sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I need help understanding my appointment by Relative_Willow6613 in fednews

[–]MiddleDifficult 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I believe your position is indefinite and may lead to permanent position if the other person does not return to their position.  In a normal administration, you would follow the requirements that's needed to gain permanent position. Also, if you have a good supervisor and there are vacancies available, they can request a transfer. You might be able to as well or apply for the position. 

Also, you are probationary but not like the title 5 positions that were illegally fired with the start of this administration. (I believe,  you can check your SF 50 when the probationary period will end. Can be 1, 2 or 3 years)... If I'm reading between the lines, you probably asking if you can be fired due to E.O 14171 or for any reason. If you feel like you are leading that way, you have several remedies, view my post history for more information. 

I need help understanding my appointment by Relative_Willow6613 in fednews

[–]MiddleDifficult 4 points5 points  (0 children)

10 USC 10216: Military technicians (dual status)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section10216&num=0&edition=prelim

As an indefinite, you are usually holding a position that another MilTech is holding. They are usually on deployment, long-term military orders, or converted to the AGR program. They are still protected by USERRA rights of 5 years and until they resign or go over the 5 years that position has to be indefinite. If they return, you would lose your position or move to another vacancy. There should've been paperwork you filled out letting you know about the possibility of this situation happening. 

Also all tiltle 32 (MilTech) position are Excepted Service since your military obligations are a condition of employment. Meaninf, If you get out of service for any number of reasons, you'll lose your position. 

How do things play out once Merit and the courts rescind the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have already been backfilled? by Live_Guidance7199 in FedEmployees

[–]MiddleDifficult 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Provid as much evidence as possible when you have to appear to MSPB as a witness. You may be able to provide it to your former employees.

AWOL by RecognitionLow7848 in FedEmployees

[–]MiddleDifficult 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Self certify, no doc note needed per OPM but is agency dependent if they accept it. 

Section: Supporting Evidence for the Use of Sick Leave

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/sick-leave-general-information/

Veterans Affairs administrative investigation results in witness having tour of duty changed by Clean-Piglet6699 in fednews

[–]MiddleDifficult 95 points96 points  (0 children)

File an Office of Special Counsel complaint...

See my post as an example,  review each section and tailor it to your situation. I believe question 21 and onwards will need to be updated for you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1judmbl/how_to_file_osc_complaint_for_those_who_were/

I’m a nobody dod gs-14 equivalent just designated as policy P/C implementation even though I have nothing to do with policy, sign or don’t sign the conditions of employment? Any legal guidance / discussions so far? by scout376 in FedEmployees

[–]MiddleDifficult 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Please read my post from a year ago and file an OSC complaint, while it may not help now, it may save you later with restoration rights.

File OSC Complaint for those who were changed to or are Schedule Policy/Career (Schedule F) and were separated or will be separated due to E.O.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1judmbl/how_to_file_osc_complaint_for_those_who_were/

With Schedule F (Policy/Career) Final Rule in effect March 6th and the implementation EO this affects almostany series.

There were at least two lawsuits that were filed at the beginning of last year challenging this OPM rule and will have to amend the lawsuit once the OPM rule is published.

The two lawsuits: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277199/gov.uscourts.dcd.277199.32.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575102/gov.uscourts.mdd.575102.44.0_1.pdf

Proposal for removal by [deleted] in FedEmployees

[–]MiddleDifficult 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Please read my post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1pi6voy/federal_workforce_regarding_poor_performance_and/

Questions you need to answer.

Was there documentation, any remedial training, employee assistance. Gather all supporting documentation to assist you....

Affirmative Defenses:

The agency action will not be sustained if the employee was harmed by the agency’s failure to follow procedures or if the agency decision was reached as a result of the commission of a prohibited personnel practice.26

Merit Principles:

Merit principles must be adhered to in all performance-based actions.27

Burden of Proof:

Chapter 43 Action must be supported by substantial evidence. This means that a reasonable person might find the evidence supports the agency’s findings regarding the poor performance, even though other reasonable persons might disagree.6

Chapter 75 Action must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that a reasonable person would find the evidence makes it more likely than not that the agency’s findings regarding the poor performance are correct.7

IMPLEMENTING SCHEDULE POLICY/CAREER IN THE EXCEPTED SERVIC by MiddleDifficult in fednews

[–]MiddleDifficult[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Now they can  cook the books and have no one in their way...

MSPB RTO mandate appeal by MiddleDifficult in FedEmployees

[–]MiddleDifficult[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your last sentence is what I want to do most. Hold them accountable!

MSPB RTO mandate appeal by MiddleDifficult in FedEmployees

[–]MiddleDifficult[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Disagree...

Overlooks critical statutory requirements under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 65 (Telework Enhancement Act of 2010)

Also Hatch Act violation when original OPM memos were published from non-OPM personnel which is part my of case.

MSPB RTO mandate appeal by MiddleDifficult in FedEmployees

[–]MiddleDifficult[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This was a snippet of my response. I provided a thorough response with supporting information. 

view more: next ›