The U.S. Federal Government Jobs Megathread: Next time... be more careful!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > The U.S. Federal Government Jobs Megathread: Next time... be more careful!

«‹›5 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hey thread, I have a fairly specific pay grade question. I have a JD, but haven't passed a bar- instead I went straight into a PhD program. I'm planning to apply for federal work sometime after I get my degree, in a position that doesn't normally require a legal background. A relative who worked for the Feds a few years back thinks that having a law license translates into some sort of automatic bump in pay grade. Is there such a thing, does it require the degree or a license, and how screwed am I trying to get a federal government job with my JD and social science PhD?

# ¿ May 27, 2015 00:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 06:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dammit, Falstaff, tell me where you work so I can make their employment page my homepage already.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2015 22:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Must Love Dogs posted:

So the OPM breach gets that much worse. ' �We believe that Social Security numbers were not encrypted, a cybersecurity failure that is absolutely indefensible and outrageous,� the letter said.'

To be clear, that's someone from the government employee union basing the claim on unsourced internal OPM briefings. It's not necessarily the case. Although I do love the link name: "union_hackers_have_personnel_data_on_every_federal_employee/"

# ¿ Jun 11, 2015 21:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

LCL-Dead posted:

You guys are looking in the wrong fields..

I know 11's with only GEDs who've been at it for less than 5 years.

It always boggled my mind when I would be browsing USAjobs and would see a position announcement with a PhD required for the 9 or 11 slot. Our 12's and 13's over here in acquisition might have a Masters. Might.

You can't say that and not say where you/they work.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2015 19:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Deeters posted:

I can show you some 13 electrical/mechanical engineers with no degree

I...I'm going to have trouble getting any job at all with my JD PhD, aren't I?

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 06:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Artificer posted:

You know, with the slowly expanding debacle of the OPM hack, it makes me wonder if the U.S. is as successful at similar hacks on other countries. We probably are? But I dont hear too much about it even from other foreign news agencies. Maybe the English speaking ones don't discuss it as much?

Few other countries have the same kind of stable centralized information structures to hack, at least on the scale of those in the US.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2015 05:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

CronoGamer posted:

A friend of mine has been waiting on his secret clearance to start a PMF job for at least 6 weeks now. They keep saying "another two weeks" and push it back every time.

Sounds like either a) the GPO breach is so extensive they're still finding things to fix or b) they're stalling to get an arrest warrant lined up.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2015 04:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Soviet Commubot posted:

My USAJOBS status changed to "You Have Been Selected for the Position", so I guess I should be expecting an email from HR or somebody in the not too distant future?

Different Position. You should still expect a call to come in.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2016 09:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Drug testing is almost certainly going to vary between entities, that's the level at which policy is set.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2016 19:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dr. Quarex posted:

That is a very prescient response, as evidently it was precisely that they could not tell that I had experience "eliciting information in one-on-one interactions to ascertain eligibility for benefits or to create a legal record." I mean...no, I do not. But how could anyone ever move from a non-interview to an interview-based job at the same agency if that were a yes/no eligibility factor? Sigh. I felt like I pushed everything in my background to its breaking point in putting together my r�sum� already, I think I would have to go a step beyond my comfort level to do anything more. Like claiming that practicing a promo for an independent wrestling federation counted as creating a legal record.

I remember actually going so far as to Google "legal record" in a desperate plea to figure out if I had done that, but I really do not think I have. Who casually creates legal records in their spare time?

People who are being promoted internally.

# ¿ May 13, 2016 22:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'm in a similar situation, looking at the comm offices of NIH/NAS/FDA/USDA.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Dec 3, 2020

# ¿ Aug 5, 2016 16:51

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

What are the actual procedural steps for firing a federal employee? Assume for this purpose that the employee is human scum, universally unliked, doing absolutely zero or negative work, but is not committing any illegal acts.

vvvv Right, so, why? What is the actual procedure? I hear a lot about the impossible hassle of firing ineffective/openly destructive federal employees, but never get details.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Oct 30, 2016

# ¿ Oct 30, 2016 20:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The current appointee shortlist is like something out of a nightmarish hellscape.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 20:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Good news, everyone!

quote:

Two GOP senators on Friday asked the White House to freeze federal hiring until President-elect Trump takes office � just in case the outgoing Obama administration was planning a last-minute hiring spree.

�Because we know that you are sincere in overseeing a smooth transition, we hope members of your administration will resist the urge to accelerate the hiring of career civil servants who may not share the priorities of the new administration,� Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) wrote in a brief letter to Obama.

They urged the president to block new hires to the federal payroll between now and Trump�s inauguration on Jan. 20, with an exemption for jobs with a public health or safety mission.

The lawmakers said a freeze on new civil servants would be not just a �gesture of bipartisanship and goodwill,� but a �precedent for future presidential transitions.�

vvv It's the "precedent" part that's got me down.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Dec 3, 2016

# ¿ Dec 2, 2016 23:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's worse than that. This is intended to reduce the period in which any kind of hiring can take place. The goal is to remove the ability to hire federal employees period.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2016 19:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Christ, I need to get hired into government soon.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2017 10:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Anniversary posted:

Got my tentative offer e-mail earlier today.

