You guys are saying the way I understand executive orders. They only apply to those who effectively report to the Executive branch. They cannot apply to private citizens or companies. Although I think they have been allowed to do so against the Constitution.
Federal Regulation Freeze
- Thread starter Grayfox
- Start date
Completely correct. They can only be implemented within the executive branch and must comply with the Constitution and federal laws.
Last edited:
The previous administrations have let the ATF make laws that they are not entitled to make. Lets hope that will change.
The ATF is reportedly not complying with Trump's EO's, at least the one directing agencies to immediately eliminate DEI departments/officers and not just rename them. ATF has been accused of renaming their DEI executive officer's title. Wonder what other EO's they will simply ignore?
If all of this is true, heads will roll! Figuratively speaking.
Imagine you run a major government agency and you're told to eliminate positions that are utterly embedded in a complex web of federal civil rights and employment law (remember that EOs cannot conflict with laws or the Constitution). Do you suddenly lay off all of those employees and expose the .gov to horrendous liability, or do you simply find them something else to do, likely in HR? Bet me nearly all agencies will (wisely) take the latter course.
With the potential, if not the fact, of a hiring freeze the prudent manager would hold on to these folks fill those open billets not cut for which they are qualified.
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
While this option appears attractive, it runs the risk of a lot of square pegs being hammered into round holes. Saw this with one of my UK employers. Saw a guy made "Resource Manager" because the area chief spotted that he was not too busy one day. Nice guy, but that kind of work sometimes requires a ruthless streak, and that wasn't him.
^^^Not exactly
IIRC under the Chevron case a court was required to defer to the Agency's interpretation of its own statute. Under the new case a court is not required to follow the Agency's interpretation but it can consider the Agency's position as evidence as to how the statute should be interpreted.
This isn't the first time a gov't agency has been faced with a hiring freeze. The agency I worked for (3000 employees) had one in 2007-2009. The difference is this is the fed gov't, the largest employer in the US.
Managers will try to fill holes in their TO with people who already work in their agency because that's the only resource they have. Many of those will be unqualified to work in those positions but will likely take the transfer to hold onto their paycheck and benefits. Warm bodies filling TO positions so to speak. I had 1st hand experience with that as project lead. It's a bad thing and no doubt we will see some fallout soon enough.
If you think fed gov't efficiency is bad now, just wait awhile with a hiring freeze in place.
The upside is once it becomes bad enough some of those agencies will disappear or morph into some other agency with reduced budgets, effectively reorganizing the federal government with a smaller budget.
The use of private contractors will become a better option for the simple reasons that contracts can be flexible, private corps have better management and therefor more efficient. We had a huge shift to engineering consultants after the 2007 hiring freeze for that reason. When I was hired we did all of our engineering in house. 25 years later it was only 50%.
I didn't much care for the idea of having unqualified personnel forced on me. I had to train them for positions that normally require a BSE for an entry level position. Unbelievable.
Last edited:
As a Federal contractor, I completely disagree with your assessment of privatization. Some corporations aren't too bad at providing services, but all are hellishly expensive and often end up bamboozling the lower and lower level Fed employees that keep trying to manage programs while having not the education, training, age, or experience to do so. Just left exactly that in early 2023 in Somalia; that was only the most recent example.
Privatization is a giveaway to shareholders. I was in management and can be really specific on how the completely legal rip-offs happen.
Privatization is a giveaway to shareholders. I was in management and can be really specific on how the completely legal rip-offs happen.
Last edited:
If you think contractors are expensive my retirement was 70% of the average annual pay of my last 5 years of employment with my agency. Today, after about 11 years of retirement, my state retirement check is more than my paycheck when I was working. Contractors aren't tied to COLA's and retirement systems. If an agency negotiates a poor contract than yeah, the tax payer gets ripped off for the contract period. In the case of a poor agency hire the taxpayer gets ripped off until termination or retirement, usually retirement. Seen more of that than I would care to relate.
