Anonymous wrote:My wife is a career fed who was hired when George W. Bush was president. Since then her job has been the same no matter which party has been in office...until now anyway.

Ditto (including starting under Bush 2, in the Courts, when Ashcroft wanted modesty garments out of nude statues). Large agency, serves all Americans, traditionally very nonpartisan. Even under Trump 1, we were basically the same. They absolutely have destroyed our ability to function. Not changed direction. Made serving any Americans of any political belief almost impossible. In 4 months. We worked before. Needed more money, backlog was too high, workloads were too high. But, the agency worked and the public was served. Now, not so much. If they halted now, we’d take a decade to recover.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Umm, you work for the President. If you can't work with his priorities and orders, then you shouldn't work for the Government.

Anonymous wrote:
>
Federal hiring too often focuses on elite universities and credentials, instead of merit, practical skill, and commitment to American ideals,” the strategy states.

The word “merit” as used by the right wing is turning into a dog whistle. They don’t have any concept of what it means or how to measure it. The federal government hires lots of people right out of college, when “merit” can most easily be determined by what school you were able to get into (elite = worked hard in high school) and how well you did in what major. The reason the MAGA crowd doesn’t like elite universities is because uneducated and undereducated people are much more likely to go along with their brand of lunacy. Trying to push “merit” as an alternative is contradictory to the reality, which is that there’s plenty of merit coming out of elite universities.

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

The part where it says “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role” is the last thing any of us should want for federal hires. This is asking explicitly for people who have a partisan leaning. Why would it be good for the country if we hire only people who have a political bent? That’s exactly what the current administration has been trying (incompetently and ill-advisedly) to find and weed out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

Not all federal jobs are political. Without a test how would we know if these places have an criteria for being better than current hiring? Why isn't this just DEI?

You think those essays are going to tell you who is going to be a good employee?

“How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

G5 is clerical positions, requires 4 yrs post-secondary ed but not even a degree. I applied once for a USDA county level field office job where I could be classified anywhere from G5-G7 (ended up not taking job). Kind of horrifying to think I could be hired to just go in and decide to implement EOs (the job involved farm programs and a ton of interaction with farmers for stuff like loan programs, CRP, etc, and basically a lot of making sure forms etc to comply with regs were completed and turned in.

“In this role, how would you use your skills and experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness? Provide specific examples where you improved processes, reduced costs, or improved outcomes.”

Again, in a G5 position, if you were new to the agency, what would you even go on before learning the processes to begin with? Someone who has an answer to that should not be hire.

Basically, the statutory authorization and intent for these positions should be paramount

Anonymous wrote:Reviewing four essays that are unrelated to the actual skills and knowledge of the position will not speed up hiring or make the process more efficient.

Though I agree with a push to bring in more young employees, I no longer recommend government service to new grads based on what this admin has done to the workforce.

Yes, I highly discourage any young people from going into government service early in their career. If they want to support the mission, they should build a professional network and portfolio and join in their late 40’s or early 50’s.

Anonymous wrote:The unelected swamp runs things. The elected executives come and go.

Trump is ending the unconstitutional horror

You understand that the swamp was the lobbyists and special interests, who are no essentially in charge if they pay the Trump family?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drain_the_swamp

"Drain the swamp is a phrase which has frequently been used by politicians since the 1980s and in the U.S. often refers to reducing the influence of special interests and lobbyists."

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

So you want scientists and researchers to change their positions every four years depending on who is in office?

Reviewing four essays that are unrelated to the actual skills and knowledge of the position will not speed up hiring or make the process more efficient.

Though I agree with a push to bring in more young employees, I no longer recommend government service to new grads based on what this admin has done to the workforce.

Anonymous wrote:The unelected swamp runs things. The elected executives come and go.

Trump is ending the unconstitutional horror

You mean ending the non partisan horror. Now Donnie can make his DEI hires.

Another data point - non DOD, 25 year fed in a research organization - almost all staff, including all the PhDs, from public/state universities. That's kinda the thing (or used to be) with the fed, you just needed the degree prestige wasn't really the point.

The unelected swamp runs things. The elected executives come and go.

Trump is ending the unconstitutional horror

Anonymous wrote:Umm, what's wrong with any of this?

Not all federal jobs are political. Without a test how would we know if these places have an criteria for being better than current hiring? Why isn't this just DEI?

Umm, what's wrong with any of this?