Looks like the SEC is hiring again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are hiring. Albeit for 2-year temporary positions. But they’re external and not political.

And not TW eligible. So good luck getting (good) applicants.

No. This is not a “hire.” These are fellowship positions for the fellowship program in OCA. It’s not the same thing. These are currently and have always been exempted from any hiring freeze. They do not increase headcount at the agency.

Are they paid out of sec budget? Get benefits? Have offices? Subject to ethics and other employment conditions?

But they’re “exempted from any hiring freeze”? Sure.

Here’s a brilliant idea: create a 15 year “fellowship” and say they’re all exempt from hiring freezes and don’t increase headcount. [insert meme of RV slapping his forehead and yelling. “Doh! Project 2025 foiled again!”].

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are hiring. Albeit for 2-year temporary positions. But they’re external and not political.

And not TW eligible. So good luck getting (good) applicants.

No. This is not a “hire.” These are fellowship positions for the fellowship program in OCA. It’s not the same thing. These are currently and have always been exempted from any hiring freeze. They do not increase headcount at the agency.

Are they paid out of sec budget? Get benefits? Have offices? Subject to ethics and other employment conditions?

But they’re “exempted from any hiring freeze”? Sure.

Here’s a brilliant idea: create a 15 year “fellowship” and say they’re all exempt from hiring freezes and don’t increase headcount. [insert meme of RV slapping his forehead and yelling. “Doh! Project 2025 foiled again!”].

You are a moron. Just straight up. You obviously don’t work at the SEC and have no clue. Why don’t you educate yourself, just a little, and come back when you have something to say that is relevant to the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are hiring. Albeit for 2-year temporary positions. But they’re external and not political.

And not TW eligible. So good luck getting (good) applicants.

No. This is not a “hire.” These are fellowship positions for the fellowship program in OCA. It’s not the same thing. These are currently and have always been exempted from any hiring freeze. They do not increase headcount at the agency.

Are they paid out of sec budget? Get benefits? Have offices? Subject to ethics and other employment conditions?

But they’re “exempted from any hiring freeze”? Sure.

Here’s a brilliant idea: create a 15 year “fellowship” and say they’re all exempt from hiring freezes and don’t increase headcount. [insert meme of RV slapping his forehead and yelling. “Doh! Project 2025 foiled again!”].

You are a moron. Just straight up. You obviously don’t work at the SEC and have no clue. Why don’t you educate yourself, just a little, and come back when you have something to say that is relevant to the issue.

Instead of calling names like a 6 yo (I assume you work in HR or IT) maybe answer the question? Though you can’t bc even though you apparently have a very low IQ, you likely recognize the idiocy of your logic — that just labeling something a “fellowship” doesn’t exempt you from OMB and OPM policies. Simpleton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are hiring. Albeit for 2-year temporary positions. But they’re external and not political.

And not TW eligible. So good luck getting (good) applicants.

No. This is not a “hire.” These are fellowship positions for the fellowship program in OCA. It’s not the same thing. These are currently and have always been exempted from any hiring freeze. They do not increase headcount at the agency.

Are they paid out of sec budget? Get benefits? Have offices? Subject to ethics and other employment conditions?

But they’re “exempted from any hiring freeze”? Sure.

Here’s a brilliant idea: create a 15 year “fellowship” and say they’re all exempt from hiring freezes and don’t increase headcount. [insert meme of RV slapping his forehead and yelling. “Doh! Project 2025 foiled again!”].

You are a moron. Just straight up. You obviously don’t work at the SEC and have no clue. Why don’t you educate yourself, just a little, and come back when you have something to say that is relevant to the issue.

Instead of calling names like a 6 yo (I assume you work in HR or IT) maybe answer the question? Though you can’t bc even though you apparently have a very low IQ, you likely recognize the idiocy of your logic — that just labeling something a “fellowship” doesn’t exempt you from OMB and OPM policies. Simpleton.

I think PPs point is that the accountant roles rotate in and out of the SEC and are more akin to something like commissioner staff than career SEC employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are hiring. Albeit for 2-year temporary positions. But they’re external and not political.

And not TW eligible. So good luck getting (good) applicants.

No. This is not a “hire.” These are fellowship positions for the fellowship program in OCA. It’s not the same thing. These are currently and have always been exempted from any hiring freeze. They do not increase headcount at the agency.

Are they paid out of sec budget? Get benefits? Have offices? Subject to ethics and other employment conditions?

But they’re “exempted from any hiring freeze”? Sure.

Here’s a brilliant idea: create a 15 year “fellowship” and say they’re all exempt from hiring freezes and don’t increase headcount. [insert meme of RV slapping his forehead and yelling. “Doh! Project 2025 foiled again!”].

You are a moron. Just straight up. You obviously don’t work at the SEC and have no clue. Why don’t you educate yourself, just a little, and come back when you have something to say that is relevant to the issue.

Instead of calling names like a 6 yo (I assume you work in HR or IT) maybe answer the question? Though you can’t bc even though you apparently have a very low IQ, you likely recognize the idiocy of your logic — that just labeling something a “fellowship” doesn’t exempt you from OMB and OPM policies. Simpleton.

