This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Election 2020

Civil Servants Are Going To Lose Protections

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 23, 2020
Civil Servants Are Going To Lose Protections

Trump issues sweeping order for tens of thousands of career federal employees to lose civil service protections, Washington Post
“President Trump this week fired his biggest broadside yet against the federal bureaucracy by issuing an executive order that would remove job security from an estimated tens of thousands of civil servants and dramatically remake the government. The directive, issued late Wednesday, strips long-held civil service protections from employees whose work involves policymaking, allowing them to be dismissed with little cause or recourse, much like the political appointees who come and go with each administration. Federal scientists, attorneys, regulators, public health experts and many others in senior roles would lose rights to due process and in some cases, union representation, at agencies across the government. … the most likely targets would be employees at the highest level of the General Schedule below that, GS-13, -14 and -15. … The order would not affect the roughly 6,000 senior executives in the government. But experts on the civil service said the most likely targets would be employees at the highest level of the General Schedule below that, GS-13, -14 and -15.”
Trump signs executive order that critics warn politicizes federal career civil service, CNN
“Max Stier, the head of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, which seeks to fix government, argued, “Being able to place any number of existing career positions into this new Schedule F not only blurs the line between politics and the neutral competency of the career civil service, it obliterates it.”
‘Stunning’ Executive Order Would Politicize Civil Service, Government Executive
“The order sets a swift timetable for implementation: Agencies have 90 days to conduct a “preliminary” review of their workforces to determine who should be moved into the new employee classification–a deadline that coincides with Jan. 19, the day before the next presidential inauguration.”
Trump’s historic assault on the civil service was four years in the making, Washington Post
“President Trump’s extraordinary directive allowing his administration to weed out career federal employees viewed as disloyal in a second term is the product of a four-year campaign by conservatives working from a ­little-known West Wing policy shop.”
Keith’s note: Just when everyone is totally stressed out from trying to hold their agencies together from home – during a global pandemic – the White House drops this little gem on everyone. If you are not loyal to the current regime you now risk being penalized or fired.
OK, now everyone needs to get back to their job of exploring the universe – while everything else falls apart back here on Earth.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

36 responses to “Civil Servants Are Going To Lose Protections”

  1. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    Next we’ll have loyalty tests. SMH.

    There is some merit to this, very little, as far as making it easier to get rid of low performers. But this is political. Just as everything else this charlatan in the White House does. I can see folks whose politics differ with the White House being run out of civil service.

  2. John Carter says:
    0
    0

    Welcome to the world of a NASA contractor, especially in TX, AL or FL. You can be terminated at any time with no cause.

    When the Shuttle Program was ended thousands of contractors were laid off, but there was no RIF at NASA. So sorry for my CS friends, but this is the world the rest of us live in.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      There is a difference for being laid off when a program ends or is cancelled and being fired for pursuing policy directives from your management in good faith.

    • Bob Mahoney says:
      0
      0

      I thought of this too, and not just when a program ends.

      As a NASA level-of-effort contractor I could have been fired for poor job performance at any time. It was tied into performance reviews, certainly, but it was understood that keeping my paycheck depended on my adequately performing my defined job tasks.

      Everyone working at the space center knew the lay of the land: contractors could be fired for inadequate performance, while civil servants got shuffled around (traded, really, since slots were allocated for x number of CS workers org by org) between departments when they couldn’t effectively perform their specific work duties. It took something egregious to bring about the actual termination of a civil servant. (Word had it that one CS had been fired because he was teaching tennis (for money) during his work shifts). Sitting around reading workbooks until retirement came? Nope. That was sufficient to keep on truckin’.

      I am curious how it has been definitively established that this is politically motivated.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        Because we have an administration, that continually shows disdain for anyone that doesn’t line up with ut’s political aims.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          It’s also an administration which has consistently said the government is inefficient and wasteful. Making civil servants easier to fire could be in like with _that_ piece of rhetoric.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            OK then why are they only singling out policy people and not scientists and engineers as well? Shouldn’t they want to eliminate all ineffective employees?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            They should, if removing inefficient people is the goal. Since no one has been affected by this new policy yet, we don’t know if the policy people actually are being singled out. The story (yours, since original Washington Post article is behind a paywall) says, “But experts on the civil service said the most likely targets would be employees at the highest level of the General Schedule below that, GS-13, -14 and -15.” That’s a speculation, since no one has been targeted yet.

