Anonymous wrote:Isn't this kind to late in the term for the Biden administration to be rulemaking given the Congressional Review Act?

The rules would need to be final by June. Even if they’re delayed, CRA repeal is probably unlikely since there will be a lot of targets and each repeal takes away nomination time.

Isn't this kind to late in the term for the Biden administration to be rulemaking given the Congressional Review Act?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hearing north of 250k employees could be converted to this new schedule. Not just policy makers, but admin types and more. Seems like this is a pretext for laying off hundreds of thousands.

I wasn’t freaking out until I read about the recently-acquired FOIA materials showing exactly this — that the interpretation of a policy position could be stretched wildly to include hundreds of thousands of people, including some people low on the GS scale. Below is a WaPo article about it, which I’ve gifted.

https://wapo.st/3Tsz10G

If this happened — not the implementation of Schedule F per se, but the insane over-interpretation of what can be classified as a Schedule F position — would it be litigated and delayed?

Of course it would be. Democrats still control a lot of federal district and appellate courts, including in D.C. Democrat judges would enjoin the implementation and tie it up in appeals for a couple years before SCOTUS overturns (I don't think it would be fast-tracked).

Could this be litigated in federal court from the start or would it need to go to MSPB first? If the latter, does MSPB issue stays? I’ve only heard of cases there taking years and in the meantime, the former fed has found a new job.

My guess is any potentially viable lawsuit would not go through the MSPB as an appeal of an individual employment action, but rather to federal court as an APA violation.

Agreed. Biden is putting in protections that would need to be undone via APA rulemaking. Assuming the Biden rulemaking holds up, Trump would need to go through a months-long rulemaking process, and litigation would commence after issuance of a final rule. The midterms would probably happen before the litigation concludes, and assuming the Dems win the House (as the minority party usually does), they would have some leverage against Trump. This is all speculation, but the point is, no one should be expecting mass firings on January 20, 2025.

Anonymous wrote:If you work at an agency Trump hates, believe me, you are freaking.

Or, if you've ever touched anything that has to do with climate change or DEI you will be out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hearing north of 250k employees could be converted to this new schedule. Not just policy makers, but admin types and more. Seems like this is a pretext for laying off hundreds of thousands.

I wasn’t freaking out until I read about the recently-acquired FOIA materials showing exactly this — that the interpretation of a policy position could be stretched wildly to include hundreds of thousands of people, including some people low on the GS scale. Below is a WaPo article about it, which I’ve gifted.

https://wapo.st/3Tsz10G

If this happened — not the implementation of Schedule F per se, but the insane over-interpretation of what can be classified as a Schedule F position — would it be litigated and delayed?

OK? So you're freaking out. What does that mean? How does it translate into action in your life?

Sublimate it into political action. Go knock doors for Biden in Pennsylvania.

If you work at an agency Trump hates, believe me, you are freaking.

I've been freaked out since the Executive Order came out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hearing north of 250k employees could be converted to this new schedule. Not just policy makers, but admin types and more. Seems like this is a pretext for laying off hundreds of thousands.

I wasn’t freaking out until I read about the recently-acquired FOIA materials showing exactly this — that the interpretation of a policy position could be stretched wildly to include hundreds of thousands of people, including some people low on the GS scale. Below is a WaPo article about it, which I’ve gifted.

https://wapo.st/3Tsz10G

If this happened — not the implementation of Schedule F per se, but the insane over-interpretation of what can be classified as a Schedule F position — would it be litigated and delayed?

Of course it would be. Democrats still control a lot of federal district and appellate courts, including in D.C. Democrat judges would enjoin the implementation and tie it up in appeals for a couple years before SCOTUS overturns (I don't think it would be fast-tracked).

Could this be litigated in federal court from the start or would it need to go to MSPB first? If the latter, does MSPB issue stays? I’ve only heard of cases there taking years and in the meantime, the former fed has found a new job.

My guess is any potentially viable lawsuit would not go through the MSPB as an appeal of an individual employment action, but rather to federal court as an APA violation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hearing north of 250k employees could be converted to this new schedule. Not just policy makers, but admin types and more. Seems like this is a pretext for laying off hundreds of thousands.

I wasn’t freaking out until I read about the recently-acquired FOIA materials showing exactly this — that the interpretation of a policy position could be stretched wildly to include hundreds of thousands of people, including some people low on the GS scale. Below is a WaPo article about it, which I’ve gifted.

https://wapo.st/3Tsz10G

If this happened — not the implementation of Schedule F per se, but the insane over-interpretation of what can be classified as a Schedule F position — would it be litigated and delayed?

OK? So you're freaking out. What does that mean? How does it translate into action in your life?

Even if it gets to the courts, I'm not so sure it is illegal.

If you set aside the insanity of how a Trump administration may actually implement Schedule F, the legal basis is fairly sound. It actually does make sense, rationally and from a unitary executive legal basis, to have a lot more higher level policy positions be more like Sched C.

Of course, it shouldn't be used to immediately fire thousands for mid-level procurement folks as a ruse to decrease the size of government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hearing north of 250k employees could be converted to this new schedule. Not just policy makers, but admin types and more. Seems like this is a pretext for laying off hundreds of thousands.

I wasn’t freaking out until I read about the recently-acquired FOIA materials showing exactly this — that the interpretation of a policy position could be stretched wildly to include hundreds of thousands of people, including some people low on the GS scale. Below is a WaPo article about it, which I’ve gifted.

https://wapo.st/3Tsz10G

If this happened — not the implementation of Schedule F per se, but the insane over-interpretation of what can be classified as a Schedule F position — would it be litigated and delayed?

Of course it would be. Democrats still control a lot of federal district and appellate courts, including in D.C. Democrat judges would enjoin the implementation and tie it up in appeals for a couple years before SCOTUS overturns (I don't think it would be fast-tracked).

Could this be litigated in federal court from the start or would it need to go to MSPB first? If the latter, does MSPB issue stays? I’ve only heard of cases there taking years and in the meantime, the former fed has found a new job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hearing north of 250k employees could be converted to this new schedule. Not just policy makers, but admin types and more. Seems like this is a pretext for laying off hundreds of thousands.

I wasn’t freaking out until I read about the recently-acquired FOIA materials showing exactly this — that the interpretation of a policy position could be stretched wildly to include hundreds of thousands of people, including some people low on the GS scale. Below is a WaPo article about it, which I’ve gifted.

https://wapo.st/3Tsz10G

If this happened — not the implementation of Schedule F per se, but the insane over-interpretation of what can be classified as a Schedule F position — would it be litigated and delayed?

Of course it would be. Democrats still control a lot of federal district and appellate courts, including in D.C. Democrat judges would enjoin the implementation and tie it up in appeals for a couple years before SCOTUS overturns (I don't think it would be fast-tracked).

What’s the point of freaking out? You can’t do anything about it. Save money and hope for the best. You are of no significance

Anonymous wrote:I am hearing north of 250k employees could be converted to this new schedule. Not just policy makers, but admin types and more. Seems like this is a pretext for laying off hundreds of thousands.

I wasn’t freaking out until I read about the recently-acquired FOIA materials showing exactly this — that the interpretation of a policy position could be stretched wildly to include hundreds of thousands of people, including some people low on the GS scale. Below is a WaPo article about it, which I’ve gifted.

https://wapo.st/3Tsz10G

If this happened — not the implementation of Schedule F per se, but the insane over-interpretation of what can be classified as a Schedule F position — would it be litigated and delayed?

At least for me: I'm at an independent agency and close enough to retirement that I would consider it a favor to have the timing decision made for me.