Emperor Trump Dictates Federal Government Hiring Freeze
The following is the memo released by the White House concerning the federal government hiring freeze. I can say that hundreds of high level officials in every federal government agency are spending most of this week discussing and planning for this freeze, which is expected to last at least 90 days followed by detailed guidance and direction to reduce the size of the federal government (except the military because we must fight wars and kill people).
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release January 23, 2017
January 23, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Hiring Freeze
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order a freeze on the hiring of Federal civilian employees to be applied across the board in the executive branch. As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled and no new positions may be created, except in limited circumstances. This order does not include or apply to military personnel. The head of any executive department or agency may exempt from the hiring freeze any positions that it deems necessary to meet national security or public safety responsibilities. In addition, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may grant exemptions from this freeze where those exemptions are otherwise necessary.
Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Director of OPM, shall recommend a long-term plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government's workforce through attrition. This order shall expire upon implementation of the OMB plan.
Contracting outside the Government to circumvent the intent of this memorandum shall not be permitted.
This hiring freeze applies to all executive departments and agencies regardless of the sources of their operational and programmatic funding, excepting military personnel.
In carrying out this memorandum, I ask that you seek efficient use of existing personnel and funds to improve public services and the delivery of these services. Accordingly, this memorandum does not prohibit making reallocations to meet the highest priority needs and to ensure that essential services are not interrupted and national security is not affected.
This memorandum does not limit the nomination and appointment of officials to positions requiring Presidential appointment or Senate confirmation, the appointment of officials to non-career positions in the Senior Executive Service or to Schedule C positions in the Excepted Service, or the appointment of any other officials who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Moreover, it does not limit the hiring of personnel where such a limit would conflict with applicable law. This memorandum does not revoke any appointment to Federal service made prior to January 22, 2017.
This memorandum does not abrogate any collective bargaining agreement in effect on the date of this memorandum.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Comments
Why is this necessary? Why not cut Congressional pay?
I suspect that they will be exempted. Attrition might work...
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
They all do this in one way or another.
With Obama it was a pay freeze. Bush and Clinton had hiring freezes. They have to look like they're doing something.
Thanks for posting this essay, Al. I'm still waiting
for the transcript from today's White House Press Briefing to be posted, so that I can post an excerpt on this topic. (Yesterday's is up, so it should be up at least by tomorrow.)
I'll be curious if you hear Spicer's words, the way I did. (Sounds like the hiring freeze is temporary, until the Civil Service system is 'reformed.')
BTW, began federal service under Carter--both he and Reagan also froze hiring. (Carter's raises were pretty decent, though.) Heck, during the Reagan Administrations, I almost lost count of the number of furloughs that we took.
Mollie
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving."
____Author Unknown
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Republican Wet Dream may become a Nightmare
The difference between Trump and all (most of ?) the others is that Trump expects to be not only heard but obeyed. This is the controlling part of the memorandum:
If this goes according to plan agencies like the EPA will be downsized. Most US citizens have no interest in, or knowledge of the scope of the EPA mandate. Even at its present level of "support" that agency fails to fulfill its functions in areas with which I am privy. And, this is just one of the several agencies that falls under the force of this authoritative document.
It appears they'll give direction on reducing workforce in
most agencies, some they'll target for abolishment. I haven't seen any targets or quotas thrown around yet. They may shoot for a 10% reduction in all agencies, except defense and safety and security organizations. Because our safety and security is what is important to Herr Trump.
Sure. As long as we don't count things like
our food supply, drinkable water, breathable air, transportation safety, weather monitoring, disaster planning and recovery, medical research ... yeah, trump is all about "keeping us safe."
Being obeyed is the
whole point of an executive order. They typically provide instruction about the dates of implementation.
The title of this essay seems to imply that 'emperor-ism' or dictatorship has something to do with EOs.
dfarrah
With Trump there is an extra layer
The egotistical, narcissistic, et cetera parameters are way beyond the norm for the Donald. So, not only is he using the tool of Executive Order, every fiber of his being is committed to this edict. I suspect we will see his true self as the committee process unfolds, and I expect this to not be pretty.
So, if any reasonable government oversight is to be the norm Post-Trump, major restoration work will be needed.
I really don't pay
close attention to personality. I don't think Trump is any more narcissistic than other presidents - they just came in a prettier packages.
dfarrah
I think Trump did a pay freeze
On federal employees also.
Hi Granma,
I hadn't heard that yet. Fed and military employees just got a pay raise for 2017 so it wouldn't surprise if Trump freezes pay again for 2018, except military of course.
looks like pipelines are important infrastructure
jordan at TYT says T-rump has pipelines fast tracked too (19 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwFmVOY6cKk
Here's the bbc take http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38734450
Plan on a war against poor people and the planet.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Trump's great plan to help American workers & create jobs:
Eliminate thousands of jobs! Obvious.
This move, on top of the gag orders earlier today ... wow I'm glad I don't work for the government because I'm thinking massive walkouts are in order about now.