See EO, OPM memo and take some time to understand the way a fellow program works. Then come back and comment with all your high IQ knowledge. Seriously, do a baseline level of eduction for yourself, it’s not difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are hiring. Albeit for 2-year temporary positions. But they’re external and not political.

And not TW eligible. So good luck getting (good) applicants.

No. This is not a “hire.” These are fellowship positions for the fellowship program in OCA. It’s not the same thing. These are currently and have always been exempted from any hiring freeze. They do not increase headcount at the agency.

Are they paid out of sec budget? Get benefits? Have offices? Subject to ethics and other employment conditions?

But they’re “exempted from any hiring freeze”? Sure.

Here’s a brilliant idea: create a 15 year “fellowship” and say they’re all exempt from hiring freezes and don’t increase headcount. [insert meme of RV slapping his forehead and yelling. “Doh! Project 2025 foiled again!”].

You are a moron. Just straight up. You obviously don’t work at the SEC and have no clue. Why don’t you educate yourself, just a little, and come back when you have something to say that is relevant to the issue.

Instead of calling names like a 6 yo (I assume you work in HR or IT) maybe answer the question? Though you can’t bc even though you apparently have a very low IQ, you likely recognize the idiocy of your logic — that just labeling something a “fellowship” doesn’t exempt you from OMB and OPM policies. Simpleton.

See EO, OPM memo and take some time to understand the way a fellow program works. Then come back and comment with all your high IQ knowledge. Seriously, do a baseline level of eduction for yourself, it’s not difficult.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Who gives a crap if the people in a particular position “rotate in and out.” The people occupying the position still draw a salary, benefits, etc. — they COST MONEY!

The whole POINT of the hiring freeze is to save money. What do you think — doge is ok with spending the same amount of money as long as the people driving the costs rotate?

Idiot.

[Anonymous]

DS, college senior then, got an email in early Feb saying that the position he was applying for had been eliminated due to Trump. (Specifically said that.) It may have been a fellowship because his boss from his last internship, in econometrics, had written a letter of rec for him. He's now happily in the private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are hiring. Albeit for 2-year temporary positions. But they’re external and not political.

And not TW eligible. So good luck getting (good) applicants.

No. This is not a “hire.” These are fellowship positions for the fellowship program in OCA. It’s not the same thing. These are currently and have always been exempted from any hiring freeze. They do not increase headcount at the agency.

Are they paid out of sec budget? Get benefits? Have offices? Subject to ethics and other employment conditions?

But they’re “exempted from any hiring freeze”? Sure.

Here’s a brilliant idea: create a 15 year “fellowship” and say they’re all exempt from hiring freezes and don’t increase headcount. [insert meme of RV slapping his forehead and yelling. “Doh! Project 2025 foiled again!”].

You are a moron. Just straight up. You obviously don’t work at the SEC and have no clue. Why don’t you educate yourself, just a little, and come back when you have something to say that is relevant to the issue.

Instead of calling names like a 6 yo (I assume you work in HR or IT) maybe answer the question? Though you can’t bc even though you apparently have a very low IQ, you likely recognize the idiocy of your logic — that just labeling something a “fellowship” doesn’t exempt you from OMB and OPM policies. Simpleton.

See EO, OPM memo and take some time to understand the way a fellow program works. Then come back and comment with all your high IQ knowledge. Seriously, do a baseline level of eduction for yourself, it’s not difficult.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Who gives a crap if the people in a particular position “rotate in and out.” The people occupying the position still draw a salary, benefits, etc. — they COST MONEY!

The whole POINT of the hiring freeze is to save money. What do you think — doge is ok with spending the same amount of money as long as the people driving the costs rotate?

Idiot.

One again, educate yourself. Then speak. It’s not difficult.

[Anonymous]

It’s likely all moot. I don’t know where the people for this “fellowship” come from, but it’s likely an employer that pays well and doesn’t require 100 pct in office. So good luck getting applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely all moot. I don’t know where the people for this “fellowship” come from, but it’s likely an employer that pays well and doesn’t require 100 pct in office. So good luck getting applicants.

It’s so clear you have no idea what this is. If you did, you’d know the answer, to all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely all moot. I don’t know where the people for this “fellowship” come from, but it’s likely an employer that pays well and doesn’t require 100 pct in office. So good luck getting applicants.

It’s so clear you have no idea what this is. If you did, you’d know the answer, to all of this.

Uh, it’s public. All over LinkedIn and USAJOBS. So no need to be cryptic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely all moot. I don’t know where the people for this “fellowship” come from, but it’s likely an employer that pays well and doesn’t require 100 pct in office. So good luck getting applicants.

It’s so clear you have no idea what this is. If you did, you’d know the answer, to all of this.

Uh, it’s public. All over LinkedIn and USAJOBS. So no need to be cryptic.

Seriously, baseline education. Just a little. It’s not cryptic, it’s publicly available. You’ve been told where to look. Go look.