|
|
Post by generalsherman on Oct 22, 2020 13:20:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 22, 2020 13:29:30 GMT -5
Sounds bad
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 22, 2020 15:38:53 GMT -5
It does, yeah. But think about the OPM regulatory counsel who have to draft a FR notice for this, and read through all the comments, only to get it published in the CFR...right in time for them to start drafting a whole new FR notice to remove the new Reg. What happens in two weeks (or however long) determines how I worried I am about this. Heck, let's be really optimistic and hope that our ALJ NORs could be resurrected into having significance again! |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 22, 2020 15:51:28 GMT -5
This is absolutely disgusting but it is what is expected of the current administration. As the article states, if Dr. Fauci were in Schedule F he would have been gone in March.
We are falling apart, it seems if you are a government employee you are part of the deep state supporting cannibalistic elites who molest and eat children.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 22, 2020 16:20:58 GMT -5
Wow! This is indeed stunning. The hits just keep on coming from this administration. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Oct 22, 2020 16:55:22 GMT -5
federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2020/10/new-executive-order-may-reclassify-wide-swaths-of-career-positions-as-political-appointees/I respectfully bring your attention to this little gem in the article from the above link: This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has created a new schedule for the purposes of hiring and reclassifying career federal employees. Trump signed an executive order in 2018 which created a new schedule for future administrative law judges and gave agency heads authority to hire or fire them at will. The EO applied only to new administrative law judges, not existing ALJs who remain part of the competitive civil service. But this latest order applies to both current and future employees with policy-making or “confidential” positions. It moves these positions out of the competitive civil service and into the excepted service, where employees who accept a Schedule F role would lose their current rights to appeal disciplinary procedures and firings. And it gives agency heads the authority to hire or fire employees within this new schedule at will. According to the executive order, Schedule F would apply to positions that participate in policy advocacy, supervise attorneys, lead collective bargaining negotiations, draft regulations or views, circulates or works with proposed regulations, guidance, executive orders or other non-public policy proposals covered by “deliberative process privilege.” Executive secretariats and confidential assistants are also covered, as is any GS-13 or higher who directly reports or regularly works with an agency head or anyone appointed by the president.
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 22, 2020 16:59:54 GMT -5
federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2020/10/new-executive-order-may-reclassify-wide-swaths-of-career-positions-as-political-appointees/I respectfully bring your attention to this little gem in the article from the above link: This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has created a new schedule for the purposes of hiring and reclassifying career federal employees. Trump signed an executive order in 2018 which created a new schedule for future administrative law judges and gave agency heads authority to hire or fire them at will. The EO applied only to new administrative law judges, not existing ALJs who remain part of the competitive civil service. But this latest order applies to both current and future employees with policy-making or “confidential” positions. It moves these positions out of the competitive civil service and into the excepted service, where employees who accept a Schedule F role would lose their current rights to appeal disciplinary procedures and firings. And it gives agency heads the authority to hire or fire employees within this new schedule at will. According to the executive order, Schedule F would apply to positions that participate in policy advocacy, supervise attorneys, lead collective bargaining negotiations, draft regulations or views, circulates or works with proposed regulations, guidance, executive orders or other non-public policy proposals covered by “deliberative process privilege.” Executive secretariats and confidential assistants are also covered, as is any GS-13 or higher who directly reports or regularly works with an agency head or anyone appointed by the president. Many of us are, unfortunately, well aware of that little gem of an EO... |
|
robg
Full Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by robg on Oct 22, 2020 18:48:12 GMT -5
So, assuming the current administration loses the election in two weeks and be out of office in February. There’s barely 90 days, I guess. So, somebody please talk me down. After February this all thankfully goes away? Right?
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 22, 2020 19:03:31 GMT -5
So, assuming the current administration loses the election in two weeks and be out of office in February. There’s barely 90 days, I guess. So, somebody please talk me down. After February this all thankfully goes away? Right? Odds are better than even on that, I'd imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Oct 22, 2020 19:20:01 GMT -5
I think this calls for emergency bourbon.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Oct 22, 2020 19:46:34 GMT -5
Deep breath. Relax. Think back to that beach vacation.
There is no need for “emergency bourbon.”
Have a non-emergency bourbon and kick back.
|
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Oct 22, 2020 20:38:02 GMT -5
Does this mean that those ALJs who left competitive service for excepted service got burned?