Trump is wasting no time proving he will be a full-scale disaster.
Typically a hiring freeze
involves just that - a freeze. Usually, these are unfilled positions that aren't filled. I've seen so many jobs go unfilled for months and months (both in private and government), that I've reached the conclusion that any position that is empty for a length of time may not be needed anyway.
Anyhoo, you may want to consider his efforts to keep manufacturing jobs in the US. Supposedly, some big manufacturers of cars are planning to invest millions in US plants and expand hiring.
At least he is trying to expand the economy, increase manufacturing here, and increase the number of jobs. It beats the no-we-can't dems (for now).
dfarrah
Perhaps you missed this part:
He is planning to permanently eliminate thousands of jobs, people who do the basic work of making the government function.
Trump isn't doing anything to increase manufacturing jobs, but he is working hard at taking credit for things he had nothing to do with and shouting "squirrel!" so people don't notice what he's actually up to.
Better than the democrats... hum, that's a low bar. Dems do suck, I agree with that, but that doesn't mean Trump is good or any better. Overall, so far, he's been far worse than I expected, and I expected him to be horrible. He's exceeded expectations though in just how awful. I can't wait for his Supreme Court appointment. Oh yes, and when we get to the eradication of terrorism from the face of the earth... ack.
Usually, attrition means
not filling positions left by those retiring and those who quit.
I guess I don't get your outrage; the attrition has been going on for years in both private and public companies.
And Trump has been president for a whopping 2 1/2 working days now, and he is worse than you expected?
Maybe you should watch some of his meetings with business leaders.
dfarrah
I know what attrition means
Having worked at a few companies with CEOs who had similar ideas for how to increase shareholder value and earn big bonuses for themselves at the expense of the employees left behind to "be more productive" i.e., doing twice the workload while they refused to maintain adequate staffing and destroyed morale along with any hope of actually producing good products.
I don't understand your insistence that we don't need federal agencies to have adequate staff.
Honestly, I don't feel anything close to "outrage" over any of this. I feel sad, frustrated, disappointed (I actually had hoped he might not be a total disaster), and worried for the future. And I'm annoyed at so many people falling for his ridiculous lies and his TV reality-show presidency, and I'm tired of keeping quiet about what is happening.
Are you actually ok with Trump's orders today that taxpayer-funded research will now be subject to gag orders and taxpayer funded scientists are prohibited from telling the public what they learn? Are you ok with his plans to gut numerous government agencies so they cannot function on behalf of the public good? With the people he is appointing to his cabinet? Ok with his talk of a US-led world war in his first speech as president?
Actually, I probably should be outraged. But I just don't have the energy for that. I'm hoping he is impeached soon and run off in disgrace. I'm hoping people will wake up and stop falling for his bullshit. I'm hoping we survive what promises to be one of the worst, craziest, stupidest presidents in US history. I thought Bush Junior was probably as bad as it could get in my lifetime, but I know now that I was wrong.
And no - before anyone thinks otherwise - I don't think the Clintons should have won. They too would have been a disaster, of a different kind. But the fawning over trump is absurd. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. And let's be real, Trump and the Clintons are not even enemies. They all drink champagne together while laughing at the rest of us.
I don't think anything
I posted said that I don't agree with fully staffed agencies.
I just think the panic over this particular EO is overwrought.
dfarrah
At my university,
we've been on a hiring freeze (moratorium, they call it) since October. They will reevaluate it in March. I don't expect it to be lifted for another year or so (our state is in dire straits with the budget and our rethug governor will NOT raise taxes to alleviate the situation). There has only been one raise here since 2007. Such a great excuse not to give jobs to or increase the pay of the peons.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Relative size of government math
One time I produced ratios of total federal employees to population over the decades, it's a constant reduction in service. Not so much from gaining efficiency as it is Grover Norquist's pals finally achieving their dream, I think. "300,000,000:1"! then they are truly free. Arc of history indeed.
"... reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Not to mention, slashing any agency to the bone
just makes it much less efficient and "makes their case" to privatize it. Same as putting the loons in charge of the cabinet positions, the less effective those people are the better. We already have a barely functioning government so its important we make it oh so much worse, then Trump can declare himself Emperor and really rule the world.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
I don't get the
assertion that some posters have made that the freeze means more privatization.
After all, the whole purpose of freezes are to contain costs and keep spending at a certain level; hiring private companies would increase costs - it would defeat the whole purpose of cost containment.
dfarrah
This freeze is purely political, a grandstanding show
put on by a new administration to appease it's base and make them look like they're doing something. I've seen it over and over in my 30 plus years with the fed. It's not about saving money, if it was they'd address the bloated defense budget. They're trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip by further downsizing of discretionary budget agencies which make up only about 20% of the fed budget, agencies that have been pounded for the last 25 years.
Any agency that does anything to help ordinary people
will be slashed.
So as to expand the military and MIC as promised.
