OPM issues Final Rule creating easy-to-fire civil servant category

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

The preamble goes on at some length about civil servants actively scheming against the President's priorities. I don't think that such people exist, and I don't believe that this Administration will ever acknowledge that such folks don't exist--they'll find spurious reasons to fire folks.

Look, I’m a Dem but these folks absolutely exist. I’m not going to argue about it so whatever you want to believe is fine.

And on what basis are you so sure “these folks” absolutely exist? Are you a fed working in a policy position? I am, and I have been for over a decade, and I have never seen a civil servant hold up any administration’s priorities unless they had a strong and apolitical argument that it was outright illegal and that they couldn’t move it forward.

[Anonymous]

Who exactly does it apply to? A low level person who happens to write or interpret rules, or people that make final decisions on policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if I am eligible to retire and I get fired for whatever, I just retire right. I do not lose my pension?

You do not lose your pension if you get fired, regardless. Your pension is something both you and the government paid into, somewhat like Social Security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who exactly does it apply to? A low level person who happens to write or interpret rules, or people that make final decisions on policy?

They want it to apply to lawyers (of any level) so that they can fire or just threaten to fire lawyers who give them advice they don’t want to hear.

[Anonymous]

Hare to believe there are still feds working with a "pension" under CSRS. Hires since 84 are under FERS and TSP. TSP is absolutely yours. FERS has to vest before you get an annuity or deferred annuity but even before that you can get your contributions out.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry but why would you ever want to replace a fed with a political appointee?? Maybe the very top political appointees/senate confirmed ones know what they're doing, have industry experience. The lower level GS 13/14/15 political appointees have zero clue what they're doing and can barely make it to meetings on time. They all have fed "handlers" (chief of staff, executive assistant, program managers) who help them understand our mission and everything about our programs. This is not unique to this administration either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

The preamble goes on at some length about civil servants actively scheming against the President's priorities. I don't think that such people exist, and I don't believe that this Administration will ever acknowledge that such folks don't exist--they'll find spurious reasons to fire folks.

You are not a Dem

You are a maga idiot

Deep dive into this is just project 2025 which you idiot did not read.

Spare us your stupidity and nonsense

This is bad very very bad. But it has always been the plan to dismantle everything abd lose all American workers rights .






Look, I’m a Dem but these folks absolutely exist. I’m not going to argue about it so whatever you want to believe is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but why would you ever want to replace a fed with a political appointee?? Maybe the very top political appointees/senate confirmed ones know what they're doing, have industry experience. The lower level GS 13/14/15 political appointees have zero clue what they're doing and can barely make it to meetings on time. They all have fed "handlers" (chief of staff, executive assistant, program managers) who help them understand our mission and everything about our programs. This is not unique to this administration either.

BS this is project 2025 go back and read it moron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hare to believe there are still feds working with a "pension" under CSRS. Hires since 84 are under FERS and TSP. TSP is absolutely yours. FERS has to vest before you get an annuity or deferred annuity but even before that you can get your contributions out.

Fers has a pension component. Every fed is contributing to a pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who exactly does it apply to? A low level person who happens to write or interpret rules, or people that make final decisions on policy?

They want it to apply to lawyers (of any level) so that they can fire or just threaten to fire lawyers who give them advice they don’t want to hear.

Not just attorneys, and it seems to apply as low as GS-13.

[Anonymous]

This checks with some utter BS OPM management training I had to take this week. I’m not even a manager, but my position is classified as management official. I have no direct reports. There was an embedded quiz where you needed an 80% to pass. The quiz had two questions. I actually laughed out loud in my office.

The training actually said “Not all employees are motivated by monetary rewards. For some employees, a handwritten ‘good job’ note will provide more satisfaction.”

Please, leave me a handwritten thank you note for doing my job. I haven’t even had a manager for going on 8 months since my exec DRP’d out of this hell in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who exactly does it apply to? A low level person who happens to write or interpret rules, or people that make final decisions on policy?

They want it to apply to lawyers (of any level) so that they can fire or just threaten to fire lawyers who give them advice they don’t want to hear.

It’s not just lawyers they’re trying to apply it to - others with “policy” implications.

[Anonymous]

I predict a lot more whistleblowers, who are protected no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

The preamble goes on at some length about civil servants actively scheming against the President's priorities. I don't think that such people exist, and I don't believe that this Administration will ever acknowledge that such folks don't exist--they'll find spurious reasons to fire folks.

Uh, at DOJ during Biden and after. Do you not read the news?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

The preamble goes on at some length about civil servants actively scheming against the President's priorities. I don't think that such people exist, and I don't believe that this Administration will ever acknowledge that such folks don't exist--they'll find spurious reasons to fire folks.

Uh, at DOJ during Biden and after. Do you not read the news?

Enlighten us