Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on their role. Sets or implements policies for ERO? This person has probably broken the law numerous times. High level person in procurement? Likely no issues.

Kind of a mix actually. There are references to a number of controversial policies on the accomplishments section of their resume. The person would have been too low level to set those policies, but seems proud of their role in implementing them.

PP here and I would probably pass then if they were implementing policies that were clearly against the law. Also, they are apparently too stupid to try to hide the fact that they implemented said illegal policies.

Enforcing law enacted by congress that was ignored for 4 years is now considered breaking the law?

Not PP but you know that is not what they said. I will put it in bold for you since you only see through MAGA glasses apparently.

Anonymous wrote:When the DOGE thing was gojng on a lot of people were arguing to stay to honor their oath to the constitution and to prevent them from installing lackeys. Very much a "don't cede ground". With the recent Schedule F move, that person's calculations may have changed.

This. Also, not everyone is in a position to just leave their job without another lined up and because of DOGE cuts, the job market for feds has not been great.

Anonymous wrote:Good lord. Most people aren't capable of just walking away from a job on a political whim. They have to look for a job - like this person is doing! - with the requisite salary, location, and hours that works for their family. How do you know they didn't try to leave last January and every potential employer isn't doing the same as you?

+1 it's very unfair to hold it against feds who are trying to leave.

They may have been waiting to see if they could still do anything meaningful in their role. It also takes a very long time to find a job sometimes, especially with the # of feds leaving and the bad market. I would not make any assumptions about this person.

Anonymous wrote:Most people have to stay to pay their bills:car payments, rent, food, gas, utilities.

Doing evil things because you need the money is still evil. That’s not actually a good excuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on their role. Sets or implements policies for ERO? This person has probably broken the law numerous times. High level person in procurement? Likely no issues.

Kind of a mix actually. There are references to a number of controversial policies on the accomplishments section of their resume. The person would have been too low level to set those policies, but seems proud of their role in implementing them.

PP here and I would probably pass then if they were implementing policies that were clearly against the law. Also, they are apparently too stupid to try to hide the fact that they implemented said illegal policies.

Enforcing law enacted by congress that was ignored for 4 years is now considered breaking the law?

Anonymous wrote:Hiring for a new role and got an application from someone who is currently high level (but not a political) at an immigration agency. Person started before current administration but has stayed until now. They are not a perfect match for this position, but somewhat close and I would interview if not for this black mark. Is this an indication of poor character to stay in that job for so long? Or should i assume extenuating circumstances?

My gosh, is this a serious question?

Anonymous wrote:Removal operations are a legitimate federal function.
When comparing annual numbers, it’s clear that the Obama administration removed significantly more people than what we’re currently seeing.
Unless this applicant was engaging in, or ratifying, violations of constitutional rights or similar misconduct, I don’t see a problem.

Off topic but the Obama “removals” at the border were of a quite different nature than the interior removals by the Trump administration. Interior removals are far more difficult for many reasons.

Anonymous wrote:Hiring for a new role and got an application from someone who is currently high level (but not a political) at an immigration agency. Person started before current administration but has stayed until now. They are not a perfect match for this position, but somewhat close and I would interview if not for this black mark. Is this an indication of poor character to stay in that job for so long? Or should i assume extenuating circumstances?

A lot has changed. It is not a red flag. Maybe they tried to do the right thing and inform on the laws and have influence from the inside.

Also, they are STILL working, probably trying not to get fired, under incredibly difficult circumstances which would make job hunting challenging.

The careerists know that it’s awful. They have probably been shopping their resume for a while, but as others have said, most people don’t have the financial luxury to walk away from a job. Some people also really have dedication to their mission and were hoping to ride it out so they can rebuild what’s been broken when this is over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord. Most people aren't capable of just walking away from a job on a political whim. They have to look for a job - like this person is doing! - with the requisite salary, location, and hours that works for their family. How do you know they didn't try to leave last January and every potential employer isn't doing the same as you?

That would work last June. It’s been 18 months now.

You asked whether you should assume they had a reason not to leave earlier, and people told you yes, and you don't want to hear it. Sounds like you've made up your mind.

As a fed in a much more marketable and less controversial agency, I can tell you the job market has sucked since last year and 18 months without a good offer is not unusual in my field right now.

+1. The job market is terrible, and DOGE putting hundreds or thousands of feds on the job market at the same time did not help.

Anonymous wrote:When the DOGE thing was gojng on a lot of people were arguing to stay to honor their oath to the constitution and to prevent them from installing lackeys. Very much a "don't cede ground". With the recent Schedule F move, that person's calculations may have changed.

+1

I guess any federal employee could be guilty by association now if they stick around.
Come on, OP.

Unless they did something outright illegal, which it seems hard for you to know, I would not let this influence my decision at all. People’s personal views and politics should not be a factor in the workplace unless you work for a political campaign or cause. So if you’re hiring for ACLU or Democracy Forward, maybe it’s relevant, although they might bring an understanding of process that benefit your org.
Otherwise, just assess them as a candidate without filtering it through your personal views and biases.

I work for an agency that has always been nonpartisan yet it amazes me how people interpret what we do as partisan depending on their own views. If we issue a report they don’t like, we are pilloried on the left or right depending on the viewer. When really the data is the data. So I would not presume to know from a resume - unless it said “joyfully locked kids in cages on the daily” - just how political someone’s job duties were or why they did them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on their role. Sets or implements policies for ERO? This person has probably broken the law numerous times. High level person in procurement? Likely no issues.

Kind of a mix actually. There are references to a number of controversial policies on the accomplishments section of their resume. The person would have been too low level to set those policies, but seems proud of their role in implementing them.

PP here and I would probably pass then if they were implementing policies that were clearly against the law. Also, they are apparently too stupid to try to hide the fact that they implemented said illegal policies.

Wait, are we sure the policies were illegal?
Or just not acceptable to DCUM libs?

Anonymous wrote:People with that on their resume are going to have a tougher time finding work. Candidates get dismissed for much smaller things than that.

Yes but we don’t have to encourage attacks on the civil service from the left. It’s disheartening.