Federal employee hiring freeze.

[wolfsgirl]

The federal hiring freeze in now in effect.
The question I have is who is considered a federal employee? Federal judges? Supreme court? The Presidents appointees? The Presidents staff?

 

[humbolt]

We're all federal employees until around April 24th. Until you've made enough to pay your federal tax bill, you're working for them. On their behalf, please accept my deep and abiding appreciation. Now, get to work. It's still January.

 

[wolfsgirl]

We're all federal employees until around April 24th. Until you've made enough to pay your federal tax bill, you're working for them. On their behalf, please accept my deep and abiding appreciation. Now, get to work. It's still January.

Sorry, I'm a stay at home parent. The federal hiring freeze means that I can become a federal employee now.

 

[azgreg]

Ye 'ol linky poo.

Trump Signs Order to Freeze Federal Hiring - Management - GovExec.com

 

[Skeptic Bob]

The federal hiring freeze in now in effect.
The question I have is who is considered a federal employee? Federal judges? Supreme court? The Presidents appointees? The Presidents staff?

Basically everyone who falls under the Executive Branch. I'm pretty sure such EOs don't affect the other branches of government. I would bet money military recruitment is exempt as well.

 

[humbolt]

Sorry, I'm a stay at home parent. The federal hiring freeze means that I can become a federal employee now.

Stay at home parent? Slacker. Seriously, we could stand a little downsizing. There are roughly 22 million federal employees. We could get by with far fewer. If we just eliminated duplicate services we could save billions. I think the notion that we let attrition take it's course, consolidate duplicate services, and keep the hiring freeze in effect until we've reached a reasonable level of employment is a good idea. When the number of federal employees is twice the number of manufacturing employees, we have things a little skewed.

 

[nota bene]

Stay at home parent? Slacker. Seriously, we could stand a little downsizing. There are roughly 22 million federal employees. We could get by with far fewer. If we just eliminated duplicate services we could save billions. I think the notion that we let attrition take it's course, consolidate duplicate services, and keep the hiring freeze in effect until we've reached a reasonable level of employment is a good idea. When the number of federal employees is twice the number of manufacturing employees, we have things a little skewed.

Every fed agency has layers of useless bloat, career bureaucrats who do little more than sharpen pencils and who are going to ride that gravy train until they hit the retirement stop. I always hoped a panels of ordinary citizens would be appointed to take their pencils to those employment lists.

 

[humbolt]

Every fed agency has layers of useless bloat, career bureaucrats who do little more than sharpen pencils and who are going to ride that gravy train until they hit the retirement stop. I always hoped a panels of ordinary citizens would be appointed to take their pencils to those employment lists.

That's pretty much the case. I worked for HUD for a few years before I went on to more serious government service. Well over half of the money expended by that agency during my tenure was wasted - literally thrown away on useless things by employees who did next to nothing. It was at once an amazing and disgusting insight. The things that HUD "engineers" directed me to do were insane. I quickly reached the conclusion that these engineers were working for HUD because nobody else anywhere would have considered hiring them. Those people got themselves a job in which they could coast, wasting millions over millions to no good end. The spending frenzy as the end of the FFY approached was monumental. Use it or lose it was the rule, and nobody anywhere could suggest to them that perhaps losing some of it was the responsible course.

 

[reinoe]

Ye 'ol linky poo.

Trump Signs Order to Freeze Federal Hiring - Management - GovExec.com

This is the next best thing to firing people.

 

[reinoe]

The spending frenzy as the end of the FFY approached was monumental. Use it or lose it was the rule, and nobody anywhere could suggest to them that perhaps losing some of it was the responsible course.

Trump want's to end baseline budgeting, which is the biggest driver of waste in the government. I think it's ironic that we derided the Soviet Union for employing this type of budgeting which bankrupted them and then went on and engaged in it ourselves. Liberals have a lot in common with the old Soviet Union in that they both love baseline budgeting.

 

[nota bene]

That's pretty much the case. I worked for HUD for a few years before I went on to more serious government service. Well over half of the money expended by that agency during my tenure was wasted - literally thrown away on useless things by employees who did next to nothing. It was at once an amazing and disgusting insight. The things that HUD "engineers" directed me to do were insane. I quickly reached the conclusion that these engineers were working for HUD because nobody else anywhere would have considered hiring them. Those people got themselves a job in which they could coast, wasting millions over millions to no good end. The spending frenzy as the end of the FFY approached was monumental. Use it or lose it was the rule, and nobody anywhere could suggest to them that perhaps losing some of it was the responsible course.

Well, certainly not. (I'm familiar too with the spending frenzies motivated by "Use it or lose it.")