Pretty sure this means I'm looking at plan B?

Almost certainly- it looks like it applies to anyone who hasn't actually begun work.

The White house site and the federal register haven't uploaded the text of this or the TPP one yet.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 20:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Tetraptous posted:

I'm concerned. I'm a researcher at a Government lab and was about to get a "Person in Job" promotion, i.e., one where a new position description is created for you because the work you're doing is deemed to exceed the GS range approved for your current position. I'm not so sure that the EO allows for that. The processing for my promotion was first delayed while my management developed a new process for this sort of promotion, then delayed by HR so they could cram in new hires before the 20th. I'll be pretty upset with my agency if this promotion is blocked.

I've stayed in this job because of the work environment; I feel like I have more freedom than I would in industry and more resources than I'd have in academia. But my research group was already getting thin between the retirement of a few world-class researchers in the last few years and the inability to attract and hire high quality talent; in part because we can only hire US citizens and graduate students in my area are generally foreign, in part because Silicon Valley is more attractive to young STEM PhDs, and in part because Government research funding in my area has been limited due to excessive security concerns. I publish a lot and am well known in my area--I get job offers from industry regularly and I think I'm still competitive on the academic market. I'm not sure I can hang on for another four (or more) years of a worsening situation. I'm not in this for the money, 'cause the money ain't good, but I'm having a serious rethink about whether I want to stay here.

~~It's worth waiting to see, but if the past is guide everyone who hasn't actively started working at their new position is SoL.~~

Details here:http://www.govexec.com/management/2017/01/here-are-details-trumps-governmentwide-hiring-freeze/134803/?oref=top-story

Looks like you're still out of luck, though- it applies to positions "vacant as of Jan 22"

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jan 24, 2017

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 00:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Grouchio posted:

Do think tanks count as federal jobs/affected by the hiring freeze?

I'm having a lot of trouble telling myself- it casts as broad a net as possible, but I think if the organization is not classified as an executive agency (not placed under the executive branch by establishing legislation) then there's not a legal way for the Order to apply to it. I'm sending my resume into PCORI at the moment, so I guess we'll find out.

According to folks familiar with the last two hiring freezes, agencies usually ignored orders to not contract things out, contributing to them being completely ineffective. It's hard to tell what will happen this time, though, given the composition of congress.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 01:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Thesaurus posted:

It will be interesting to see how it changes after the 90 day period suggested in the memo. The goal is "attrition" though so it won't be too positive. I'm imagining some restrictive budgeting to prevent much hiring in practice.

I wonder if RIFs will become a reality once the budget comes out.

I'm assuming that interagency transfers wouldn't be affected by this?

The 90 day period isn't binding, so it's just "until whenever OMB produces a plan I like and it goes into action".

Interagency transfers probably won't be affected if they're noncompetititve, simply because it's up to agencies to comply with this and they have a rationale to pretend the transfers don't apply. Again, though, with Rs in control of all branches, anything goes.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 02:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

RabbitMage posted:

Friend of a friend etc claims that the freeze won't affect seasonal positions, at least?

Watching Twitter today, I'm wondering how long until NPS et al is prohibited from saying anything about the climate anywhere.

It effects seasonal positions. NPS has probably already received a gag order and is figuring out what to do with it. It's looking like this probably hit all the agencies with any scientific remit, and they're just responding/percolating differently.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2017 05:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leviathan Song posted:

Just received the Navy guidance on the hiring freeze, I would expect it would be at least the same across DOD but who knows:

1. The freeze does not apply to military personnel.

2. The freeze applies to any transfers, reassignments and promotions of current federal employees.

3. Individuals who received final job offers prior to January 22, 2017, and received a confirmed start date on or before Feb 22, 2017, should report to work as planned.

Sounds like good news for some of you with offers right now.

Lol, it looks like each agency is trying a different form/level of circumvention.

# ¿ Jan 27, 2017 16:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dr. Quarex posted:

We got word that a few of our subagency's common positions had been exempted from the hiring freeze by DHS; it makes me wonder whether this is the beginning of the dam bursting and them giving up or whether DHS just has more latitude than some agencies in declaring its employees important enough to keep hiring (possibly both).

My understanding is that it's basically the agencies flaunting the order and waiting for the executive to sue.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 05:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Thesaurus posted:

Hiring freeze officially lifted. Good luck to those who were already in the hiring pipeline when it froze up

Perfect timing, I'm getting my resume circulated internally at my chosen entity. Any public confirmation?

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 18:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Really the absolute best and worst time to have my CV circulating among the unit heads. Hopefully my heart will start again next week.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2017 23:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Polygraphs are a load of hot garbage.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 08:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Where can I find information on the details of optimizing your application to get past the computerized first step filtering at USAJobs?

