Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Looking at my agency, it doesn't touch any first line managers or bargaining unit employees. It's all more senior level management and "Advisor"-type positions.
I also don't really get the freak-out about this. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, then you'd get sidelined or possibly demoted (even today).
If the current Admin went on a broad rampage of firing Schedule F employees, they would have no one to write Federal Register Notices and implement their (deregulatory) policies in a durable manner. It's a catch-22.
LOL. They don't care about filing federal register notices or proper implementation of anything. The entire process is a joke.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most Attorneys are already excepted service. What’s the difference with schedule F?
It’s easy to ask an LLM; I really hope you aren’t an attorney.
While both bypass traditional civil service hiring, standard Schedule A attorneys have robust job protections—they can only be fired "for cause" (misconduct/poor performance) and have full rights to appeal to the MSPB. Schedule F strips these protections away, reclassifying policy-influencing lawyers as "at-will" employees who can be summarily removed without appeal.
Have you read the regulations though? LLMs only repeat what they are fed, which is often misinformation, and sometimes disinformation.
Anonymous wrote:Looking at my agency, it doesn't touch any first line managers or bargaining unit employees. It's all more senior level management and "Advisor"-type positions.
I also don't really get the freak-out about this. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, then you'd get sidelined or possibly demoted (even today).
If the current Admin went on a broad rampage of firing Schedule F employees, they would have no one to write Federal Register Notices and implement their (deregulatory) policies in a durable manner. It's a catch-22.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this is pretty frustrating given that they’ve done nothing to make it any easier to terminate non-supervisory employees at my agency, but are making supervisors fireable at will. What exactly are they trying to do with this? If I fail to hold employees accountable with a process that is designed to prevent me from doing so, I’ll be fired? Do I have that right?
Similar issue here. And the crazy thing is that many of the people who would have helped me fire someone took the DRP and no one backfilled that role. Bad employees just sit.
Anonymous wrote:Looking at my agency, it doesn't touch any first line managers or bargaining unit employees. It's all more senior level management and "Advisor"-type positions.
I also don't really get the freak-out about this. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, then you'd get sidelined or possibly demoted (even today).
If the current Admin went on a broad rampage of firing Schedule F employees, they would have no one to write Federal Register Notices and implement their (deregulatory) policies in a durable manner. It's a catch-22.
Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this is pretty frustrating given that they’ve done nothing to make it any easier to terminate non-supervisory employees at my agency, but are making supervisors fireable at will. What exactly are they trying to do with this? If I fail to hold employees accountable with a process that is designed to prevent me from doing so, I’ll be fired? Do I have that right?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most Attorneys are already excepted service. What’s the difference with schedule F?
It’s easy to ask an LLM; I really hope you aren’t an attorney.
While both bypass traditional civil service hiring, standard Schedule A attorneys have robust job protections—they can only be fired "for cause" (misconduct/poor performance) and have full rights to appeal to the MSPB. Schedule F strips these protections away, reclassifying policy-influencing lawyers as "at-will" employees who can be summarily removed without appeal.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most Attorneys are already excepted service. What’s the difference with schedule F?
It’s easy to ask an LLM; I really hope you aren’t an attorney.
While both bypass traditional civil service hiring, standard Schedule A attorneys have robust job protections—they can only be fired "for cause" (misconduct/poor performance) and have full rights to appeal to the MSPB. Schedule F strips these protections away, reclassifying policy-influencing lawyers as "at-will" employees who can be summarily removed without appeal.
Anonymous wrote:Most Attorneys are already excepted service. What’s the difference with schedule F?
Anonymous wrote:Looking at my agency, it doesn't touch any first line managers or bargaining unit employees. It's all more senior level management and "Advisor"-type positions.
I also don't really get the freak-out about this. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, then you'd get sidelined or possibly demoted (even today).
If the current Admin went on a broad rampage of firing Schedule F employees, they would have no one to write Federal Register Notices and implement their (deregulatory) policies in a durable manner. It's a catch-22.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's so strange! Some agencies list all attorneys, others list just supervisory attorneys, but many agencies skipped over their attorneys.
Aren't your attorney already direct hire positions? Ours didn't have the same workplace protections as other feds already.