It’s time to brag about the Rag.
On March 6th we published JW August’s post “Trump’s Plan to Reduce Federal Workforce Includes Culling Out ‘Disloyal’ Veterans“. It was bombshell reporting … but never really found much traction from the mainstream media — until just last week.
Here is most of August’s post:
The Trump administration has rolled out a plan to begin further cuts in the federal workforce, a move that some sources say has a hidden agenda — to remove employees who are seen as not loyal to the president. We are told by a long time source that U.S.Veterans who voted Democratic or Independent will be on an administrative hit list as the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) just released “reductions in force ” (RIF) is rolled out.
The RIF is “the first major overhaul of the federal employee performance management system in decades,” according to government news platform, Government Executive.com. … The OPM believes they can reshuffle the deck, do whatever is needed to cut the workforce. … The RIF’s real intended use is to cull out veterans and other employees who don’t support the president’s agenda, says ‘S’.
For the U.S Veterans in the federal workforce this RIF has two whammy’s for those who served but didn’t vote for Trump. Most importantly the credit they receive for their service to the country will carry less weight under this OMB plan. This additional credit was the purpose of the Veterans’ Preference Act, passed in 1944. But loyalty to Trump will now become the most important consideration in “who keeps their job and who is fired,” says our source.
Currently, seniority counts the most in evaluating a federal employee; it is followed by a veteran’s service to the country.This is now going to be flipped, with an employee’s performance to be used as the most important factor in evaluating workers; this will result in removing the traditional safety net of seniority and service and replacing it with a ‘performance-first’ model.
The administration says the rule will “make the RIF regulations more streamlined, efficient, and merit-based by prioritizing performance over tenure and length of service…” The source ‘S’ says it will be a way to rid federal agencies of veterans who don’t support the president, under the guise of efficiency.
“Performance-first’ as it is called, is a 1 to 5 point system, with five being the highest. Veterans will still qualify for additional points when determining their score. But these points are determined by the agency where they are employed. … If these ratings are lower than non-veteran peers, the veteran points may not be able to save their job. …
Additionally, if you are a veteran, a new hire on probation, you are not considered a “competing employee” under the proposed rules. The veteran can be fired at the agency’s discretion without any RIF protections (reduction in force) or seniority consideration. According to the OPM website, currently 27.9 percent of federal employees are military veterans, as of January of this year. The percentage equates to 567,000 veterans.
And here is Jasmine Laws’ article from Newsweek published April 16, entitled, “Major Blow for Veterans as Federal Job Protections Targeted”:
Hundreds of thousands of military veterans could lose decades?old layoff protections if a new Trump administration proposal is passed. The policy would change a decades-old rule about how federal workers are laid off, altering the priorities around which employees should be kept during layoffs, meaning non?veteran employees with slightly higher performance reviews could displace disabled veterans who have spent decades in public service. …
Why It Matters
Veterans make up more than one-quarter of the federal workforce, according to OPM data, and the proposal could affect more than 621,000 veteran federal workers, many of whom rely on the current protections, which come as part of the government’s support allocated to those who served their country. Of those veterans, about 60 percent are disabled—16 percent of the total federal workforce—according to OPM data.
Critics of the rule have said that the move is “a sweeping and unlawful departure from the governing statutory framework” that has long been in place to protect these veterans and show recognition for their military service. The rule, published by OPM in the Federal Register on March 5, would significantly reorder how federal agencies decide which employees to keep during major layoffs.
Under the current protocol, when layoffs take place, the OPM will consider which workers to keep on based on the following factors in this order of priority: the category of the job, veterans preference group, total time an employee has worked in federal service and performance reviews.
The Trump administration’s proposal would re-order the rankings so that performance ratings are prioritized over veteran status and years of service, so a non?veteran employee with a slightly stronger performance score could remain employed over a veteran, even one with decades of service or a service?connected disability.
The proposal is open for public comment and Scott Hope, the national service director at Disabled American Veterans’ (DAV) Washington Headquarters, who served from 1997 to 2005 as a medical specialist and flight medic, tore into the policy.
He said that it “represents a fundamental and unjustified departure from the statutory framework governing federal [reductions in force] procedures,” which is the protocol outlining how the OPM makes its decisions during mass layoffs.
“It exceeds OPM’s statutory authority, fails to satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and unlawfully diminishes veterans’ preference,” Hope added in a comment on Regulations.gov, which contains information on the development of federal regulations and other related documents issued by the U.S. government. The Administrative Procedure Act is a key federal statute that ensures fair administrative procedure.
Hope went on to say that the consequences of the policy would be “concrete and significant,” and that it would have a “disproportionate and destabilizing effect” on the large number of veterans who “rely on tenure, length of service, and statutory preference as meaningful employment protections.”
He added that it would also allow the firing of “experienced veteran-employees who are integral to the timely delivery of benefits and health care to millions of disabled veterans, their families, caregivers and survivors.”
What Happens Next: The proposed rule is open for public comment until May 4.
Back to braggin’… August’s post appeared nearly a month and half before the Newsweek article. Which means your local Rag was on top of this national story from Washington, DC weeks before mainstream, corporate media got hold of it. Thanks to JW August and his secret source.