# ¿ Apr 27, 2017 14:05

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pryor on Fire posted:

I for one find it hilarious that they call up your neighbors like it's still 1962. Do they also ask if you are a good christian or not and what the marriage status of your parents is?

I mean I'm sure they have a whole procedure with a lot of thought and testing behind it but who the hell knows their neighbors anymore?

You know your neighbors if they left a negative impression, especially a criminal one.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2017 22:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The U.S. Federal Government Jobs Megathread: Always say you are considered an expert

# ¿ Sep 28, 2017 21:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Had a qualification assessment question item this evening that was a couple inches long. I didn't recognize some of the words used in it. But I'm an expert in the field that others regularly consult, of course.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Oct 7, 2017

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 07:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's especially galling and frustrating when they're things that are pretty clearly only possible for people already performing the task. Are you an expert in reviewing X approval submissions for compliance with federal laws, and writing reports on X for federal service supervisors?

# ¿ Nov 9, 2017 07:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Maybe this can simplify my job search:

Who in the whole constellation of federal health/science policy entities isn't under an official or unofficial hiring freeze? I can have enjoyable conversations with midlevel agency executives until I'm blue in the face, it doesn't do me any good if every single group they point me to is either 1. not hiring anyone for anything, 2. posting positions only to fulfill requirements for an internal promotion cycle, or 3. doesn't exist anymore because Trump.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2017 19:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sorry, that morphed into a rant halfway. I've repeatedly had meetings or conversations with decently well-placed people in federal government who want to hire me or find positions for me in research or health policy analysis and development, but who are subject to a hiring freeze, and who suggest organizations (USADA, several NIH offices, etc etc) that are either a) also frozen, b) are hiring the bare minimum of frontline science personnel to keep the lights on, or c) are just posting positions because they have to in order to perform internal promotions. Opening doors that reveal a brick wall is getting really frustrating. I've just gotten my applications far enough into the FDA that human beings are looking at some of them, but that process could take months with no guaranteed positive outcome. Meanwhile, I'm about to get my degree and start growing a time gap on my resume.

My question is this, I suppose: which federal entities that do pretty much anything with science or health aren't subject to either an official hiring freeze, or a soft hiring freeze where they're only running internal promotions?

(I'm now looking at the VA portal, don't know why that hadn't occurred to me, thanks)

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Dec 11, 2017

# ¿ Dec 11, 2017 20:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

There's not going to be a government to hire me, is there.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2017 17:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The timing of this shutdown is just....just the absolute worst for my job search. I literally got my terminal diploma in the mail on Thursday. Of course, there are a lot of other people in far, far worse situations, but on a personal level it's pretty drat depressing.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jan 22, 2018

# ¿ Jan 22, 2018 18:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leviathan Song posted:

There's no way this will have a noticeable affect on your job search. The hiring process takes months and usa jobs will continue running on autopilot for the hours or days the shutdown lasts.

You're right, mostly venting about the overarching timing. I found out that I'd be graduating now, right after the 2016 election. It's not been a great ride.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jan 22, 2018

# ¿ Jan 22, 2018 22:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I've been told to not bother applying to anything below a 12. My friend, do you know how many 12-13 openings there are in my subject area?

# ¿ Apr 26, 2018 22:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leviathan Song posted:

With patience a target 12 is basically a 12. Hell my sign on bonus made a 7 target 2 effectively an 11 target 12. Who are you getting this from?

Someone in the service. Their positioning isn't great, but their reasoning isn't about salary, it's about my degree combo effectively qualifying out of anything lower.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2018 17:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dr. Quarex posted:

I have been told that my degree means I need to be a 12, too; specifically that jobs where the skills that come with being a Ph.D. are useful are all GS-13+, but you cannot come in above a 12 even in a doctorate-requiring researcher position.

And this is part of why I am going to be a GS-9 forever.

But...hey, I DID get in! And if my office did not have a pretty strong trend towards people with high school diplomas moving up the ranks, I probably would be a 12 by now.

(To be fair, our work is, in fact, quite well-suited to someone without much formal education as long as that person has good attention to detail)

(Though I struggle to believe many people who never went to college seriously possess a nuanced understanding of, say, the 100-page legal contracts that accompany some H-1B petitions)

RUN DISCENDO VOX, I CHANGED MY MIND

RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN

(no other than the complete lack of promotion potential and related issues my job is great)

Is your office actually hiring outside itself? Alternately, may I kill you and assume your identity?

# ¿ Apr 29, 2018 05:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 06:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Josh Lyman posted:

At FDA at least, all the regular staff seem paranoid to where they generally use their phones for everything and even put tape over the webcam on their laptops.

The admins don�t seem to care though. I saw one lady who spent an entire presentation on Facebook on her laptop.

FDA/USDA are the target of absolutely bonkers industrial pressure, capture efforts and surveillance, so a little paranoia's not too surprising.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2018 05:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > The U.S. Federal Government Jobs Megathread: Next time... be more careful!

«‹›5 »