Fed Hiring Freeze

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Van Hollen. I just wish his words would make some sort of dent in the alt reality of Trump world.

Van Hollen Statement on Trump Administration’s Federal Hiring Freeze

“President Trump’s decision to enact an arbitrary hiring freeze on federal agencies is short-sighted and may ultimately cost taxpayers more as that work is shifted to federal contractors. Rather than take the time to understand agency budgets and make informed decisions, the President has decided to forbid agencies from bringing new talent into the civilian workforce.

This will jeopardize critical missions like securing our borders, conducting oversight of federal programs, providing Social Security benefits, and monitoring the safety of our food supply. The size of each federal agency’s workforce should rise or fall based on the priority of their missions, not an arbitrary freeze. Unfortunately, this knee-jerk decision involved as much thought as one of the President's many tweets.”

[Anonymous]

What they really need to do is make it easier to fire government employees who do little to no work. Ask anyone who works in the government and they will tell you there are people like this in every agency. My dh worked in one and would try to give work to certain secretaries who would just roll their eyes at him and laugh while filing their nails. He quickly learned which ones he could actually go to to have something done and which were "lifers" who were a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't he just shoot a lot of his regular people -- i.e. his electorate -- in the foot? I feel like nearly all administrative and "non specialized" positions (i.e. not doctors and lawyers) have pretty much been filled via veterans preference in recent years. It's a pretty guaranteed route to hiring when your only marketable skills are infantry. Guess that's over for now.

Not to mention that 85% of federal workers are outside the DMV area. This hurts rural areas in the midwest and south just as much if not more than DC, which is what most people cheering think it will do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this affect the financial regulators?

Some of them, yes. Many are "self funded" though. Or have some kind of "independence" rule that Trump would need to break through legislatively first.

Which ones are self funded/have an independence rule? CFPB for now -- but what else? How about SEC and CFTC?

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know how this affects internal transfers and movement between agencies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you, Van Hollen. I just wish his words would make some sort of dent in the alt reality of Trump world.

Van Hollen Statement on Trump Administration’s Federal Hiring Freeze

“President Trump’s decision to enact an arbitrary hiring freeze on federal agencies is short-sighted and may ultimately cost taxpayers more as that work is shifted to federal contractors. Rather than take the time to understand agency budgets and make informed decisions, the President has decided to forbid agencies from bringing new talent into the civilian workforce.

This will jeopardize critical missions like securing our borders, conducting oversight of federal programs, providing Social Security benefits, and monitoring the safety of our food supply. The size of each federal agency’s workforce should rise or fall based on the priority of their missions, not an arbitrary freeze. Unfortunately, this knee-jerk decision involved as much thought as one of the President's many tweets.”

Unfortunately I think Van Hollen's statement will fall on deaf ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't he just shoot a lot of his regular people -- i.e. his electorate -- in the foot? I feel like nearly all administrative and "non specialized" positions (i.e. not doctors and lawyers) have pretty much been filled via veterans preference in recent years. It's a pretty guaranteed route to hiring when your only marketable skills are infantry. Guess that's over for now.

Not to mention that 85% of federal workers are outside the DMV area. This hurts rural areas in the midwest and south just as much if not more than DC, which is what most people cheering think it will do.

I've lived in one of those southern small towns and getting into the federal government is THE GOAL. People apply for years to be able to get in. It's their goal for their kids to get in etc. Bc they see it as lifetime security and they/their kids don't have to worry about what happens when the small business that was employing them goes under or can't pay rising health insurance costs or whatever. Whereas in DC you often (but not always) take a pay cut to go to the gov't -- in those areas, gov't workers live like kings in large part bc they can stretch to buy a home that others in town can't/won't bc they have the lifetime security of being employed and thus able to pay the mortgage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What they really need to do is make it easier to fire government employees who do little to no work. Ask anyone who works in the government and they will tell you there are people like this in every agency. My dh worked in one and would try to give work to certain secretaries who would just roll their eyes at him and laugh while filing their nails. He quickly learned which ones he could actually go to to have something done and which were "lifers" who were a joke.

While I do agree it should be easier to get rid of non-performers, the reason it IS so difficult is being made incredibly obvious recently. You have to significantly work to document the poor performance, so that you can justify firing someone for cause, rather than for political motivation. It is not impossible to fire someone, but it does take a tremendous amount of effort.

[Anonymous]

Further detail about the hiring freeze:

"The freeze will not get in the way of plans to onboard political appointees – non-career Senior Executive Service posts and hires under Schedule C are exempted. The order also does not apply retroactively, and exceptions can be made to the freeze at the behest of the director of the Office of Personnel Management."

Source: https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/23/trump-signs-hiring-freeze.aspx

[Anonymous]

I'm hearing it's a total freeze on filling vacancies though. Like no vacancies can be filled period (except for rare exceptions), even with transfers and reassignments. Can anyone confirm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm hearing it's a total freeze on filling vacancies though. Like no vacancies can be filled period (except for rare exceptions), even with transfers and reassignments. Can anyone confirm?

The order is now available online. This isn't true. I also see nothing in there re a pay freeze.

[Anonymous]

i am not sure of this is the actual executive order please take it at the face value
http://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trump_hiring_freeze.pdf

[Anonymous]

Someone mentioned a Reagan Era rule earlier re: Hiring Freezes

"In an August 1981 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in National Treasury Employees Union v. Ronald Reagan, the court ruled that those who had been appointed after Election Day, but had not yet started work, were affected by the retroactive freeze because they had not actually become federal employees.

The court found that a small number of workers among the plaintiff group, however, had begun to perform official work functions and therefore could make a claim based on the standard civil service protections that federal employees hold."

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-freezes-hiring-of-federal-workers/2017/01/23/f14d8180-e190-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?utm_term=.64646f3c25c9

[Anonymous]

Does this apply to people who have accepted offers and are awaiting clearance from a background check to start? I've read the text of the order and can't answer the question.

[Anonymous]

In other words, what is "an appointment to federal service?"