Hiring Freezes?? Forum

[Alt123]

How long is this supposed to last? Isn't it only 90 days? Just had someone tell me it's likely to affect 2017 honors hiring in the fall, and want to be sure. Still confused after reading up on it.

[bb9916]

How long is this supposed to last? Isn't it only 90 days? Just had someone tell me it's likely to affect 2017 honors hiring in the fall, and want to be sure. Still confused after reading up on it.

I think it depends on whatever OMB's "plan" is post-freeze. There may be continued freezes for certain agencies. I don't think anyone knows anything concrete yet. Who told you it would affect 2017 fall hiring?

[Alt123]

How long is this supposed to last? Isn't it only 90 days? Just had someone tell me it's likely to affect 2017 honors hiring in the fall, and want to be sure. Still confused after reading up on it.

I think it depends on whatever OMB's "plan" is post-freeze. There may be continued freezes for certain agencies. I don't think anyone knows anything concrete yet. Who told you it would affect 2017 fall hiring?

School advisor said she thinks its unlikely federal tax jobs will be available later this year based on people she knows in those agencies

[bb9916]

How long is this supposed to last? Isn't it only 90 days? Just had someone tell me it's likely to affect 2017 honors hiring in the fall, and want to be sure. Still confused after reading up on it.

I think it depends on whatever OMB's "plan" is post-freeze. There may be continued freezes for certain agencies. I don't think anyone knows anything concrete yet. Who told you it would affect 2017 fall hiring?

School advisor said she thinks its unlikely federal tax jobs will be available later this year based on people she knows in those agencies

IRS Honors was supposed to have received exemptions from the freeze. Was your advisor referring to those positions or "tax jobs" in general?

[wesker]

I think there's a good chance the OMB doesn't have the "plan to reduce the federal work force" prepared by the 90 day deadline.

[Alt123]

How long is this supposed to last? Isn't it only 90 days? Just had someone tell me it's likely to affect 2017 honors hiring in the fall, and want to be sure. Still confused after reading up on it.

I think it depends on whatever OMB's "plan" is post-freeze. There may be continued freezes for certain agencies. I don't think anyone knows anything concrete yet. Who told you it would affect 2017 fall hiring?

School advisor said she thinks its unlikely federal tax jobs will be available later this year based on people she knows in those agencies

IRS Honors was supposed to have received exemptions from the freeze. Was your advisor referring to those positions or "tax jobs" in general?

I was asking her about IRS honors and DOJ honors for criminal tax.

[A. Nony Mouse]

How long is this supposed to last? Isn't it only 90 days? Just had someone tell me it's likely to affect 2017 honors hiring in the fall, and want to be sure. Still confused after reading up on it.

I think it depends on whatever OMB's "plan" is post-freeze. There may be continued freezes for certain agencies. I don't think anyone knows anything concrete yet. Who told you it would affect 2017 fall hiring?

School advisor said she thinks its unlikely federal tax jobs will be available later this year based on people she knows in those agencies

IRS Honors was supposed to have received exemptions from the freeze. Was your advisor referring to those positions or "tax jobs" in general?

Exemptions for people hired to start in 2017 isn't the same as exemptions for holding a new round of hiring in 2017.

[andythefir]

I get the vibe that most USAOs are operating as if they were on a hiring freeze, due to the uncertainty over the budget, USA resignations, and so on. I see jobs posted on the USAO website, but waaaay fewer than I'm used to. I'd also intuit that there would be at least some folks heading out of the offices, too, in anticipation of getting staffed on immigration. Can anyone confirm?

[zot1]

"This order shall expire upon implementation of the OMB plan."

Agencies are still operating under a CR. We don't know when a new budget will be passed. We won't know how OMB's plan will affect hiring. No agency should know with certainty if they'll have an honors program next year because no one knows anything still.

Fun times, guys.

[Anonymous User]

I get the vibe that most USAOs are operating as if they were on a hiring freeze, due to the uncertainty over the budget, USA resignations, and so on. I see jobs posted on the USAO website, but waaaay fewer than I'm used to. I'd also intuit that there would be at least some folks heading out of the offices, too, in anticipation of getting staffed on immigration. Can anyone confirm?

Re: immigation - the irony is that the stepped-up enforcement by Trump actually means deportation of people who aren't amenable to criminal prosecution (i.e. they don't have criminal histories, they don't have prior deportations), so it isn't resulting (so far) in a flood of new criminal prosecutions. Getting all those promised Border Patrol agents into place will make a difference, but people in those offices already do plenty of immigration stuff. So I'm not sure that there are a lot of people leaving in anticipation of getting staffed on immigration. Where I think the immigration policy changes would be tougher would be in EOIR and the like, for people who deal with the actual civil/deportation side.

[andythefir]

But if you define amenable to prosecution as anyone who makes out the prima facie you can get eye popping conviction numbers. As a DA, you can carry 50 simple cases for 1 white collar. I'd assume the infinitely more complex federal white collar is even more stark. It would be good politics to max out your conviction numbers, but I'd guess a lot of current AUSAs wouldn't go along.

