Why are people not freaking out about Schedule F here?

[Anonymous]

Theoretically, my job could be Schedule F, but it is very apolitical so if it is classified as such, then there are probably 250k Schedule F positions. There are not enough Hillsdale grads to fill these roles. If my agency was unstaffed, there would be serious problems for a large industry. I know that Republicans like chaos but this would be a complete disaster.

[Anonymous]

Employment litigator here. Have represented many feds. What much of the Schedule F coverage misses is the distinction between current and future employees. There is little doubt that Trump could make Schedule F effective for all policy hires after his inauguration. But for all existing employees, there would be a gigantic due process barrier. They would have a very strong argument that the executive branch cannot just unilaterally revoke their civil service protections. The argument will be even stronger if OPM finalizes this rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Employment litigator here. Have represented many feds. What much of the Schedule F coverage misses is the distinction between current and future employees. There is little doubt that Trump could make Schedule F effective for all policy hires after his inauguration. But for all existing employees, there would be a gigantic due process barrier. They would have a very strong argument that the executive branch cannot just unilaterally revoke their civil service protections. The argument will be even stronger if OPM finalizes this rule.

Thanks for sharing your expertise. This made me feel a lot calmer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Employment litigator here. Have represented many feds. What much of the Schedule F coverage misses is the distinction between current and future employees. There is little doubt that Trump could make Schedule F effective for all policy hires after his inauguration. But for all existing employees, there would be a gigantic due process barrier. They would have a very strong argument that the executive branch cannot just unilaterally revoke their civil service protections. The argument will be even stronger if OPM finalizes this rule.

But do you think that a proposed termination would be stayed/enjoined pending litigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employment litigator here. Have represented many feds. What much of the Schedule F coverage misses is the distinction between current and future employees. There is little doubt that Trump could make Schedule F effective for all policy hires after his inauguration. But for all existing employees, there would be a gigantic due process barrier. They would have a very strong argument that the executive branch cannot just unilaterally revoke their civil service protections. The argument will be even stronger if OPM finalizes this rule.

But do you think that a proposed termination would be stayed/enjoined pending litigation?

Absolutely. Even with the DDC Trump appointees

[Anonymous]

What does the F stand for?

[Anonymous]

Don’t care about you, I hope you lose your job

We don’t care about your coveted job

80% of government workers should be let go

Free up the the hiring protocols so that we can get more competent workers from the private sectors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does the F stand for?

It doesn't. It just comes after Schedule E. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/6.2

[Anonymous]

This could happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about you, I hope you lose your job

We don’t care about your coveted job

80% of government workers should be let go

Free up the the hiring protocols so that we can get more competent workers from the private sectors

Why would they want to work for the government/??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about you, I hope you lose your job

We don’t care about your coveted job

80% of government workers should be let go

Free up the the hiring protocols so that we can get more competent workers from the private sectors

Why would they want to work for the government/??

+1. The government isn't the plush job it used to be. You'd be better off with a private sector stock incentive than the pension that new hires are enrolled in, the cost of medical insurance has skyrocketed, and feds are widely despised regardless of how hard they work. They will not find top talent lining up to take these positions, only interns or congressional staffers looking to move up.

I don't know why everyone is freaking out. There are too many "ifs." If Trump gets elected, if he does this, if they find people to take the jobs. A ton of political appointments went unfilled during his first administration. They couldn't fill the seats. The track record does not suggest this is a credible scenario to worry about.

[Anonymous]

The only people who would take these jobs—in the unlikely scenario Trump is successful—are shitty Hill staffers who will get a pay increase and can return to the Hill when the next Dem president fires them all. (I say shitty because good Hill staffers already earn comparable pay and have way more power and influence than they’d have at an agency).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about you, I hope you lose your job

We don’t care about your coveted job

80% of government workers should be let go

Free up the the hiring protocols so that we can get more competent workers from the private sectors

Why would they want to work for the government/??

+1. The government isn't the plush job it used to be. You'd be better off with a private sector stock incentive than the pension that new hires are enrolled in, the cost of medical insurance has skyrocketed, and feds are widely despised regardless of how hard they work. They will not find top talent lining up to take these positions, only interns or congressional staffers looking to move up.

I don't know why everyone is freaking out. There are too many "ifs." If Trump gets elected, if he does this, if they find people to take the jobs. A ton of political appointments went unfilled during his first administration. They couldn't fill the seats. The track record does not suggest this is a credible scenario to worry about.

+1 at my fed job, we are really understaffed and the workload is ceaseless, heavy, complicated, and kinda boring. But if you want to bounce me, go ahead, it will give me the kick in the rear I need to find a better job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about you, I hope you lose your job

We don’t care about your coveted job

80% of government workers should be let go

Free up the the hiring protocols so that we can get more competent workers from the private sectors

The level of ignorance people have about the government is really sad. I have worked in commercial companies and also the government. There are incompetent do-nothings in the private sector. Managers hold onto them for potential lay offs.

The level of anger in your post is concerning. Seek therapy. The topic discussed doesn’t warrant this level of anger.

[Anonymous]

OPM issued the final rule today, so it should at least be harder for a new Trump admin to fire everyone immediately. They’ll have to deal with litigation first.