Schedule F list is up

[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.

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.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agreed. Haphazard.

BLS isn’t even mentioned.

[Anonymous]

What’s the plan here? DOGE seems idle but is the firing going to result or is this just a stick to keep employees in line with doing whatever administration wants regardless of police precedent or laws?

[Anonymous]

If it's nearly all GS-15s like they're saying it is, why didn't they include the GS level? Or the occupational series? Does OPM even have the position descriptions?

[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.

Maybe at your agency.

But at my agency (FinReg), FRNs are still being issued as fast as possible and you need Policy experts and lawyers to craft them. You can gut on-the-ground regulators, but the real legacy is in changing the regulations.

Separately, I think a new POTUS could pretty easily waive much of hiring rules and direct agencies to expedite rehiring of DOGE'd employees and provide maximum telework. It is possible to rebuild a solid chunk of capacity within a year.

[Anonymous]

My position is on this list and it’s just another added stress to an already stressful and toxic environment. We’re being told things like don’t worry, this doesn’t mean anyone is getting fired, it’s just purely a reclassification based on your job description and the sad thing is that we all know that isn’t true. Someone in political leadership could decide at any moment to switch things up and replace us with loyalists. It’s depressing and all I can hope for is a lawsuit that put a stop to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My position is on this list and it’s just another added stress to an already stressful and toxic environment. We’re being told things like don’t worry, this doesn’t mean anyone is getting fired, it’s just purely a reclassification based on your job description and the sad thing is that we all know that isn’t true. Someone in political leadership could decide at any moment to switch things up and replace us with loyalists. It’s depressing and all I can hope for is a lawsuit that put a stop to this.

is your position public/private business facing role?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My position is on this list and it’s just another added stress to an already stressful and toxic environment. We’re being told things like don’t worry, this doesn’t mean anyone is getting fired, it’s just purely a reclassification based on your job description and the sad thing is that we all know that isn’t true. Someone in political leadership could decide at any moment to switch things up and replace us with loyalists. It’s depressing and all I can hope for is a lawsuit that put a stop to this.

is your position public/private business facing role?

It’s a federal govt role. It’s not public facing like a public affairs role if that’s what you’re asking

[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.

Maybe at your agency.

But at my agency (FinReg), FRNs are still being issued as fast as possible and you need Policy experts and lawyers to craft them. You can gut on-the-ground regulators, but the real legacy is in changing the regulations.

Separately, I think a new POTUS could pretty easily waive much of hiring rules and direct agencies to expedite rehiring of DOGE'd employees and provide maximum telework. It is possible to rebuild a solid chunk of capacity within a year.

You're assuming that those DOGE'd people haven't found other jobs in 2.5 years and that they will be willing to leave those jobs / give the fed govt another chance after all this sh*t...I wouldnt count on it.

[Anonymous]

My former office is desperately trying to hire attorneys. This certainly isn’t going to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My position is on this list and it’s just another added stress to an already stressful and toxic environment. We’re being told things like don’t worry, this doesn’t mean anyone is getting fired, it’s just purely a reclassification based on your job description and the sad thing is that we all know that isn’t true. Someone in political leadership could decide at any moment to switch things up and replace us with loyalists. It’s depressing and all I can hope for is a lawsuit that put a stop to this.

is your position public/private business facing role?

It’s a federal govt role. It’s not public facing like a public affairs role if that’s what you’re asking

DP, there have been instances where a rich CEO made it known they were going to speak to an agency head to have regulatory employees fired. Any schedule policy/career employees making decisions about major corporations and donors will definitely need to assess career risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe at your agency.

But at my agency (FinReg), FRNs are still being issued as fast as possible and you need Policy experts and lawyers to craft them. You can gut on-the-ground regulators, but the real legacy is in changing the regulations.

Separately, I think a new POTUS could pretty easily waive much of hiring rules and direct agencies to expedite rehiring of DOGE'd employees and provide maximum telework. It is possible to rebuild a solid chunk of capacity within a year.

You're assuming that those DOGE'd people haven't found other jobs in 2.5 years and that they will be willing to leave those jobs / give the fed govt another chance after all this sh*t...I wouldnt count on it.

Seriously. I left my agency last year for a new role and have already moved on. I was already bored with my old job after doing it for 12 years. Going back to an old job that I already know how to do and doesn't present new challenges or growth opportunities was already unlikely. Add in my pre-existing frustration with the political whiplash of changing administrations and having to undo already completed work, then having to redo it, only for it to be in the crosshairs for dismantling the next administration. The doing, undoing, redoing, undoing cycle was a bleak Sisyphean existence. And that's before you add in deliberate Republican efforts to create an incredibly toxic, hostile work environment, long shutdowns where I'm missing paychecks, and generally being treated like a political pawn. The idea of going back in 2.5 years is laughable. I wouldn't even consider returning to federal employment until the political landscape changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe at your agency.

But at my agency (FinReg), FRNs are still being issued as fast as possible and you need Policy experts and lawyers to craft them. You can gut on-the-ground regulators, but the real legacy is in changing the regulations.

Separately, I think a new POTUS could pretty easily waive much of hiring rules and direct agencies to expedite rehiring of DOGE'd employees and provide maximum telework. It is possible to rebuild a solid chunk of capacity within a year.

You're assuming that those DOGE'd people haven't found other jobs in 2.5 years and that they will be willing to leave those jobs / give the fed govt another chance after all this sh*t...I wouldnt count on it.

Seriously. I left my agency last year for a new role and have already moved on. I was already bored with my old job after doing it for 12 years. Going back to an old job that I already know how to do and doesn't present new challenges or growth opportunities was already unlikely. Add in my pre-existing frustration with the political whiplash of changing administrations and having to undo already completed work, then having to redo it, only for it to be in the crosshairs for dismantling the next administration. The doing, undoing, redoing, undoing cycle was a bleak Sisyphean existence. And that's before you add in deliberate Republican efforts to create an incredibly toxic, hostile work environment, long shutdowns where I'm missing paychecks, and generally being treated like a political pawn. The idea of going back in 2.5 years is laughable. I wouldn't even consider returning to federal employment until the political landscape changes.

Everyone I know who has moved on doesn't plan to go back to federal employment.