Is the OPM assurance that excepted service ALJs are treated the same as excepted service ALJs now dead letter? Or does the designation ALJ shield it from this EO under the APA?
|
|
captn
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by captn on Oct 22, 2020 22:31:11 GMT -5
Not scared. Plethora of emails and training materials that make it absolutely clear that I have absolutely no input into policy and must follow the interpretation of others. Never been asked for my opinion and clearly must follow policy directives from above.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Oct 22, 2020 23:28:39 GMT -5
Deep breath. Relax. Think back to that beach vacation. There is no need for “emergency bourbon.” Have a non-emergency bourbon and kick back. Maybe, several non-emergency bourbons. |
|
|
|
Post by wacokid on Oct 22, 2020 23:50:11 GMT -5
Coming from the IJ perspective, it's not clear to me what, if any, affect this would have on IJs. We are already excepted service, so at least that much wouldn't change for us. And I might add, that hasn't bothered me in the least. I came from a different Fed excepted service position, so that's all I have known.
|
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Oct 22, 2020 23:51:34 GMT -5
Deadlines in EO means all schedule F could be fired day before inauguration. Imagine thousands of employee being given notice day before inauguration. On top of that, current EOs say personnel actions become permanent part of employee record. Sure another EO could roll it all back, but how long would that take? What happens while processing new rollback EO? What about those who actually may warrant termination?
It is already difficult enough to try and terminate someone during pandemic. Now gov’t want to make it as easy as I don’t like you, so you are fired during pandemic. Model employer?
ALJs, IJs, and plenty of others would fall under “policy advocating” and be converted. Scheduling 50 hearings per month, agree rate, or making yearly dispo goal doesn’t matter under EO. Better hope SES drag their feet starting 11/4.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 23, 2020 5:23:51 GMT -5
Deadlines in EO means all schedule F could be fired day before inauguration. Imagine thousands of employee being given notice day before inauguration. On top of that, current EOs say personnel actions become permanent part of employee record. Sure another EO could roll it all back, but how long would that take? What happens while processing new rollback EO? What about those who actually may warrant termination? It is already difficult enough to try and terminate someone during pandemic. Now gov’t want to make it as easy as I don’t like you, so you are fired during pandemic. Model employer? ALJs, IJs, and plenty of others would fall under “policy advocating” and be converted. Scheduling 50 hearings per month, agree rate, or making yearly dispo goal doesn’t matter under EO. Better hope SES drag their feet starting 11/4. Yikes I had not gotten that far in analyzing this yet. Worse than I initially thought |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 23, 2020 6:47:26 GMT -5
Coming from the IJ perspective, it's not clear to me what, if any, affect this would have on IJs. We are already excepted service, so at least that much wouldn't change for us. And I might add, that hasn't bothered me in the least. I came from a different Fed excepted service position, so that's all I have known. Many excepted service employees, including IJs and others meeting the current continuous service requirement of 5 USC 7511(a)(1)(B) or (C), can only have actions taken against them that promote the efficiency of the service and can appeal any adverse action with the MSPB. Schedule F removes that protection. IF it happens, it could be a huge change. I did pick up that part. Makes it too easy to get rid of feds |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 23, 2020 7:16:33 GMT -5
Coming from the IJ perspective, it's not clear to me what, if any, affect this would have on IJs. We are already excepted service, so at least that much wouldn't change for us. And I might add, that hasn't bothered me in the least. I came from a different Fed excepted service position, so that's all I have known. Many excepted service employees, including IJs and others meeting the current continuous service requirement of 5 USC 7511(a)(1)(B) or (C), can only have actions taken against them that promote the efficiency of the service and can appeal any adverse action with the MSPB. Schedule F removes that protection. IF it happens, it could be a huge change. The authority to appeal to the MSPB is not statutory? I admit, I don't know much about this area of law. |
|
|
|
Post by fingerscrossed on Oct 23, 2020 7:55:29 GMT -5
Removal protections for ALJs are statutory under 5 USC 7521. Therefore, an EO cannot change the process for removing an ALJ by making them at will employees. The standard is good cause as determined by MSPB after an opportunity for a hearing before the board. ALJs may be moved to the excepted service, this may make it easier to hire ALJs, but it can't make it easier to fire them since that would require the statute to be amended. However, if the statute gets struck down as unconstitutional (several pending cases are challenging ALJ removal protections), then all bets are off.
|
|
