Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

The preamble goes on at some length about civil servants actively scheming against the President's priorities. I don't think that such people exist, and I don't believe that this Administration will ever acknowledge that such folks don't exist--they'll find spurious reasons to fire folks.

Look, I’m a Dem but these folks absolutely exist. I’m not going to argue about it so whatever you want to believe is fine.

Anonymous wrote:I started reading. Stopped when I read Schedule C.
Those ARE political appointees. Low level but appointees.

No, I don’t think it’s limited to Schedule C. I think it’s now going to be called Schedule Policy/Career.

Anonymous wrote:I started reading. Stopped when I read Schedule C.
Those ARE political appointees. Low level but appointees.

See pp. 16-17:
The new order reinstated E.O. 13957, while amending it in several ways. The order redesignates “Schedule F” as “Schedule Policy/Career.” This change in nomenclature emphasizes that covered positions remain career positions and are not being converted into political appointments—a common misperception of the original order.

The section on attorneys is interesting. I dont think it will affect me but it might affect many others.

I started reading. Stopped when I read Schedule C.
Those ARE political appointees. Low level but appointees.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

The preamble goes on at some length about civil servants actively scheming against the President's priorities. I don't think that such people exist, and I don't believe that this Administration will ever acknowledge that such folks don't exist--they'll find spurious reasons to fire folks.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

Ah, hello MAGA.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

Have you ever heard of pretext? You can’t possibly be this clueless.

I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

Anonymous wrote:So if I am eligible to retire and I get fired for whatever, I just retire right. I do not lose my pension?

if you can get out, why are you still here?

Anonymous wrote:Can a Dem administration reverse this?

I would think so, since the basis is an interpretation of existing law plus E.O.s. If Congress had put this in place, it would be different.

Can a Dem administration reverse this?

So if I am eligible to retire and I get fired for whatever, I just retire right. I do not lose my pension?

This is basically just Schedule F right?

OT but I went to law school with the person that wrote the rule, he's a really weird guy.

Today, OPM posted for public inspection (will be in tomorrow's Federal Register) a final rule to pave the way to remove (many?) civil service protections from a new category of the civil service. Document at https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-02375.pdf

Of particular note:
* will apply to folks on the GS scale, not SES (p. 53)
* will apply to current workers, not just new hires (p. 226)
* VERA/VSIP won't be offered to those in reclassified positions (p. 226)