Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about you, I hope you lose your job
We don’t care about your coveted job
80% of government workers should be let go
Free up the the hiring protocols so that we can get more competent workers from the private sectors
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about you, I hope you lose your job
We don’t care about your coveted job
80% of government workers should be let go
Free up the the hiring protocols so that we can get more competent workers from the private sectors
Why would they want to work for the government/??
+1. The government isn't the plush job it used to be. You'd be better off with a private sector stock incentive than the pension that new hires are enrolled in, the cost of medical insurance has skyrocketed, and feds are widely despised regardless of how hard they work. They will not find top talent lining up to take these positions, only interns or congressional staffers looking to move up.
I don't know why everyone is freaking out. There are too many "ifs." If Trump gets elected, if he does this, if they find people to take the jobs. A ton of political appointments went unfilled during his first administration. They couldn't fill the seats. The track record does not suggest this is a credible scenario to worry about.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about you, I hope you lose your job
We don’t care about your coveted job
80% of government workers should be let go
Free up the the hiring protocols so that we can get more competent workers from the private sectors
Why would they want to work for the government/??
Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about you, I hope you lose your job
We don’t care about your coveted job
80% of government workers should be let go
Free up the the hiring protocols so that we can get more competent workers from the private sectors
Anonymous wrote:What does the F stand for?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Employment litigator here. Have represented many feds. What much of the Schedule F coverage misses is the distinction between current and future employees. There is little doubt that Trump could make Schedule F effective for all policy hires after his inauguration. But for all existing employees, there would be a gigantic due process barrier. They would have a very strong argument that the executive branch cannot just unilaterally revoke their civil service protections. The argument will be even stronger if OPM finalizes this rule.
But do you think that a proposed termination would be stayed/enjoined pending litigation?
Anonymous wrote:Employment litigator here. Have represented many feds. What much of the Schedule F coverage misses is the distinction between current and future employees. There is little doubt that Trump could make Schedule F effective for all policy hires after his inauguration. But for all existing employees, there would be a gigantic due process barrier. They would have a very strong argument that the executive branch cannot just unilaterally revoke their civil service protections. The argument will be even stronger if OPM finalizes this rule.
Anonymous wrote:Employment litigator here. Have represented many feds. What much of the Schedule F coverage misses is the distinction between current and future employees. There is little doubt that Trump could make Schedule F effective for all policy hires after his inauguration. But for all existing employees, there would be a gigantic due process barrier. They would have a very strong argument that the executive branch cannot just unilaterally revoke their civil service protections. The argument will be even stronger if OPM finalizes this rule.