            But even so, that could be going after the most senior and highest paid civil servants. The GS-13’s and up are mostly policy people rather than scientists and engineers. So it isn’t clear if those senior people would be the targets because they are senior people or because they are policy people.

            I’m just not willing to jump to conclusions about _how_ this policy will be used, before it’s even been used once. It could be a Trump anti-government thing, or it could be a Trump anti-people-who-disagree-with-me thing. At the moment, I don’t think we have enough information to say which one it is.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            You know very, very little about the NASA workforce. I was a GS-14 and I did zero policy – 100% engineering/science. This policy is aimed at people making policy who are viewed as not towing the Administration’s line in loyal fashion. Just watch. I have talked to the people affected. Have you?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I think that was my point, although I may have expressed it poorly. The report is that GS-13s and above would be the most likely targets of this policy. Some of them are scientists not policy people. But there are more policy people at those ratings than at lower ones. There is a correlation between those ratings and policy jobs. Certainly _not_ a 100% correlation, but a significant one. So a policy which targets the GS-13s and up _could_ be targeted at senior people or it _could_ be targeted at policy makers. Since the policy has yet to be applied to one single person, we really can’t say which. Actually, we don’t even know if it will target GS-13s an up. If there is more information in the Washington Post article (unavailable since it’s behind a fire wall) or in other reports, I’d appreciate hearing about it.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Once some firings take place it will be a simple matter to find how many had a D or R by their name.

          • Tom Billings says:
            0
            0

            Given the ratio of (D) to (R) voting/polling in the Federal Civil Service, It cannot help but reflect that, to some extent. This is part of the struggle over the Federal Civil Service itself. It reflects the growth in the belief that the Civil Service itself was, and is, a grave error. Its assumptions of using University certification as the way to exclude politicization of policy is regarded as having failed, utterly.

            The alternative policy to a Civil Service, of deeply reducing the intrusions of government into our Civil Society is not even given credence by those defending the Civil Service. Over the last 50 years, many have come to believe that those who run the country must, above all else, be certified by the University system, especially those in Universities. They regard Civil Service employment protections for university-certified-as-professional personnel as the basis of that power.

            One Party has come to agree rather openly with that, while the other hangs in a constantly shifting balance under the continual pressure to accede to it. This constant struggle inside the Republican Party is what we are seeing, when we see this sort of policy pronouncement.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            You are just strange, Dude. Leaving this up to show the strangeness of the people behind this destructive and dangerous directive.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            You need to post data about these assumptions otherwise they are assumptions. As for the WP firewall, there are other articles linked and hundreds of newspapers in America.

          • Granit says:
            0
            0

            NASA is one of the most technical arms of the government and has inflated grades, imo. Look at other agencies which are more oversight than NASA and you will see more policy responsibilities at lower grades.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            And NASA salaries are less than they are in the private sector. Your point?

        • Bob Mahoney says:
          0
          0

          This is not factual data establishing actual intent behind this action. fcrary’s comment highlights just one possible alternative motivation/rationale.

          And, btw, what you have described is the modern world of politics all around dating back to (at least) the Bork confirmation hearings.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Why are they only singling out policy people – and not also including scientists and engineers as well? Shouldn’t they want to eliminate all ineffective employees?

        • Bob Mahoney says:
          0
          0

          I am having difficulty following the language regarding whom the EO affects, specifically

          ..the most likely targets would be employees at the highest level of the General Schedule below that, GS-13, -14 and -15…

          Does this mean 13-15 are the ones affected or excluded? And regardless, I am suspicious and skeptical of language such as ‘most likely targeted’. What is the actual wording in the executive order?

          The discussion here seems to imply ‘affected’. If so…

          If I remember correctly, astronauts start at GS-15. Are astronauts policy people? I also remember that GS-15 comes with a substantial jump in salary…and a reserved parking space.

          Perhaps (pure speculation and admittedly a bit of a reach) the govt is perceived as getting too expensive due to way too many (>> 6000) experts (each attached to a pending govt pension) who can’t be fired regardless of their abilities.

