Looks like it shouldn't apply to line attorneys

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is a bad thing?

Not interesting in engaging with trolls on this. Go to google, look it up, and start a new thread if you’d like to discuss it.

That is what this thread is!

This is a different poster, just truly trying to understand what this means.

Strips career people of their employment protections and makes them at will. In this admin, worry is that it is a job grab to fire hard-working, exceptional employees and install cronies/political spoil system

NP but where he going to find those cronies? Just plug them in from random places and let them learn on the fly? They’re not going to be effective.

They don't want them to be effective. The goal is to burn it down, stop govt from functioning and having any regulations and then complain and say "see it's not working" and sell off prime pieces (visible to constituents)of work to favored contractors and funnel money to them.

I found this useful, for those who are asking what the Schedule F stuff is about:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/president-trump-and-the-civil-service--day-1

Note that is this very much NOT just about SES.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t this go to court? And I mean quickly? Why isn’t anyone seeking an injunction?

Nothing that goes to court happens fast.

Plus they haven’t done it yet. It’s asking for a position review.

Can you explain what you mean by "it's asking for a position review"? thank you.

It provides guidance for the types of position agencies should consider and they have until April 20 to submit them.

Don’t fool yourself. The reclassification will follow shortly after.

Not saying it won’t. Clearly these people are very serious in carrying this out.

Just replying to the folks who don’t understand why it’s not in the courts or an injunction yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is a bad thing?

Not interesting in engaging with trolls on this. Go to google, look it up, and start a new thread if you’d like to discuss it.

That is what this thread is!

This is a different poster, just truly trying to understand what this means.

Strips career people of their employment protections and makes them at will. In this admin, worry is that it is a job grab to fire hard-working, exceptional employees and install cronies/political spoil system

NP but where he going to find those cronies? Just plug them in from random places and let them learn on the fly? They’re not going to be effective.

Well, of course, they won't be effective. That's the point. FWIW, my friend told me their new head (which was already a political appointee) has been filled by someone previously appointed and fired from multiple positions by the last Trump admin. They are really going to the bottom of the barrel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is a bad thing?

Not interesting in engaging with trolls on this. Go to google, look it up, and start a new thread if you’d like to discuss it.

That is what this thread is!

This is a different poster, just truly trying to understand what this means.

Converts certain competitive service positions, which typically have significant job protections, to excepted service. If a federal employee's work involves setting, reviewing, or furthering agency or departmental policies, they will be converted to excepted service. In essence, they can and will be replaced with each new administration. Most of these will be senior and supervisory positions.

I saw a reference to congressional and public affairs as well as the executive Secretariat. At my old agency, the Secretariat was primarily executive assistants formatting documents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t this go to court? And I mean quickly? Why isn’t anyone seeking an injunction?

Nothing that goes to court happens fast.

Plus they haven’t done it yet. It’s asking for a position review.

Can you explain what you mean by "it's asking for a position review"? thank you.

It provides guidance for the types of position agencies should consider and they have until April 20 to submit them.

Don’t fool yourself. The reclassification will follow shortly after.

I think the issue is whether a TRO can issue before the reclassification happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t this go to court? And I mean quickly? Why isn’t anyone seeking an injunction?

Nothing that goes to court happens fast.

Plus they haven’t done it yet. It’s asking for a position review.

Can you explain what you mean by "it's asking for a position review"? thank you.

It provides guidance for the types of position agencies should consider and they have until April 20 to submit them.

Don’t fool yourself. The reclassification will follow shortly after.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t this go to court? And I mean quickly? Why isn’t anyone seeking an injunction?

Nothing that goes to court happens fast.

Plus they haven’t done it yet. It’s asking for a position review.

Can you explain what you mean by "it's asking for a position review"? thank you.

It provides guidance for the types of position agencies should consider and they have until April 20 to submit them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:does anyone have a sense of how quickly an injunction can be provided?

Or is this going to be one of those things where 10,000 of us get fired and then have to wait while the lawsuit makes its way through court?

The union could file for a very fast temporary restraining order or a less fast prelim injunction, but as of this morning it has done neither.

Am assuming most of these positions are supervisory/non-BU

Incorrect. As written, this language could easily be applied to more than half of the employees in our agency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t this go to court? And I mean quickly? Why isn’t anyone seeking an injunction?

Nothing that goes to court happens fast.

Plus they haven’t done it yet. It’s asking for a position review.

Can you explain what you mean by "it's asking for a position review"? thank you.

DP but this memo is telling agencies to figure out which positions should be schedule F, not actually moving anyone to schedule F

Right but the moving to schedule F will be next after the lists are submitted in April. You’ll get an updated SF-50.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t this go to court? And I mean quickly? Why isn’t anyone seeking an injunction?

Nothing that goes to court happens fast.

Plus they haven’t done it yet. It’s asking for a position review.

Can you explain what you mean by "it's asking for a position review"? thank you.

DP but this memo is telling agencies to figure out which positions should be schedule F, not actually moving anyone to schedule F

ah, thank you. I was thinking "position review" was some sort of request to a judge to review the legal position of the memo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t this go to court? And I mean quickly? Why isn’t anyone seeking an injunction?

Nothing that goes to court happens fast.

Plus they haven’t done it yet. It’s asking for a position review.

Can you explain what you mean by "it's asking for a position review"? thank you.

Read the memo. And it’s not just asking for review- it’s asking for lists of positions by April which they will then use to determine if the position is reclassified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t this go to court? And I mean quickly? Why isn’t anyone seeking an injunction?

Nothing that goes to court happens fast.

Plus they haven’t done it yet. It’s asking for a position review.

Can you explain what you mean by "it's asking for a position review"? thank you.

DP but this memo is telling agencies to figure out which positions should be schedule F, not actually moving anyone to schedule F

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is a bad thing?

Not interesting in engaging with trolls on this. Go to google, look it up, and start a new thread if you’d like to discuss it.

That is what this thread is!

This is a different poster, just truly trying to understand what this means.

Strips career people of their employment protections and makes them at will. In this admin, worry is that it is a job grab to fire hard-working, exceptional employees and install cronies/political spoil system

NP but where he going to find those cronies? Just plug them in from random places and let them learn on the fly? They’re not going to be effective.