Schedule F list is up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so strange! Some agencies list all attorneys, others list just supervisory attorneys, but many agencies skipped over their attorneys.

Aren't your attorney already direct hire positions? Ours didn't have the same workplace protections as other feds already.

Being direct hire doesn't have anything to do with workplace protections.

[Anonymous]

Looking at my agency, it doesn't touch any first line managers or bargaining unit employees. It's all more senior level management and "Advisor"-type positions.

I also don't really get the freak-out about this. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, then you'd get sidelined or possibly demoted (even today).

If the current Admin went on a broad rampage of firing Schedule F employees, they would have no one to write Federal Register Notices and implement their (deregulatory) policies in a durable manner. It's a catch-22.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at my agency, it doesn't touch any first line managers or bargaining unit employees. It's all more senior level management and "Advisor"-type positions.

I also don't really get the freak-out about this. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, then you'd get sidelined or possibly demoted (even today).

If the current Admin went on a broad rampage of firing Schedule F employees, they would have no one to write Federal Register Notices and implement their (deregulatory) policies in a durable manner. It's a catch-22.

1. No one should trust that this is only going to be used against people who don't want to do their jobs
2. That firing people would cripple their capacity to meet their. own priorities never stopped them before

[Anonymous]

Most Attorneys are already excepted service. What’s the difference with schedule F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most Attorneys are already excepted service. What’s the difference with schedule F?

It’s easy to ask an LLM; I really hope you aren’t an attorney.

While both bypass traditional civil service hiring, standard Schedule A attorneys have robust job protections—they can only be fired "for cause" (misconduct/poor performance) and have full rights to appeal to the MSPB. Schedule F strips these protections away, reclassifying policy-influencing lawyers as "at-will" employees who can be summarily removed without appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Attorneys are already excepted service. What’s the difference with schedule F?

It’s easy to ask an LLM; I really hope you aren’t an attorney.

While both bypass traditional civil service hiring, standard Schedule A attorneys have robust job protections—they can only be fired "for cause" (misconduct/poor performance) and have full rights to appeal to the MSPB. Schedule F strips these protections away, reclassifying policy-influencing lawyers as "at-will" employees who can be summarily removed without appeal.

I think all the attorneys at MSPB have just been reclassified

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Attorneys are already excepted service. What’s the difference with schedule F?

It’s easy to ask an LLM; I really hope you aren’t an attorney.

While both bypass traditional civil service hiring, standard Schedule A attorneys have robust job protections—they can only be fired "for cause" (misconduct/poor performance) and have full rights to appeal to the MSPB. Schedule F strips these protections away, reclassifying policy-influencing lawyers as "at-will" employees who can be summarily removed without appeal.

Have you read the regulations though? LLMs only repeat what they are fed, which is often misinformation, and sometimes disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, this is pretty frustrating given that they’ve done nothing to make it any easier to terminate non-supervisory employees at my agency, but are making supervisors fireable at will. What exactly are they trying to do with this? If I fail to hold employees accountable with a process that is designed to prevent me from doing so, I’ll be fired? Do I have that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this is pretty frustrating given that they’ve done nothing to make it any easier to terminate non-supervisory employees at my agency, but are making supervisors fireable at will. What exactly are they trying to do with this? If I fail to hold employees accountable with a process that is designed to prevent me from doing so, I’ll be fired? Do I have that right?

Similar issue here. And the crazy thing is that many of the people who would have helped me fire someone took the DRP and no one backfilled that role. Bad employees just sit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at my agency, it doesn't touch any first line managers or bargaining unit employees. It's all more senior level management and "Advisor"-type positions.

I also don't really get the freak-out about this. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, then you'd get sidelined or possibly demoted (even today).

If the current Admin went on a broad rampage of firing Schedule F employees, they would have no one to write Federal Register Notices and implement their (deregulatory) policies in a durable manner. It's a catch-22.

This administration doesn't follow laws, that should be obvious by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this is pretty frustrating given that they’ve done nothing to make it any easier to terminate non-supervisory employees at my agency, but are making supervisors fireable at will. What exactly are they trying to do with this? If I fail to hold employees accountable with a process that is designed to prevent me from doing so, I’ll be fired? Do I have that right?

Similar issue here. And the crazy thing is that many of the people who would have helped me fire someone took the DRP and no one backfilled that role. Bad employees just sit.

And now no one who is any good wants to work for the federal government. Guess this is their way of decreasing the federal workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at my agency, it doesn't touch any first line managers or bargaining unit employees. It's all more senior level management and "Advisor"-type positions.

I also don't really get the freak-out about this. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, then you'd get sidelined or possibly demoted (even today).

If the current Admin went on a broad rampage of firing Schedule F employees, they would have no one to write Federal Register Notices and implement their (deregulatory) policies in a durable manner. It's a catch-22.

LOL. They don't care about filing federal register notices or proper implementation of anything. The entire process is a joke.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Attorneys are already excepted service. What’s the difference with schedule F?

It’s easy to ask an LLM; I really hope you aren’t an attorney.

While both bypass traditional civil service hiring, standard Schedule A attorneys have robust job protections—they can only be fired "for cause" (misconduct/poor performance) and have full rights to appeal to the MSPB. Schedule F strips these protections away, reclassifying policy-influencing lawyers as "at-will" employees who can be summarily removed without appeal.

Have you read the regulations though? LLMs only repeat what they are fed, which is often misinformation, and sometimes disinformation.

Well I’m not a lawyer so not much point. But as good as a random poster here!

If anything it would probably incorporate the intent of what the admin plans to do from available information which is more pertinent than just what is “legal” given the state of judiciary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at my agency, it doesn't touch any first line managers or bargaining unit employees. It's all more senior level management and "Advisor"-type positions.

I also don't really get the freak-out about this. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, then you'd get sidelined or possibly demoted (even today).

If the current Admin went on a broad rampage of firing Schedule F employees, they would have no one to write Federal Register Notices and implement their (deregulatory) policies in a durable manner. It's a catch-22.

LOL. They don't care about filing federal register notices or proper implementation of anything. The entire process is a joke.

Seriously. What is difference between deregulating and just removing the regulator? Then the written regulation is immaterial. If your job IS defense or maybe public safety AND you do hands on work not policy or just writing memos , you might survive. Everyone else is fair game.

I mean FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES?! I literally guffawed out loud.

[Anonymous]

Even the smartest most powerful AI in the world would struggle to discern a pattern in the positions selected for this at my agency.