Fed Hiring Freeze

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm hearing it's a total freeze on filling vacancies though. Like no vacancies can be filled period (except for rare exceptions), even with transfers and reassignments. Can anyone confirm?

The order is now available online. This isn't true. I also see nothing in there re a pay freeze.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/Trump-halts-hiring-of-federal-workers-and-freezes-pay-raises.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm hearing it's a total freeze on filling vacancies though. Like no vacancies can be filled period (except for rare exceptions), even with transfers and reassignments. Can anyone confirm?

The order is now available online. This isn't true. I also see nothing in there re a pay freeze.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/Trump-halts-hiring-of-federal-workers-and-freezes-pay-raises.html

Read the actual order not articles about it. Unless I'm missing it -- I see nothing about pay freezes. In fact it says that collective bargaining agreements aren't abrogated - for my agency the merit raise is per the CBA.

[Anonymous]

It's up on the White House website now https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/23/presidential-memorandum-regarding-hiring-freeze

Only military personnel exempt! "As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled and no new positions may be created, except in limited circumstances. This order does not include or apply to military personnel."

And I don't know how the heck he plans to run the government...looks like he doesn't want contractors either... "Contracting outside the Government to circumvent the intent of this memorandum shall not be permitted."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm up for a step increase next month. Is that off the table now?

Don't think so. Step increases are automatic, unless you are at Step 10...

[Anonymous]

It says " no vacant positions may be filled." That sure sounds like nothing can be filled, even with transfers or reassignments or anyone who has an offer but not yet taken the oath...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's up on the White House website now https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/23/presidential-memorandum-regarding-hiring-freeze

Only military personnel exempt! "As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled and no new positions may be created, except in limited circumstances. This order does not include or apply to military personnel."

What does "filled" mean? Can that mean you accepted a position but didn't start it yet? Or do you have to have been in place as of last Friday to consider the position filled?

[Anonymous]

Does the freeze apply to the SEC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's up on the White House website now https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/23/presidential-memorandum-regarding-hiring-freeze

Only military personnel exempt! "As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled and no new positions may be created, except in limited circumstances. This order does not include or apply to military personnel."

What does "filled" mean? Can that mean you accepted a position but didn't start it yet? Or do you have to have been in place as of last Friday to consider the position filled?

That's what we're not sure about. There are so many gray areas. What if you have been selected? What if you have a formal offer? What if you've agreed to an EOD? What does it mean to be appointed (e.g., does it mean having taken the oath? If so everyone that EOD'd today is Sol BC their positions were technically vacant on the 22nd at noon). This EO is not clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the freeze apply to the SEC?

Why would it not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's up on the White House website now https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/23/presidential-memorandum-regarding-hiring-freeze

Only military personnel exempt! "As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled and no new positions may be created, except in limited circumstances. This order does not include or apply to military personnel."

What does "filled" mean? Can that mean you accepted a position but didn't start it yet? Or do you have to have been in place as of last Friday to consider the position filled?

That's what we're not sure about. There are so many gray areas. What if you have been selected? What if you have a formal offer? What if you've agreed to an EOD? What does it mean to be appointed (e.g., does it mean having taken the oath? If so everyone that EOD'd today is Sol BC their positions were technically vacant on the 22nd at noon). This EO is not clear.

I took the oath today. Granted I transferred into my current position from another position with the government. We heard about the freeze today during orientation. By the way our EOD was actually yesterday, so the freeze does not apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the freeze apply to the SEC?

Why would it not?

sec could technically be spun as national security.

the 'national security' clause is a very huge get out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't he just shoot a lot of his regular people -- i.e. his electorate -- in the foot? I feel like nearly all administrative and "non specialized" positions (i.e. not doctors and lawyers) have pretty much been filled via veterans preference in recent years. It's a pretty guaranteed route to hiring when your only marketable skills are infantry. Guess that's over for now.

Not to mention that 85% of federal workers are outside the DMV area. This hurts rural areas in the midwest and south just as much if not more than DC, which is what most people cheering think it will do.

Colorado Springs, Honolulu and Virginia Beach all have more Fed workers are percent of the population than DC metro does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All those people who reported to orientation at 830 this morning are having the last laugh. Probably the last hires to ever be covered under FERS.

Until a Democratic President and Democratic Congress fix things in 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the freeze apply to the SEC?

Why would it not?

sec could technically be spun as national security.

the 'national security' clause is a very huge get out.

That may or may not work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this apply to people who have accepted offers and are awaiting clearance from a background check to start? I've read the text of the order and can't answer the question.

yes, unless your job might fall in the military, nat sec or public safety exemptions, previous case law says unless you actually started working, the freeze applies to you. There is case law on this from the Reagan-era freeze. An accepted offer is not protected from freeze unless the person actually started 1st day of work.

I still don't know if the freeze applies to PSC contractors or not.

See text of the EO here - https://mobile.twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/823657190972162049/photo/1

Of course, call your hiring contact and confirm your individual situation.....