Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

I could honestly see them issuing some draconian EO to redefine disability for SSDI purposes so no one can get it.

SSA attorney from above. Nope. SSI ( which is the welfare piece) and SSDI (comes out of FICA) are defined to death ina CFR 8 inches thick. You can’t EO over an existing law.

Also, red states get significantly more SSI/SSDI than blue states. Lot of Southern Reps and Senators would not be pleased.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

I could honestly see them issuing some draconian EO to redefine disability for SSDI purposes so no one can get it.

This wouldn’t be possible without legislation.

A number of these EOs are overreach or illegal. So?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

I could honestly see them issuing some draconian EO to redefine disability for SSDI purposes so no one can get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like it shouldn't apply to line attorneys

But does apply to the GS-14s who manage them. Yet another reason I’m thanking my lucky stars I pushed back against my managers suggestions that I apply for one of these jobs. No BU + Schedule F? HARD PASS.

How are you sure this won’t apply to attorneys. Look at the 905 series job description about rendering legal advice and services regarding federal regulations. This is for your basic attorney adviser position. Why would they not just decide to make all attorneys schedule F rather than try to figure out what each one does. The memo is so broad.

NP. The agency could decide that all its attorneys fit within the parameters, but they have the room to decide otherwise. It will vary.
I'm an attorney and assumed I'd be covered, but actually my job could easily be excluded from the most recent memo. I don't know which way my agency will go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

I could honestly see them issuing some draconian EO to redefine disability for SSDI purposes so no one can get it.

This wouldn’t be possible without legislation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

I could honestly see them issuing some draconian EO to redefine disability for SSDI purposes so no one can get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Just think - if all of you are fired, then there will be no one to do anything at SSA. At that point, it will be easy peasy to borrow the funding and cut the benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

+1. I’m SSA and I implement regs— but anything I write gets signed by a Judge (who can and sometimes does request edits). So, do I implement regs? Yes, but I’m not the final word. No Regs get implemented under my signatures. So— who knows? I’m hoping that Trump and his minions just aren’t interested in finding a couple hundred attorney subject matter experts in SSA Regs who are loyal to him. It’s a niche area of law and we usually have to train lawyers for wow years to get journeymen. Not a very sexy or powerful job. And very hard to fill even if it isn’t Schedule F. But, maybe I’m just fooling myself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-supervisory attorneys (excepted, career
/permanent) could be under schedule F???

yes

I think it’ll depend on whether your agency head wants that role to be fireable. If this was a sane administration, I’d say absolutely not, a line attorney isn’t implementing policy when they take a deposition or negotiate a subpoena. “I’ll have to take that back to my management” is my most frequent phrase lol.

Not sure that will apply here. We do implement policy goals, sort of. I have supervised attorneys on a team. I did comment on a policy guide a few times.

I think it is written broadly enough to get them whatever they want, basically

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry for dumb question, but what does it mean that this applies to “excepted service”? Does that mean political appointees, not positions awarded competitively?

No, I’ve been excepted service my whole career, even as a gs 11 newbie attorney. It’s just how my positions have always been classified by the nature of the work. I think it meant I had two years to tenure instead of one when I started. I was not a political appointee. I applied through USA jobs for every position I’ve held, just the classification was excepted service, so I’ve never been eligible for the same types of protections as competitive service employees, and I’m not reinstatement eligible when they ask those types of questions on the application.

So does this not apply to people whose positions are competitive service?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like it shouldn't apply to line attorneys

But does apply to the GS-14s who manage them. Yet another reason I’m thanking my lucky stars I pushed back against my managers suggestions that I apply for one of these jobs. No BU + Schedule F? HARD PASS.

How are you sure this won’t apply to attorneys. Look at the 905 series job description about rendering legal advice and services regarding federal regulations. This is for your basic attorney adviser position. Why would they not just decide to make all attorneys schedule F rather than try to figure out what each one does. The memo is so broad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry for dumb question, but what does it mean that this applies to “excepted service”? Does that mean political appointees, not positions awarded competitively?

No, I’ve been excepted service my whole career, even as a gs 11 newbie attorney. It’s just how my positions have always been classified by the nature of the work. I think it meant I had two years to tenure instead of one when I started. I was not a political appointee. I applied through USA jobs for every position I’ve held, just the classification was excepted service, so I’ve never been eligible for the same types of protections as competitive service employees, and I’m not reinstatement eligible when they ask those types of questions on the application.