- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do fed workers & their supporters think they're entitled to permanent job security?
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:47 am to bamarep
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:47 am to bamarep
quote:Bingo.
Because no one has ever challenged the notion that they don't.
Our perception is our reality. We accept that things are as they are because they are as they are. Ask why, and the answer you'll often get is "Dunno. It's just always been that way."
1
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Our perception is our reality. We accept that things are as they are because they are as they are. Ask why, and the answer you'll often get is "Dunno. It's just always been that way."
I mean there are statutes and case law on this exact issue.
Federal Civil Service Employment Law: A Beginner’s Guide
quote:
Title 5 – Government Organization and Employees
Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq. This landmark enactment created the current federal civil service system. It established the Office of Personnel Management, along with the Merit Systems Protection board and the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Classification Act of 1949, 5 U.S.C. §§ 5101, et seq.
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101, et seq.
Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8401, et seq.
Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321, et seq.
The Notification and Federal Employees Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (Also called the “No FEAR Act”), 5 U.S.C. § 2301
Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998 (VEOA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 3330a, et seq.
Title 29 - Labor
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; Application to Age 40 and Over, 29 U.S.C. § 631; Federal Sector Coverage, 29 U.S.C. § 633a
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.; Federal Sector FLSA Coverage, 29 U.S.C. § 204(f); Penalties, 29 U.S.C.§ 216; Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d) (This Act is an FLSA amendment which prohibits gender-based pay discrimination in federal employment.)
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq.; Federal Sector Coverage, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, et seq.
Title 38 - Veterans’ Benefits
Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301, et seq.
Veterans’ Recruitment Appointment (VRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4214
Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.§§ 12101, et seq.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, Employment by Federal Government, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-16, et seq.
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:51 am to conservativewifeymom
Because they're special snowflakes and the rest of us nothing but Wal-Mart grazing losers who would be lost were it not for the geniuses working at the Federal govt making our lives infinitely better.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:51 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
I am astounded how many individuals, both here and that I've spoken to in person, have this crazy notion that federal workers are somehow ENTITLED to a job for the duration of how long they choose to work.
WHY is a federal job any different than a private-sector job?!?! WHY is it so much harder to fire federal workers than private company workers?!?! WHY do feds think they're 'special' and somehow better than the rest of us?!?!
This sense of entitlement is not endearing any of these people, or their supporters, to the rest of us who are paying for their jobs (whether needed or not) and who live outside the bubble of false security they seem to think they're entitled to. Time to grow up folks!
Great post.
It’s amazing to see.
The most entitled people are those who are given things instead of earning them. Should be the opposite you’d think.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:55 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
I've worked with federal employees who were collecting military retirement, 100% disabled with the VA and clearing $100k per year from their do nothing government job. These kinds of people are addicted to government money and feel they're entitled to more and more while sitting at a computer reading emails all day and playing games on their phone.
So a. Veteran serves his country honorable; has service connections / injuries from his service time; goes to school to better themselves and not just sit home collecting a check; goes to work for the federal government after he or she goes back to school to finish their bachelors or masters degree and qualifies for the job and you hv a problem with this? Are you lumping all veterans in your statement? There are plenty of non veterans who work in the civilian sector that do the same damn thing. Who are you to pass judgement on our veterans! What an ignorant comment.
This post was edited on 2/15/25 at 10:59 am
Posted on 2/15/25 at 10:57 am to conservativewifeymom
The entitlement working from home runs deep.they never felt the economy. Now they will.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 11:02 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
100% disabled with VA....100k government do nothing job
I'm sorry, but VA "disability" is a huge issue we need to address. I keep harping on it.
I get it if blown leg off or burned and shite.
But, most of it is fricking bullshite.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 11:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Indeed.
I mean there are statutes and case law on this exact issue.
Myers v. United States
Posted on 2/15/25 at 11:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Indeed.
Myers v. United States
You must have missed the years of passage of those statutes. They're listed in my post.
Myers does not apply. Myers only applies to appointed positions.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 11:19 am to SlowFlowPro
As someone in the oilfield believe me when I say I have zero sympathy
Posted on 2/15/25 at 11:22 am to Privateer 2007
quote:
I'm sorry, but VA "disability" is a huge issue we need to address. I keep harping on it. I get it if blown leg off or burned and shite. But, most of it is fricking bullshite.
Let me guess , you were rejected for military service!!
Posted on 2/15/25 at 11:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:This falls within the same assumptive process I highlighted earlier. Let's apply it in terms of legal presumption. Roe v Wade was law .... until it wasn't. Its foundation (though tenuous) was so presumably solid that Congress did not pass according law to bolster it despite owning three filibuster-proof majorities in the interim between the ruling and its overruling. It was because it was ... until it wasn't
Myers does not apply. Myers only applies to appointed positions.
The Chief Executive has broad authority to run the Executive Branch as he desires. If the unappointed workforce hampers or prohibits that authority, I don't see such action being Constitutional or upheld by the law. Congress has oversight capacity with removal by impeachment as remedy. POTUS also has responsibility for enforcing law. If Congress designates action assumed to support illegal action, POTUS has the right to review and reject the designation.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:22 pm to Quidam65
quote:
Speaking as one within FedGov, we don't claim entitlement to "permanent" job security. Current law allows a Reduction in Force (RIF - our term for mass layoffs or closures) of up to and including entire agencies (thus, CFPB and USAID can be closed under RIF procedures).
Also, someone on probation can be terminated for nearly any reason or no reason at all. And we can remove someone for poor performance or misconduct (I know of someone let go for the latter), though it is a hard process, and many supervisors don't want the hassle.
BUT: there are rules which must be followed, and no administration can unilaterally change them; they must go through the rulemaking process. Whether that is or isn't the case is the subject of the numerous complaints and lawsuits.
quote:
...they must go through the rulemaking process.
I'm pretty certain they are, in fact, re-writing the rules [or as you stated rulemaking] right now.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:38 pm to mooseofterror
is your position funded by direct or indirect NIH grant costs? Or hard to tell. Fascinating debate that most folks don't understand the math
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:43 pm to conservativewifeymom
Don’t stop there! Don’t forget how they take s full day off for any and all made up holidays doled out.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:52 pm to conservativewifeymom
I passed up a fed job 17 years ago and they told me “when the fed gov comes calling you don’t just turn it down.” Who knows what might have been…. Could have been a much easier ride but be out of a job now.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:53 pm to Quidam65
quote:Good post.
Speaking as one within FedGov, we don't claim entitlement to "permanent" job security. Current law allows a Reduction in Force (RIF - our term for mass layoffs or closures) of up to and including entire agencies (thus, CFPB and USAID can be closed under RIF procedures).
Also, someone on probation can be terminated for nearly any reason or no reason at all. And we can remove someone for poor performance or misconduct (I know of someone let go for the latter), though it is a hard process, and many supervisors don't want the hassle.
BUT: there are rules which must be followed, and no administration can unilaterally change them; they must go through the rulemaking process. Whether that is or isn't the case is the subject of the numerous complaints and lawsuits.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:57 pm to NC_Tigah
You can clearly see a lot of ignorant posts from uninformed people; on both sides here. It is painful to read.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:00 pm to Swampcat
Bet all 3 dislikes are from non veterans!
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:04 pm to captainFid
quote:
I'm pretty certain they are, in fact, re-writing the rules [or as you stated rulemaking] right now.
And as long as the rules align with statutory requirements, and they follow the requirements (publication in the Federal Register with the opportunity for public comment), you are correct, they can change them.
The question is: are they doing that, or changing the rules on the fly without following the law?
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News