[Anonymous User]

Someone who doesn't have a previous deport has only committed a misdemeanor, which it's a waste of resources to prosecute, and even if someone has a prior deport, if they don't have any criminal history it's a tiny tiny sentence, again not really worth prosecuting. (And most people without criminal history won't have prior deports.) I really think the USAOs and the immigration courts are in different situations here.

And for border districts, they've already got as many of these cases as they can handle. "Maxing out your conviction numbers" doesn't mean quite the same thing when you're already picking and choosing from a firehose of identical offenders and can choose to take only slam dunk cases.

(Also I get that the powers that be care about numbers in a way that I don't have to deal with, but neither office I've worked for has ever said anything to me about numbers or maxing out convictions. That has never been expressed as a concern to me in any way.)

[Anonymous User]

I get the vibe that most USAOs are operating as if they were on a hiring freeze, due to the uncertainty over the budget, USA resignations, and so on. I see jobs posted on the USAO website, but waaaay fewer than I'm used to. I'd also intuit that there would be at least some folks heading out of the offices, too, in anticipation of getting staffed on immigration. Can anyone confirm?

Re: immigation - the irony is that the stepped-up enforcement by Trump actually means deportation of people who aren't amenable to criminal prosecution (i.e. they don't have criminal histories, they don't have prior deportations), so it isn't resulting (so far) in a flood of new criminal prosecutions. Getting all those promised Border Patrol agents into place will make a difference, but people in those offices already do plenty of immigration stuff. So I'm not sure that there are a lot of people leaving in anticipation of getting staffed on immigration. Where I think the immigration policy changes would be tougher would be in EOIR and the like, for people who deal with the actual civil/deportation side.

This may be the case but in multiple border districts they have been asked how many more criminal AUSAs they need to double the immigration prosecutions straight up.

[Anonymous User]

Sure, I can totally see that. I just don't think that's going to lead people to leave their offices, since those offices already do immigration stuff, and I would imagine this is going to be an increase in the kinds of prosecutions they already do - catching people as they cross the border - rather than a serious change in priorities (there are plenty of people with prior deports/criminal history coming across to prosecute). I could well be wrong - we'll have to see what happens - but while I think the volume in border districts will go up, I don't think the nature of the cases prosecuted will change radically, so I don't see people leaving en masse to avoid getting staffed on immigration. (That was really what I was addressing, not the idea that there will be more immigration prosecutions - I agree once the BP agents are in place, that's going to happen. Also because I don't think I've really met anyone who intends to leave the job in anticipation of changes. If intolerable changes *do* get put in place, sure, but I don't think there's going to be a mass exodus of line AUSAs.)

[Anonymous User]

Yea I totally agree with all of that, actually. Was just throwing that piece of info out. I do think they will underestimate the numbers required and people might be pretty overburdened, but leave? No. And absolutely true that in, say, Arizona, they're already doing tons of that. The types of cases aren't changing necessarily.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry. Haven't been able to read through all 24 pages of this thread.

Can someone give me brief explanation of the hiring freeze?

Mainly:
1. Does it apply to all government agencies?
2. Has it been implemented yet?
3. What exactly is a "hiring freeze"?

Currently looking for a non-honors legal position at an independent federal agency. Does the freeze mean they're not hiring at this moment?

[clerk1251]

Sorry. Haven't been able to read through all 24 pages of this thread.

Can someone give me brief explanation of the hiring freeze?

Mainly:
1. Does it apply to all government agencies?
2. Has it been implemented yet?
3. What exactly is a "hiring freeze"?

Currently looking for a non-honors legal position at an independent federal agency. Does the freeze mean they're not hiring at this moment?

LOL

[Anonymous User]

Is it right that the hiring freeze may lapse toward the end of this month, based on the initial 90 day policy?

[wesker]

Is it right that the hiring freeze may lapse toward the end of this month, based on the initial 90 day policy?

April 21st is the "90th day."

[MCFC]

Hiring freeze lifted Thursday? Was this common knowledge? https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ganization

[wesker]

Hiring freeze lifted Thursday? Was this common knowledge? https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ganization

Well that's good news... I hope? I wonder what strings will be attached.

[haus]

Hiring freeze lifted Thursday? Was this common knowledge? https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ganization

Well that's good news... I hope? I wonder what strings will be attached.

Well it appears marching orders have been received related to staff reductions. This should be interesting...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/w ... uts-237139

[bb9916]

Hiring freeze lifted Thursday? Was this common knowledge? https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ganization

Well that's good news... I hope? I wonder what strings will be attached.

Well it appears marching orders have been received related to staff reductions. This should be interesting...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/w ... uts-237139

So with this article, what do you guys think this means: "Trump has yet to fill scores of positions, and the guidance says any vacant posts judged unnecessary can be eliminated immediately."

Will those of us with Honors offers that have already received exemptions keep our exemptions until this fall? Or is there a chance we'll get axed before we start? You would think that if we have already received an exemption that we wouldn't be "unnecessary."

[bb9916]

Found the guidance:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whiteh ... -17-22.pdf

[Anonymous User]

Found the guidance:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whiteh ... -17-22.pdf

"As a result, the government-wide hiring freeze is lifted upon issuance of this guidance."

Looks like it's time to reach back out to those "frozen" applications we had pending!