Schedule F list is up

[Anonymous]

My agency selected the PDs based on who did worst in their March Madness brackets. Apparently.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Removing the regs does make it harder for the next admin to regulate something. They not only have to go through the notice and comment period but there is also the opportunity to sue them to overturn wheatver rules they promulgated.

[Anonymous]

It’s wild to look at the list for my former agency, which I left last year. They make all of the supervisory attorneys Schedule F across the department but only include 10 positions across the department from the actual policy offices. The majority of the policy offices don’t have anyone on the list. I don’t get how they’ve determined that attorneys are more policy-making than actual policymakers. And there are other anomalies. Like a deputy director of a policy office is on the list but not the director of the same office? Maybe the Deputy isn’t SES and the Director is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Removing the regs does make it harder for the next admin to regulate something. They not only have to go through the notice and comment period but there is also the opportunity to sue them to overturn wheatver rules they promulgated.

This administration is acting as if there won’t be another administration after them. Have you not noticed all the protests?

If there agencies are essentially gone, it will take a decade to rehire, develop processes, and deploy new regulators. They developed over the last half century. So instead they will whip up a contract and the “regulating” will be done by a private company, and call it a day.

[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.

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

This exactly. Any current Fed should already know this.

[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?

We have new hires in my office who everyone in the know acknowledges are bad hires, but management doesn't seem interested in firing them. I thought there were new rules to allow easier firing of new hires who aren't working out, but management still seems to be taking a do nothing approach, hoping eventually the job will click and then they won't have to be bothered with the paperwork.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very weird selection from my agency- Department of Labor. In some agencies the most random positions are now schedule F.

I am also at Labor and also found the list baffling. Some agencies seem to have fairly low level employees on the list, while others (with similar employees) don’t appear on the list at all. Super weird.

What low level employees are you seeing? They said it was overwhelmingly GS-15s.

Health Communications Specialist at CDC are not all GS-15s

[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?

We have new hires in my office who everyone in the know acknowledges are bad hires, but management doesn't seem interested in firing them. I thought there were new rules to allow easier firing of new hires who aren't working out, but management still seems to be taking a do nothing approach, hoping eventually the job will click and then they won't have to be bothered with the paperwork.

That's on your management. PIPs are now only 30 days and "holding employees accountable" is now part of all supervisory standards in my agency. But I think people may be hesitant to fire because a) it's still trouble and b) we can't rehire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s wild to look at the list for my former agency, which I left last year. They make all of the supervisory attorneys Schedule F across the department but only include 10 positions across the department from the actual policy offices. The majority of the policy offices don’t have anyone on the list. I don’t get how they’ve determined that attorneys are more policy-making than actual policymakers. And there are other anomalies. Like a deputy director of a policy office is on the list but not the director of the same office? Maybe the Deputy isn’t SES and the Director is?

In my agency they put some positions on and not the positions above them, and yes, that's because the higher positions are SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are all these employees fired as of today. What does it mean exactly?

It means a bunch of civil servants just lost job protections.

But, these have been essentially meaningless (see USAID, Education, HSS). Or does this mean even severance etc. are gone?

Yes, severance is go e. That’s the whole point of being at will.

[Anonymous]

My two ex-coworkers' positions are on the list. We were all same level GS-15 managers but i took DRP and they stayed. Can't figure out logic behind it though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s wild to look at the list for my former agency, which I left last year. They make all of the supervisory attorneys Schedule F across the department but only include 10 positions across the department from the actual policy offices. The majority of the policy offices don’t have anyone on the list. I don’t get how they’ve determined that attorneys are more policy-making than actual policymakers. And there are other anomalies. Like a deputy director of a policy office is on the list but not the director of the same office? Maybe the Deputy isn’t SES and the Director is?

I don't think they included SES or political appointees. In my agency a Director would be a political appointee and an deputy director an SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s wild to look at the list for my former agency, which I left last year. They make all of the supervisory attorneys Schedule F across the department but only include 10 positions across the department from the actual policy offices. The majority of the policy offices don’t have anyone on the list. I don’t get how they’ve determined that attorneys are more policy-making than actual policymakers. And there are other anomalies. Like a deputy director of a policy office is on the list but not the director of the same office? Maybe the Deputy isn’t SES and the Director is?

I don't think they included SES or political appointees. In my agency a Director would be a political appointee and an deputy director an SES.

They are "at-will" already. No protections what-so-ever. There are 4000 of them plus this 8000 new at-will positions. Total of 12000 less than 40,000 number they were talking about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the process was that each agency put further the list for OPM/OMB to review and accept. This could be why it's haphazard.
My understanding is also that this list will grow. No one loses their job today just their job protections.

"Who is a pain in the ass at your agency? Put them on the list." That's kind of how it went.