Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 16:55     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Just hoping someone in similar situation might have heard something before bugging HR. I thought HR might not know yet


We were told that if the job posted on USAjobs before 1/22 than it could be filled. We have a couple pending openings on our team that have had certs out and are reading that as we can continue with the selection process for them (one cert hasn't even gotten to interviews yet but we can proceed because it posted in early jan)

-DHS person


That interpretation doesn't make any sense. Those openings were "vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017". So I would think you wouldn't be able to fill them.
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 16:48     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
Anonymous wrote:Just hoping someone in similar situation might have heard something before bugging HR. I thought HR might not know yet


We were told that if the job posted on USAjobs before 1/22 than it could be filled. We have a couple pending openings on our team that have had certs out and are reading that as we can continue with the selection process for them (one cert hasn't even gotten to interviews yet but we can proceed because it posted in early jan)

-DHS person
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 16:04     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
Anonymous wrote:
From USA today: "The order Trump signed does not cover hires already in the works before Monday."



If ever there was a statement that needed clarification, it's this one.


+1. That is one reporters interpretation and it doesn't clarify anything.
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 15:51     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
Anonymous wrote:
From USA today: "The order Trump signed does not cover hires already in the works before Monday."



If ever there was a statement that needed clarification, it's this one.


LOL
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 15:46     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
Yes! Wonder how long it will take to hear
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 15:21     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
From USA today: "The order Trump signed does not cover hires already in the works before Monday."



If ever there was a statement that needed clarification, it's this one.
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 15:06     Subject: Fed Hiring Freeze
From USA today: "The order Trump signed does not cover hires already in the works before Monday."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/24/trump-hiring-freeze-includes-veterans-affairs/96999464/

Not sure if this is true!
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 15:05     Subject: Fed Hiring Freeze
HR is probably waiting for further guidance/clarification from the top. It's not surprising they put "hold" until then. If I were in charge of HR, I'd do the same just to be safe.
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 15:02     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
To the person who got word from HR, any more details? Or just halting all hires until indefinite future? Any word on what stage people needed to be in to make it?
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 13:22     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is the part I wonder about, "This memorandum does not revoke any appointment to Federal service made prior to January 22, 2017." Could it mean that an offer before the 22 can be honored?

At first I assumed that referred to appointees (i.e. political appointees) but those were discussed in an earlier paragraph. So is the sentence I quoted up to interpretation by each agency?


I focused on another area of it:
As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled



If appointment is made, it's no longer vacant. If you got an offer before 1/22, you are good to go.


That isn't my understanding. My understanding is that you needed to have started on 1/22 or before. The position is considered vacant until your EOD date.

Actually, to be more specific, until you take the oath of office.


Good point, I believe if your EOD was 1/22 and you took the oath 1/23 you are actually OK. It was my understanding that you just need to have started by 1/22 or before.

I think the oath thing is still up for debate. There are employees who were in the new positions on 12:01am 1/22 (start of the new pay period), but didn't take the oath until 8:00am on 1/23. Are those people considered to have been appointed by noon on 1/22?
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 13:18     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is the part I wonder about, "This memorandum does not revoke any appointment to Federal service made prior to January 22, 2017." Could it mean that an offer before the 22 can be honored?

At first I assumed that referred to appointees (i.e. political appointees) but those were discussed in an earlier paragraph. So is the sentence I quoted up to interpretation by each agency?


I focused on another area of it:
As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled



If appointment is made, it's no longer vacant. If you got an offer before 1/22, you are good to go.


That isn't my understanding. My understanding is that you needed to have started on 1/22 or before. The position is considered vacant until your EOD date.

Actually, to be more specific, until you take the oath of office.


I think the oath thing is still up for debate. There are employees who were in the new positions on 12:01am 1/22 (start of the new pay period), but didn't take the oath until 8:00am on 1/23. Are those people considered to have been appointed by noon on 1/22?
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 13:16     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is the part I wonder about, "This memorandum does not revoke any appointment to Federal service made prior to January 22, 2017." Could it mean that an offer before the 22 can be honored?

At first I assumed that referred to appointees (i.e. political appointees) but those were discussed in an earlier paragraph. So is the sentence I quoted up to interpretation by each agency?


I focused on another area of it:
As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled



If appointment is made, it's no longer vacant. If you got an offer before 1/22, you are good to go.


That isn't my understanding. My understanding is that you needed to have started on 1/22 or before. The position is considered vacant until your EOD date.

Actually, to be more specific, until you take the oath of office.
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 13:03     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is the part I wonder about, "This memorandum does not revoke any appointment to Federal service made prior to January 22, 2017." Could it mean that an offer before the 22 can be honored?

At first I assumed that referred to appointees (i.e. political appointees) but those were discussed in an earlier paragraph. So is the sentence I quoted up to interpretation by each agency?


I focused on another area of it:
As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled



If appointment is made, it's no longer vacant. If you got an offer before 1/22, you are good to go.


That isn't my understanding. My understanding is that you needed to have started on 1/22 or before. The position is considered vacant until your EOD date.
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 12:58     Subject: Re:Fed Hiring Freeze
i just got word from HR that they are halting all hires. I had a Tentative offer... SAD!
Anonymous
Post 01/24/2017 12:57     Subject: Fed Hiring Freeze
An offer is not appointment though.