Schedule F Memo is Out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

I’m disability side. Significantly more disability benefits (as a percentage) go to red states. That should be fun…

I don’t think Trump even cares about them anymore (well not that he ever did, but now he can be more obvious about it).

He made all sorts of promises about grocery prices, making America great, yada yada.

And what has he done ever since the election was over? Back pedaled on the promises to help his constituents, and then done everything he can to acquire more power — threatening other countries, cutting foreign aid, deporting people, wielding power over the civil workforce and trying to bend it to his will, associating with billionaires like Musk, etc. And I think RTO plus the EO about beautifying government buildings in DC is a ploy to increase commercial real estate, funded by taxpayers who will now be shelling out more for buildings and transit subsidies.

And his core base will still support all this because at least he can make them feel superior to trans people and immigrants and government workers.

So basically he’d love to get rid of SSI and do all sorts do things to destabilize SSA. He doesn’t have to worry about what is politically popular anymore now that he is in office, so why would any sort of entitlements be protected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM%20Memorandum%20re%20Schedule%20Policy%20Career%20Guidance%2001-27-2025.pdf

It is very broad. My position def falls within. Sigh.

Anybody else getting a "Page not found." message?

[Anonymous]

Yes to "page not found". 330 pm

[Anonymous]

Page is probably overrun again.

[Anonymous]

This memo is much narrower than the EO definition.

[Anonymous]

I just looked it over and part of it said that Trump has nullified some parts of the CFR. Oh, really? Hmm.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/guidance-on-implementing-president-trump-s-executive-order-titled-restoring-accountability-to-policy-influencing-positions-within-the-federal-workforce.pdf

[Anonymous]

Why has the union not filed for a TRO yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

I’m disability side. Significantly more disability benefits (as a percentage) go to red states. That should be fun…

I don’t think Trump even cares about them anymore (well not that he ever did, but now he can be more obvious about it).

He made all sorts of promises about grocery prices, making America great, yada yada.

And what has he done ever since the election was over? Back pedaled on the promises to help his constituents, and then done everything he can to acquire more power — threatening other countries, cutting foreign aid, deporting people, wielding power over the civil workforce and trying to bend it to his will, associating with billionaires like Musk, etc. And I think RTO plus the EO about beautifying government buildings in DC is a ploy to increase commercial real estate, funded by taxpayers who will now be shelling out more for buildings and transit subsidies.

And his core base will still support all this because at least he can make them feel superior to trans people and immigrants and government workers.

So basically he’d love to get rid of SSI and do all sorts do things to destabilize SSA. He doesn’t have to worry about what is politically popular anymore now that he is in office, so why would any sort of entitlements be protected?

I don’t disagree but the Senate finance proposal is cutting transit subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why has the union not filed for a TRO yet?

They need a concrete decision to get a TRO. Might do something isn’t enough. An agency needs to say they will. And it needs to say they are implementing something that violates a CBA. I don’t know of one that has yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

I’m disability side. Significantly more disability benefits (as a percentage) go to red states. That should be fun…

I don’t think Trump even cares about them anymore (well not that he ever did, but now he can be more obvious about it).

He made all sorts of promises about grocery prices, making America great, yada yada.

And what has he done ever since the election was over? Back pedaled on the promises to help his constituents, and then done everything he can to acquire more power — threatening other countries, cutting foreign aid, deporting people, wielding power over the civil workforce and trying to bend it to his will, associating with billionaires like Musk, etc. And I think RTO plus the EO about beautifying government buildings in DC is a ploy to increase commercial real estate, funded by taxpayers who will now be shelling out more for buildings and transit subsidies.

And his core base will still support all this because at least he can make them feel superior to trans people and immigrants and government workers.

So basically he’d love to get rid of SSI and do all sorts do things to destabilize SSA. He doesn’t have to worry about what is politically popular anymore now that he is in office, so why would any sort of entitlements be protected?

I don’t disagree but the Senate finance proposal is cutting transit subsidies.

That proposal is to make the benefits count as taxable income, which would affect the private sector too.

[Anonymous]

Any thoughts on what would happen to people's pensions if they were fired without cause? My husband is eligible to retire but was trying to told on 2-3 more years. Losing that benefit would be devastating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like it shouldn't apply to line attorneys

Maybe SLCs though? More obviously assistant chiefs and maybe even reviewers. SES obviously, so chiefs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any thoughts on what would happen to people's pensions if they were fired without cause? My husband is eligible to retire but was trying to told on 2-3 more years. Losing that benefit would be devastating.

You don’t lost the pension in that scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is a bad thing?

We can be fired at any time without cause. Get it now? Thanks and go back to your little cave

Isn't that normal work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is a bad thing?

We can be fired at any time without cause. Get it now? Thanks and go back to your little cave

Isn't that normal work?

Don’t feed this troll.