Federal Employee Pay Freeze

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a matter of federal law, that happens to be true. A federal worker's salary is considered his property and, per the Constitution, it may not be taken away from us without due process of law.

Don't like it? Keep your corporate jobs.

I don't work for a corporation. But I'll bite. Where in federal law that salary is "property"?

Sigh. Why do you think federal employees cannot be fired for poor performance without there first being many administrative procedures (performance improval plans; proposals to remove, etc.), as well as appeal rights to the MSPB?

It's because there's this thing called the Constitution, and it states that the government shall not deprive its citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Many courts have held that a government worker's job -- his salary -- is his life and his property. Therefore, before the government can take it away, due process is required.

I could also discuss the implications of the Administrative Procedure Act with you, but I prefer not to. Besides, I'm just a stupid government worker who doesn't know anything, remember?

And as I said, if you don't like it, keep your private sector jobs. Which? Most of you clearly suck at, as you were one of the first to be fired as soon as the recession hit, or you've had to take a huge pay cut. That's why your jealous of those of us who made safer career choices than you did. And that's why so many of you are making us your scapegoats right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a matter of federal law, that happens to be true. A federal worker's salary is considered his property and, per the Constitution, it may not be taken away from us without due process of law.

Don't like it? Keep your corporate jobs.

I don't work for a corporation. But I'll bite. Where in federal law that salary is "property"?

Sigh. Why do you think federal employees cannot be fired for poor performance without there first being many administrative procedures (performance improval plans; proposals to remove, etc.), as well as appeal rights to the MSPB?

It's because there's this thing called the Constitution, and it states that the government shall not deprive its citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Many courts have held that a government worker's job -- his salary -- is his life and his property. Therefore, before the government can take it away, due process is required.

I could also discuss the implications of the Administrative Procedure Act with you, but I prefer not to. Besides, I'm just a stupid government worker who doesn't know anything, remember?

And as I said, if you don't like it, keep your private sector jobs. Which? Most of you clearly suck at, as you were one of the first to be fired as soon as the recession hit, or you've had to take a huge pay cut. That's why your jealous of those of us who made safer career choices than you did. And that's why so many of you are making us your scapegoats right now.

Save the speech, cite a case. It seems to me that federal employees are covered under federal law and that employment is not really considered property. I think you are not a lawyer and you are making it up. But if you know what you are talking about, just cite whatever law or case backs you up.

[Anonymous]

Yawn. I don't think this federal employment lawyer is going to be bothered writing briefs for the likes of you. This is pretty elementary stuff; I should not have had to explain anything to you, and yet you feel entitled to more. Take responsibility for your ignorance and educate yourself. Or are you just too lazy and too stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. I don't think this federal employment lawyer is going to be bothered writing briefs for the likes of you. This is pretty elementary stuff; I should not have had to explain anything to you, and yet you feel entitled to more. Take responsibility for your ignorance and educate yourself. Or are you just too lazy and too stupid?

No, but I happen to know that employment is not considered property.

[Anonymous]

Yes, a federal employee's position is considered his or her property. King v. Alston, 75 F.3d 657, 661 (Fed. Cir. 1996). For this reason, he or she is entitled to due process in being removed from the position and there are certain statutes and regulations that address reasons that you can be removed from employment (misconduct, efficiency of the service) and what the procedures are for removing you (notice, opportunity to respond, etc.). This is entirely separate from whether he or she is entitled to a COLA, however. The two have nothing to do with each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, a federal employee's position is considered his or her property. King v. Alston, 75 F.3d 657, 661 (Fed. Cir. 1996). For this reason, he or she is entitled to due process in being removed from the position and there are certain statutes and regulations that address reasons that you can be removed from employment (misconduct, efficiency of the service) and what the procedures are for removing you (notice, opportunity to respond, etc.). This is entirely separate from whether he or she is entitled to a COLA, however. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I was aware that there are significant restrictions on the government regarding adverse actions in the code (5 U.S.C. § 7513 as cited in your case) , but I did not know that those restrictions were constitutionally derived. I thought they were only a matter of federal law. But I will take your word for that. I learn something new every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, a federal employee's position is considered his or her property. King v. Alston, 75 F.3d 657, 661 (Fed. Cir. 1996). For this reason, he or she is entitled to due process in being removed from the position and there are certain statutes and regulations that address reasons that you can be removed from employment (misconduct, efficiency of the service) and what the procedures are for removing you (notice, opportunity to respond, etc.). This is entirely separate from whether he or she is entitled to a COLA, however. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I was aware that there are significant restrictions on the government regarding adverse actions in the code (5 U.S.C. § 7513 as cited in your case) , but I did not know that those restrictions were constitutionally derived. I thought they were only a matter of federal law. But I will take your word for that. I learn something new every day.

It does not appear that you learn something new every day. It appears that you only learn something new when it is spoon-fed to you by a couple of lazy, know-nothing federal employees. I guess now you can't say that we never did anything for you.

And why take anyone's "word for it"? Why not read the entire case for yourself, and do more legal research if necessary to satisfy your inquiry? Or take it upon yourself to plug into Google the words "federal employees jobs due process" and read the first site that comes up: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp08.htm. Duh.