 

[beefheart]

So, now they will have to hire consultants, which will cost us more $$

 

[humbolt]

Trump want's to end baseline budgeting, which is the biggest driver of waste in the government. I think it's ironic that we derided the Soviet Union for employing this type of budgeting which bankrupted them and then went on and engaged in it ourselves. Liberals have a lot in common with the old Soviet Union in that they both love baseline budgeting.

I agree that baseline budgeting is a bad idea. It's lazy, too. It's the very prescription that drives spending through the roof as an unwritten guarantee. If each agency head was personally responsible for their annual budget - and they should be - this kind of crap would never happen. Naturally, the answer to such a proposal is that the federal government is simply too big for such things to happen annually, and at that point I rest my case.

 

[reinoe]

So, now they will have to hire consultants, which will cost us more $$

Consultants to do what? Actually, hiring people for no reason is what the government does best. It's fortunate that Trump can't just nominate people to the HR department of all the cabinet posts. That would quickly solve the problem.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The federal hiring freeze in now in effect.
The question I have is who is considered a federal employee? Federal judges? Supreme court? The Presidents appointees? The Presidents staff?

The story--mind you I don't trust much of anybody in the media to get it right these days whether the distortions or error or omissions are intentional or unintentional--suggests that the hiring freeze will involve non essential employees or those who would be automatically furloughed in a government shutdown. And it does allow for exceptions when vital government services are involved.

It also says that Reagan also did this when he took office. Jimmy Carter did it three times during his four years.

 

[beefheart]

Consultants to do what? Actually, hiring people for no reason is what the government does best. It's fortunate that Trump can't just nominate people to the HR department of all the cabinet posts. That would quickly solve the problem.

To do the jobs for the people they can't hire.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Well, certainly not. (I'm familiar too with the spending frenzies motivated by "Use it or lose it.")

So am I. And the DoD does it as well. Note that Trump exempted the DoD, and he will grow their budget and headcount. It's nice to be on the receiving end (providing services/products) as long as you don't think too hard about the fact you are essentially subsidizing your own pay with your taxes.

 

[wolfsgirl]

The story--mind you I don't trust much of anybody in the media to get it right these days whether the distortions or error or omissions are intentional or unintentional--suggests that the hiring freeze will involve non essential employees or those who would be automatically furloughed in a government shutdown. And it does allow for exceptions when vital government services are involved.

It also says that Reagan also did this when he took office. Jimmy Carter did it three times during his four years.

From what I have read 3/4 of the White house staff would be considered non essential and be sent home during shutdown. Trump still hasn't filled all of these positions so would the hiring freeze prohibit him from filling those positions?

According to a letter prepared for the Office of Management and Budget, some 1,265 White House employees would be sent home if lawmakers are unable to strike an agreement Monday to keep the government open. Approximately 436 presidential staffers would be designated as exempt and continue working despite a shutdown.

Three-quarters of White House staffers would stay home in a shutdown (Video) | TheHill

 

[FieldTheorist]

There are roughly 22 million federal employees. We could get by with far fewer. If we just eliminated duplicate services we could save billions. I think the notion that we let attrition take it's course, consolidate duplicate services, and keep the hiring freeze in effect until we've reached a reasonable level of employment is a good idea. When the number of federal employees is twice the number of manufacturing employees, we have things a little skewed.

Does it even occur to you what would happen to the US economy if tens of millions of people suddenly were unemployed?

 

[Moot]

The last two major, across-the-board freezes were instituted by Presidents Carter and Reagan, who imposed them after taking office. In 1982, the Government Accountability Office issued a report concluding that both freezes ended up costing more money than they saved, and were "not an effective means of controlling federal employment."

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/20...ng-of-federal-workers-and-freezes-pay-raises/



Trump is trying to solve today's problems with failed 1980's policies.

 

[humbolt]

Does it even occur to you what would happen to the US economy if tens of millions of people suddenly were unemployed?

Who said anything about 10's of millions of people suddenly unemployed, but you? If you were familiar with the proposal being floated, the reduction in the number of federal employees is to be largely achieved through attrition.

 

[Mac77]

Basically everyone who falls under the Executive Branch. I'm pretty sure such EOs don't affect the other branches of government. I would bet money military recruitment is exempt as well.

The military is exempt

 

[Mac77]

Who said anything about 10 of millions of people suddenly unemployed, but you? If you were familiar with the proposal being floated, the reduction in the number of federal employees is to be largely achieved through attrition.

End the bonus scam too

Too much bonus money is being handed out as under the table pay increases

 

[Skeptic Bob]

The military is exempt

Unfortunately nobody took the bet.

 

[humbolt]

End the bonus scam too

Too much bonus money is being handed out as under the table pay increases

And end a bunch of these training junkets. I was forced to attend a few that were little more than paid vacations.