Comment by Jtsummers | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jtsummers | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The letter this submission is about went to many people who do not fall under policy/career. It went to everyone including people like admin staff and IT technicians who could not be put into Schedule Policy/Career per the OPM guidance.

You can read the guidance here: https://www.chcoc.gov/content/guidance-implementing-presiden...

There's no way that a GS-9 or GS-11 2210 network tech taking this deferred resignation option would be hired back under this schedule because they do not qualify for it (unless they happen to be part of union leadership or something, but that's a very small number compared to the whole).

And even if they could hire back a non-policy position under a policy schedule, this resignation/rehiring you've suggested is very roundabout. It's completely unnecessary so doesn't even make sense, they can convert those positions without the need for a resignation and rehiring the individual.

It would actually have made more sense to convert all these positions that wouldn't fall under Policy/Career (that you for some reason believe could) and then to dismiss the individuals without offering this deferred resignation.

> It would actually have made more sense to convert all these positions that wouldn't fall under Policy/Career (that you for some reason believe could) and then to dismiss the individuals without offering this deferred resignation.

They cannot, as I understood it, get the loyalty boost they want from converting a position to an F (Policy/Career) position because of the laws Biden introduced to protect roles from that kind of interference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy/Career_appointment#Repe...

In April 2024, the Biden administration put into effect a regulation named "Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles" (89 FR 24982) that allows employees to keep existing job protections even if their positions were reclassified, preventing most of the effects of a reinstatement of Schedule F.

So, again, getting these employees to leave of their own accord allows them to convert as many to Schedule Policy/Career as possible without the employee in the seat. Because Biden and Congress introduced protections that would have stopped them being dismissed.

And did you not read what Miller is quoted as saying? I don't know why you are arguing against the idea that the intent here is about loyalty to Trumpism, when they are saying that with their creepy little outside voices.

> They cannot, as I understood it, get the loyalty boost they want from converting a position to an F (Policy/Career) position because of the laws Biden introduced to protect roles from that kind of interference.

Read your own reference. Not a law, in the sense that it was passed by Congress, but a regulation created by the executive branch for the executive branch. It can be undone. If they want to loyalty test people, they can undo the regulation and perform the conversion later. This letter is not about getting people to resign and then rehiring them (as you strangely suggested in your first reply to me) under Schedule Career/Policy. I say that because the vast majority of the 2.5 million civil servants that it was sent to cannot be hired as Schedule Career/Policy per the OPM guidance I shared in my previous response.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com