I also worked for consultants for 10 years so I've seen both sides. Companies that aren't well managed go out of business. The fed never goes out of business, they just barrow more money and go farther into debt. The single biggest looming disaster in this country is the national debt.
My NM retirement annuity also is slightly bigger than my highest 3 year working average. However, that annuity comes from PERA, which is entirely funded by employer and employee contributions and investment income; the Legislature cannot touch the fund as there is a state constitutional provision that keeps them out. The contributions were a one-time expense for the state. The Feds would do well to do the same.
So; who does project management for the Feds? In the past 10 years it's gone from GS 14/15s to, in many agencies, GS 9s to 11s 'overseen' by 13s/14s. Mostly none at any level have subject matter expertise nor project management experience nor education. They end up utterly at the mercy of better-qualified corporate folks who know they need to keep projects going or be out of work. To be clear, most corporations contracting for the Feds make between 20% and 38% on labor, and typically between 4% and 8% 'fixed fee' and 1.5%-2% 'general and adminstrative fee (G&A) on each dollar authorized for expenditure. Often, the big corporations will 'sub-out' much labor, often of foreign nationals, as well. Efficacy of the expenditures will be checked about 3 years later by M&E contractors (not Feds).
This is madness.
So; who does project management for the Feds? In the past 10 years it's gone from GS 14/15s to, in many agencies, GS 9s to 11s 'overseen' by 13s/14s. Mostly none at any level have subject matter expertise nor project management experience nor education. They end up utterly at the mercy of better-qualified corporate folks who know they need to keep projects going or be out of work. To be clear, most corporations contracting for the Feds make between 20% and 38% on labor, and typically between 4% and 8% 'fixed fee' and 1.5%-2% 'general and adminstrative fee (G&A) on each dollar authorized for expenditure. Often, the big corporations will 'sub-out' much labor, often of foreign nationals, as well. Efficacy of the expenditures will be checked about 3 years later by M&E contractors (not Feds).
This is madness.
Last edited:
My experience at my previous career working as a software engineer at a defense contractor - The .gov was charged approximately 4x my salary. Not sure how it was broken down into direct labor, overhead, and profit.
I do know that working on proposals was the most sleazy, unpleasant job possible. There was no limit to the deceit used to win jobs.
My time contracting was almost all with DOS and DOJ, but with a small mix of DOD thrown in.
Last edited:
The going rate for a civil consultant contract when I was working was overhead multiplied ~3.0 x for bill out.
People routinely left the gov't with less than 10 years service for more pay in the private sector. Once they hit 10 years they usually stayed or even came back from the private sector for the long term benefits.
Guess who's paying for those benefits. I didn't have health care insurance until I went to work for the government.
Anyone know why there's a federal hiring freeze now?
People routinely left the gov't with less than 10 years service for more pay in the private sector. Once they hit 10 years they usually stayed or even came back from the private sector for the long term benefits.
Guess who's paying for those benefits. I didn't have health care insurance until I went to work for the government.
Anyone know why there's a federal hiring freeze now?
They want to make working for the feds so unpleasant that everyone quits.
Looks like Trump wants a few different agencies to evaluate positions. It would be nice if they'd eliminate promotions based on the "Good 'ole boy" system and DIE. Both are equally unfair to employees and the taxpayers.
How Long Will The Federal Hiring Freeze Last? Implications For Government Employees
The main problem with Feds is their unwillingness to do the work of firing unproductive or insubordinate employees. It can indeed be done, but involves work for management.
There seems to be a lot of incorrect assertions floating around about federal employment.
Competitive promotions require you to compete - They aren't automatic. The last one I competed for didn't have any DEI check boxes. They prohibit discrimination based on a whole lot of classes, and they are serious about it. It was strictly on merit. I had to prove (as in supply evidence of performance) that I was capable of performing at the higher level of responsibility and skill, and do it better than everyone else who applied for the promotion slot.
The covid era work at home policies ended 3 years ago. We have been operating under telework rules that have been in place long before covid and require good performance ratings to be eligible.
