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

[Anonymous]

The funny thing is, this rule solves nothing. Managers are still going to be risk adverse about firing anyone. They’ll still be sued, accused of discrimination, etc etc (in their personal capacities too). The agency may eventually win, but only after a real pain in the butt for mgmt.

[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?

Correct

[Anonymous]

lol they think this is different than what we had before.

125 pages of BS, I’m sure one of their buddies got paid handsomely for this paperweight.

[Anonymous]

How long till the firings start? Can't be too long

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course, but Trump doesn’t want anything telling him he can’t do something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is, this rule solves nothing. Managers are still going to be risk adverse about firing anyone. They’ll still be sued, accused of discrimination, etc etc (in their personal capacities too). The agency may eventually win, but only after a real pain in the butt for mgmt.

THIS. So imagine you’re a manager (or even agency head), and you have 2 choices with how to deal with an employee who isn’t “sufficiently enthusiastic toward the cause”:

Option A: fire him and point to Schedule F, and then deal with all the lawsuits, allegations of discrimination, etc.

Option B: just sideline him and let him sit in the office and be quiet. (sorta like what currently happens).

I’m going with option B. Why do I care? It’s not my money. I don’t get paid based on how much money I save. I don’t have a P&L. Path of least resistance.

This whole thing is just academic fodder for the increasingly irrelevant heritage faction.

[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.

Probably this. They don’t want to hear it, because it creates a record. So the effect is, good attorneys and other advisors will just say yes to whatever they think the boss wants, and the public will reap the consequences later. Healthy dissent is important, but no one is going to stick their neck out anymore, this all makes me sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is, this rule solves nothing. Managers are still going to be risk adverse about firing anyone. They’ll still be sued, accused of discrimination, etc etc (in their personal capacities too). The agency may eventually win, but only after a real pain in the butt for mgmt.

THIS. So imagine you’re a manager (or even agency head), and you have 2 choices with how to deal with an employee who isn’t “sufficiently enthusiastic toward the cause”:

Option A: fire him and point to Schedule F, and then deal with all the lawsuits, allegations of discrimination, etc.

Option B: just sideline him and let him sit in the office and be quiet. (sorta like what currently happens).

I’m going with option B. Why do I care? It’s not my money. I don’t get paid based on how much money I save. I don’t have a P&L. Path of least resistance.

This whole thing is just academic fodder for the increasingly irrelevant heritage faction.

there is an Option C: (which I see more often), you find out what they are good at even if it is below their current grade level and you give them that job and they do it well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Correct

But say you are 52 with 25 years and got RIFd, you would still get early retirement, to include healthcare as you would qualify for VSIP. But if they say you are being fired because they do not think you meet the administration priorities, then does that mean you are fired for cause and is that why it says not VSIP eligible? An I reading that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Correct

But say you are 52 with 25 years and got RIFd, you would still get early retirement, to include healthcare as you would qualify for VSIP. But if they say you are being fired because they do not think you meet the administration priorities, then does that mean you are fired for cause and is that why it says not VSIP eligible? An I reading that right?

I thought that the VERA/VSIP discussion in the reg preamble related only to the proposal that folks whose jobs are being reclassified as "Policy/Career" [Schedule F] be given the option to VERA or be offered a VSIP. OPM declared no, they don't want to incentivize reclassified folks to leave.

(pp. 227-228, https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-02375.pdf)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Correct

But say you are 52 with 25 years and got RIFd, you would still get early retirement, to include healthcare as you would qualify for VSIP. But if they say you are being fired because they do not think you meet the administration priorities, then does that mean you are fired for cause and is that why it says not VSIP eligible? An I reading that right?

Including healthcare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today, OPM posted for public inspection (will be in tomorrow's Federal Register) a final rule to pave the way to remove (many?) civil service protections from a new category of the civil service. Document at https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-02375.pdf

Of particular note:
* will apply to folks on the GS scale, not SES (p. 53)
* will apply to current workers, not just new hires (p. 226)
* VERA/VSIP won't be offered to those in reclassified positions (p. 226)

everyday more progress against the swamp.

Weird how young people want good jobs??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You better read up on the claim that you get still get a Fed pension if you get fired REGARDLESS. That is not the right answer...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You better read up on the claim that you get still get a Fed pension if you get fired REGARDLESS. That is not the right answer...

You are completely clueless.

[Anonymous]

It is bizarre that the myth that it is hard to fire people has become a truth. We fire people on my team who cannot perform. It isn’t hard. It does take the effort to document but it can and is done today by good supervisors.