Makin Murikkka Grate Agin.
Most government agencies need a reorganization because
they have become top heavy with higher paid unaccountable managers at the expense of the lower paid people who actually fulfill the mission of the agency. At an agency like OSHA for example, when there's a reduction in force, the inspectors are let go or the inspectors are not hired but management numbers stay the same or rise. You can get agency mission fulfillment by hiring more poultry inspectors(say) and getting rid of some staff in the regional & DC offices.
Conservatives are OK with this imbalance because they don't want people-centered regulations enforced. Their corporate paymasters are happy with desk jockeys; they don't like inspectors, officers, auditors, and accountants looking into their cheating ways.
Only the public suffers.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Can't get rid of those Assistant Deputy Associate Directors
or they might miss a meeting or something. Lower level positions are more susceptible to contracting out and/or privatizing also which contributes to the imbalance. But ya, the average grade in the federal government has gone from about GS-7 in 1980 to GS-11 now. Another problem is the lack of internal auditing positions. It used to be a big thing but those positions and programs have been slowly phased out. For example, the "missing" trillions from defense are because of the lack of an audit trail to show how the money was spent.
To: Big Al
Yes, this is exactly where I was referring to: The upward compensation for those who do not do the work of the agency and avoid accountability for their performance. Those who do the work are not replaced when they quit or retire and their work is contracted or the agency enters into an agreement where the corporation the agency is supposed to monitor "polices" itself.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Even rifs involve
encouraging people who can retire to retire and various buyouts. At least that was my experience in the early '90s when there were rifs at my agency.
People don't necessarily get laid off; nobody got laid off at that time.
dfarrah
@dfarrah I agree with you. It's
I agree with you. It's my impression that governmental reductions-in-force usually entail not replacing retirees or people who have quit rather than actual layoffs.
There is also a misuse of the approved "seasonal" hires to create a part time position without the mandated health and retirement benefits.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
There are 10 percent fewer federal employees than in 1967
There are actually 10 percent fewer federal employees than in 1967. The reason most federal agencies are still able to function is through the use of private contractors, who make less than civil service workers but cost the taxpayers much more. It's another scheme to rob from the middle class and give to the rich (i.e. the owners/stockholders of the companies that hold the contracts).
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
@rmwarnick 10% fewer by absolute
10% fewer by absolute numbers? Or relative to the population?
Also, can you supply a link? I would love to have a source for that.
Total Government Employment since 1962
here is a link to opm.gov: Historical Federal Workforce Tables, have fun.
Found old post with my "number of citizens served" math, don't know why I picked 1991 probably bcc before clinton collapse. Huh okay went back again and sure enough I was replying to this comment, my bias:
Total Federal personnel 1991 = 5,152,000Total Federal personnel 2014 = 4,185,000
US Population by Year
Jul 1, 1991 = 252,980,000 / 5,152,000 = 49.1 citizens served.
Jul 1, 2014 = 317,680,000 / 4,185,000 = 75.9 citizens served
Now to create 1,000,000 Underserved! signage, or a ticker page counting up like the national "debt", that's how I am experiencing it. Peace
@rmwarnick Contract employees have
Contract employees have much less recourse if they are treated badly, and they also have much less job security. As you said, it is scam for the profit of the rich owners/stockholders.
Your make a good point, dfarrah. Can't begin to say
how may RIFs I survived.
I doubt (unless they actually slash a percentage of occupied positions as Al suggested, which could happen) that many folks will actually be removed from their positions. What I've always seen, was the process starting with 'temps,' then, thinning the ranks by eliminating positions due to death, retirement, and voluntary resignation (for whatever reason).
I'll be checking for the WH Press Briefing transcript through tomorrow. Spicer's language made me think that this is mostly being done in order to put a freeze on hiring until they can overhaul the Civil Service system. Basically, this has been the goal since the passage of the (Veterans) Choice Act of 2014.
IOW, they're using the Arizona VA scandal as an excuse to 'privatize' the entire federal system. (minus SES Schedule employees, etc.)
IMO, the difference between DT and corporatist Dems is that he will tear away the veil of 'incrementalism.'
Mollie
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving."
____Author Unknown
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."
____Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Did you hear about the
new vets' hospital in Aurora and the cost overruns? It is costing five times the original estimate (per one source). The Army Corps of Engineers took over the construction.
That is what government gets (or taxpayers get) when it outsources.
dfarrah
I didn't hear about it--agree, contracting out
is almost always less cost effective, and results in a boondoggle.
What stymies me, is what can we do to fight this? Including, if they basically dismantle the merit-based Civil Service system. I haven't a clue.
Mollie
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving."
____Author Unknown
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
For me he is worse than expected
Just look at the demand to cut OUT any grants for violence against women acts. And just look at the cultish Betsy Devos, the oil baron, the billionaires faunching at the bit to bite off more of the taxpayer largess. Makes me long for some "moderate" repub like papa Bush!
glitterscale