Even after I took it upon myself to explain to you that which should not have had to be explained, you demanded a case citation from me. And yet YOU want to accuse others of "entitlement"? You further asserted that you "happen to KNOW that federal employment is not property." How did you know? If you knew, why didn't you state how you knew? These are rhetorical questions: You obviously didn't know; you were wrong. Yet you still won't admit it -- you will only take someone's "word for it". So basically, you have proven my first supposition to be correct: You are lazy and stupid. And full of hubris.

There have been a lot of incorrect assertions made in this thread and others with respect to federal employment: There was a government shutdown in 1994 (wrong); federal attorneys are immune from RIFs (wrong); and a federal employee's position is not considered property, of which that employee can only be deprived in accordance with due process of law (wrong). All of these ignorant statements were made with quite a bit a smug, self-righteousness. How many of them did you make?

You know, I really doubt that those people in the private sector who are doing really well for themselves right now are taking time out of their happy day to spew ignorant vitriol about federal employees. Nope. It is those who are unhappy in their lives that are looking for a scapegoat right now, and federal employees just happen to be a convenient group for you at the moment.

Why not go pick on another group of people that have done better for themselves than you have? Your laziness and your bitterness suggest to me that there are probably plenty of other groups of people you could find to insult, and *bonus* this would afford you another opportunity display your ignorance about an entire group of people of which you know little to nothing.

Or you could consider this radical notion: Instead of taking out your insecurities on others and blaming them for your troubles, you could take a good, hard look at yourself. You could take responsibility for your choices, actions, and education. You could look for ways to improve yourself. And then you may have less time and inclination to scapegoat others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, a federal employee's position is considered his or her property. King v. Alston, 75 F.3d 657, 661 (Fed. Cir. 1996). For this reason, he or she is entitled to due process in being removed from the position and there are certain statutes and regulations that address reasons that you can be removed from employment (misconduct, efficiency of the service) and what the procedures are for removing you (notice, opportunity to respond, etc.). This is entirely separate from whether he or she is entitled to a COLA, however. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I was aware that there are significant restrictions on the government regarding adverse actions in the code (5 U.S.C. § 7513 as cited in your case) , but I did not know that those restrictions were constitutionally derived. I thought they were only a matter of federal law. But I will take your word for that. I learn something new every day.

It does not appear that you learn something new every day. It appears that you only learn something new when it is spoon-fed to you by a couple of lazy, know-nothing federal employees. I guess now you can't say that we never did anything for you.

And why take anyone's "word for it"? Why not read the entire case for yourself, and do more legal research if necessary to satisfy your inquiry? Or take it upon yourself to plug into Google the words "federal employees jobs due process" and read the first site that comes up: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp08.htm. Duh.

Even after I took it upon myself to explain to you that which should not have had to be explained, you demanded a case citation from me. And yet YOU want to accuse others of "entitlement"? You further asserted that you "happen to KNOW that federal employment is not property." How did you know? If you knew, why didn't you state how you knew? These are rhetorical questions: You obviously didn't know; you were wrong. Yet you still won't admit it -- you will only take someone's "word for it". So basically, you have proven my first supposition to be correct: You are lazy and stupid. And full of hubris.

There have been a lot of incorrect assertions made in this thread and others with respect to federal employment: There was a government shutdown in 1994 (wrong); federal attorneys are immune from RIFs (wrong); and a federal employee's position is not considered property, of which that employee can only be deprived in accordance with due process of law (wrong). All of these ignorant statements were made with quite a bit a smug, self-righteousness. How many of them did you make?

You know, I really doubt that those people in the private sector who are doing really well for themselves right now are taking time out of their happy day to spew ignorant vitriol about federal employees. Nope. It is those who are unhappy in their lives that are looking for a scapegoat right now, and federal employees just happen to be a convenient group for you at the moment.

Why not go pick on another group of people that have done better for themselves than you have? Your laziness and your bitterness suggest to me that there are probably plenty of other groups of people you could find to insult, and *bonus* this would afford you another opportunity display your ignorance about an entire group of people of which you know little to nothing.

Or you could consider this radical notion: Instead of taking out your insecurities on others and blaming them for your troubles, you could take a good, hard look at yourself. You could take responsibility for your choices, actions, and education. You could look for ways to improve yourself. And then you may have less time and inclination to scapegoat others.

I was trying to be conciliatory. I read the case that you cited, read some of the cited cases within that case, and I read the relevant parts of 5 USC. From what I can tell, the court calls it a property right, but it is not what one would commonly think of as property. It sounds more like an OPM regulation creates restrictions on employment actions, similar to an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, in other words it is a limited exemption to "at-will" employment. I can't see whether the property right is pre-existing or whether it is actually created by the regulation. If it is created by the regulation, it only applies to pay decreases, not a COLA. But that's quibbling. I was acknowledging that you were correct about the larger point, that a property right exists.

I never wrote a post that said federal employees are lazy. My first job was with DVA writing hospital software. I was 17 years old and because I didn't yet have a high school degree, I was paid as a "clerk typist". I worked 55-60 hours a week and got paid for 35. I was not the only person who worked hard there. But I did see some people who did not have much of a work ethic, though.

You are wrong in the belief that the posters who are upset with this OP are bitter people who are in financial trouble. It's not all sour grapes. The very premise of this Original Post was about how it was unfair that Feds get a COLA freeze when other people are going to get to keep their tax cut. That sounds like scapegoating.

If Feds want to say "this sucks" I get that. But if the posters want to cry "unfair" and start pointing fingers at other groups, when the "unfairness" is loss of a pay increase, and not the only increase available to them, they are rightfully going to get attacked in response.