          I agree that a policy/procedural change seeking greater competence as a general motive would include lower-salaried ranks, but those ranks person for person are not as expensive to keep around if they happen to be incompetent.

          Without more info, I can’t answer your challenge with any solid substance. But without more data, I can’t validate your & the articles’ assertions either.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            If Trump loses then this is moot. If the Senate flips it is most certainly moot since this new regulation could be used by either party to purge future civil service work forces.

    • JJMach says:
      0
      0

      John Carter – Were you trying to make the point that “loyalty” and aligning yourself with whatever is in favor with your superior / customer has always been an issue Contractors have had to contend with?

      I’m not sure it would be that difficult to find a Contractor or someone that knew a Contractor that was let go for something other than job performance or budget. Even if the budget was the root cause, have personal reasons ever gotten mixed in when it comes to deciding what work gets stopped and who, specifically, is going to be let go?

      When the work and workforce continually cycles through growth and contraction, I can’t imagine it hurts for the boss and your customer to like you and what you’re working on.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        “Loyalty” as this is being put forth by Team Trump is their way of purging anyone who is not on board with their agenda. Recall that they have made senior officials sign actual non-disclosure agreements and have extracted loyalty pledges. Unprecedented politicization of the civil service. It will never be allowed to happen.

  3. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    https://uploads.disquscdn.c

    It never ceases to amaze me when elected officials love to badmouth civil servant and much of the nation agrees. But it’s happened before (I recently found this article from 1989) looks like it will go to the next level. There are civil servants besides those at NASA that work to be sure the water is safe to drink and eating a hotdog won’t kill you (and many don’t get support from upper management).

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      While the popular disdain for government wasn’t entirely ignited by the Republican Party, comments from Saint Ronnie surely pumped oxygen into the fire, which allowed a sort of self-fulling prophesy: continually under-funding agencies has hobbled the nation’s abilities in so many areas while allow those so inclined to squeal: “See! We told you government won’t work!”

      The truth is somewhat more refined. Government does work.

      And the anti-poverty programs, well-intentioned as they were, added more fuel when it was obvious they were missing the mark.

      Add the Gingrich craziness that demanded no cooperation across the aisle, and here we are, frozen, a great nation brought to its knees by petty bickering.

  4. James in Southern Illinois says:
    0
    0

    As a retired government employee the one thing 43 years of service proved is that only about 1/2 of the employees do 95% of the work the other half are their because of who they know not what they know or do.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      And 98% of all statistics claimed in internet comment sections are made up on the spot.

      I don’t buy your observation. I met a lot of people at NASA Glenn, and with very few exceptions they were talented, smart, capable people that were working hard and deserved the positions they had.

      Perhaps folks in high level positions are more likely to be there because of connections, but I can’t make an informed judgment about that because I have no data or basis upon which to base any judgment. Moreover, even if such higher level people are more likely to have their jobs because of connections, it absolutely does not mean that all such people don’t serve well in their positions or that they’re only there because they knew the right person.

      The set of competent, deserving federal employees is not the empty set.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      I’d say that a small part of any organization does a disproportionate part of the actual work. Government or not.

  5. Mr.Anderson says:
    0
    0

    What a STUPID move 9 days before an election. Why not wait until AFTER the election? He just pissed off A LOT of voters.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Why even do it in the first place. It is stupid before and after an election.

      • Mr.Anderson says:
        0
        0

        I don’t know about that. I worked with a number of government employees that were well past their prime and should have been fired for impotence. I don’t think there should be lifetime appointments to ANY job, and people should be able to be fired for cause. What I DON”T want to see are people being fired for partisan political reasons.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Excuse but you do understand that people employed as civil servants and not “appointed” for a “lifetime”. Why would you fire someone for “impotence”. Posts are getting weird today.

  6. Bob Mahoney says:
    0
    0

    The actual text of the EO:

    https://www.federalregister

  7. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    Funny. The prior administration showed the smarts to know you use the civil service to carry out your agenda, to get your work done. Treat them well. Expect good work, show respect. I have to believe the occasional administration that badmouths their civil servants are the same personality type that complains about their food, the restaurant and the person tending to them, before the kitchen brings them their food. They are geniuses.