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jun 29, 2020 10:12:12 GMT -5
this is how it starts. While it may be well-intentioned, removing experience requirements and allowing agencies to do their own hiring is the type of loophole that allows the blind-testing requirements of OPM to be replaced with hiring as a favor. The old system was clunky because it required SSA, et al, to consider the top three scores for every cert/city. This EO seems to allow an agency to (for example) hire a new law school graduate as ALJ at the executive’s direction, if their experience includes such qualifications as being related to someone from whom a favor is being sought. I’m not saying it will happen across the board—I’m saying it can happen. You don't think this happens now? Think about registers cancelled and same jobs readvertised because a RIF or veteran "blocks" an insider or friend. How about a job posting for one day? Remember the lengthy SKAPS applications that required 40 pages of repetitive verbiage for outsiders when an insider could just request a simple transfer?
Civil service reform is essential to modernize the federal workforce to keep it fair. Pretend that someone else is president and maybe you won't have knee-jerk opposition to it. I had to hire a political bigshot back in the Obama days for a GS-15. Very simple: Politicals from DC were "added" to my regional hiring committee. They favored one candidate. Guess what? We all got the hint.
I have no doubt that it did happen. That is likely why lots of job questionnaires now include the question “are you now or have you ever been a political appointee?” Some jobs, like ALJ appointment, for example, previously included a blind testing threshold. What you deemed happened in your scenario could only occur AFTER that person hopped through OPMs initial hoops. They would not have gotten initially selected with a score of say, 62, despite who they knew. They might get picked over someone else later on, but not over a 75 or whatever. Now with resume in hand, they could get selected despite aptitude. It’s not just this EO—it’s everything, including Lucia and the two prior EOs. OPM was removed as a third party administrator—giving SSA the power to hire who it wants. Good or bad, there is no “blind” testing component. SSA apparently had to use the OPM list last spring, but all bets are off they will have to do so going forward. Things like seven years of experience have appeared in other agency apps for ALJ, but I don’t know that they have to any longer. I myself was screwed by the OPM process, and I was mad as hell. But I realized that it insulated all of us from a selective process that potentially allowed for every federal job to become one of political appointment at every level. It seems like the last two years of EOs are creating that process. |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jun 29, 2020 10:30:10 GMT -5
Respectfully, I do not see anything in this EO that would change political hiring. Indeed it looks like it would make it much easier, since now the favored hire does not have to have a degree.
Indeed, the EO reads in pertinent part:
"An agency may prescribe a minimum educational requirement for employment in the Federal competitive service only when a minimum educational qualification is legally required to perform the duties of the position in the State or locality where those duties are to be performed."
Note the "may" and "only."
So technically speaking an agency can hire someone as a competitive service attorney, even if that person never went to law school and never got a license.
While I agree that giving someone with a sociology degree a leg up over someone who has actual work experience in the field they are applying to is bad, I think this allows things to go way too far in the other direction.
However, the EO appears only to apply to competitive service employees. Not finished with my coffee yet, but that was my initial read.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Jun 29, 2020 11:19:31 GMT -5
I do not like this EO. However this system is broken.
Right after law school I worked as an Equal opportunity specialist Gs 11-12 for about 18 months as a NTE temp employee. My reviews were outstanding but because the agency was downsizing at the time all temps were let go. I also performed from time to time contract EEO work. None of this experience counts as government or competitive service experience.
On top of that I have 20 years of attorney experience excepted service.
I have applied for countless competitive service jobs including the EOS job I previously held. My prior boss and prior colleagues have sent me messages encouraging me to apply. Yet I can get past OPM screening tool if job is open to the public. My 20 years of excepted service counts for nothing (and there is no education requirement) And if it is not opened to the public I cannot even apply. I know I may not but the best candidate. However I also the process as currently implemented does not necessarily yield the best candidate or even a truly qualified candidate.
But I also do not have the answer. My bias is in favor of objective criteria and considering education (or I might have to rethink college versus trade school for my kids haha)
|
|
|
|
Post by bigsky on Jun 29, 2020 18:26:31 GMT -5
ALJs are not required to hold active law licenses, nor do states or localities require ALJs have law degrees.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jun 29, 2020 18:55:38 GMT -5
Time to remove the tin foil hats. Predictions of Trump doing this and that to ALJs and SSA since 11/16 have all failed to materialize. Isn't it obvious that most of the political world cares nothing about these minor functionaries?
Friends, they just don't care. Not the president. Not Congress.
Don't lose sleep--come 2021, we'll still be doing everything the same way with the same people.
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jun 29, 2020 20:46:52 GMT -5
Time to remove the tin foil hats. Predictions of Trump doing this and that to ALJs and SSA since 11/16 have all failed to materialize. Isn't it obvious that most of the political world cares nothing about these minor functionaries? Friends, they just don't care. Not the president. Not Congress. Don't lose sleep--come 2021, we'll still be doing everything the same way with the same people. it’s funny that you consider alleging that the current admin trying to make it easier to do what you note has already been happening as “wearing a tin foil hat.” If anything, your story proves that this is not some unfounded conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Jun 29, 2020 21:46:52 GMT -5
Time to remove the tin foil hats. Predictions of Trump doing this and that to ALJs and SSA since 11/16 have all failed to materialize. Isn't it obvious that most of the political world cares nothing about these minor functionaries? Friends, they just don't care. Not the president. Not Congress. Don't lose sleep--come 2021, we'll still be doing everything the same way with the same people. Well, um, they did dismantle the register. Hard to say nothing happened in the hiring process. That EO was a petty big materialization |
|
sta
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by sta on Jun 29, 2020 22:42:15 GMT -5
ALJs are not required to hold active law licenses, nor do states or localities require ALJs have law degrees. ALJs used to be required to have a license to practice law. Is not this still the case? The following is from a fairly recent job announcement: Licensure: Applicants must be licensed and authorized to practice law under the laws of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territorial court established under the United States Constitution throughout the selection process, including any period on the standing register of eligibles. Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining "active" status to practice law. Being in "good standing" is acceptable in lieu of "active" status in States where the licensing authority considers "good standing" as having a current license to practice law. |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jun 30, 2020 7:24:14 GMT -5
ALJs are required to have a license to practice law, and applicants must have an active license to screen through. However, license does not have to remain active once appointed. I think that change happened 8-10 years ago, and IIRC it was slightly controversial at the time because it was felt to threaten ALJ independence (ahh... the good ol' days). But I still keep mine active JFTHOI.
|
|
