A recent executive order by the president has caused considerable commotion in several areas of the Federal Government’s civil service. The head of the Federal Salary Council, Ronald Sanders, resigned to protest the order, the NTEU has sued the executive branch over the decree, and Democratic Representatives in Congress have drafted a bill to reverse it. The document in question creates a category of federal worker entitled “Schedule F,” and the jobs categorized as such would not be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The order could switch current positions that are merit-based and known as competitive service into excepted service under the new “Schedule F.” Agencies have to assess their own staff to identify which positions would be subject to the transition, and the number of jobs selected are suspected to total over 10,000. An initial assessment has to be completed by each federal agency by January, and a second review is to be done by March 2021.
Ronald Sanders Resigns
After calling the executive order a “smokescreen” to make feds easier to remove on the grounds of perceived disloyalty, the head of the Federal Salary Council, Ronald Sanders, resigned. Other members of the council expressed their agreement with his concerns. Sanders was formally the head HR director at the IRS, and before that worked for OPM and the DoD. He is a registered Republican who has served under six presidents and was selected by Trump to head the council in 2018. He said the order is a “clear attempt to require political loyalty of those who advise the president… to enable their removal with little if any due process.”
NTEU Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) made similar remarks about the president’s order. Tony Reardon, the NTEU president, said it “threatens a critical pillar of our democracy.” The Union has taken the Trump administration to court over executive orders before, last time in 2019 over the shutdown. Also in 2018 with AFGE, when it fought against orders that would have limited the compacity of agencies to participate in collective bargaining agreements. The Union filed the most recent lawsuit on Monday, October 26th.
House Introduces Bill
Democrat Representatives Gerry Connolly (Virginia), Steny Hoyer (Maryland), and Carolyn Maloney (New York) introduced a bill that looks to reverse and kill the order. The only chance it would become law, however, is if it were attached to a bigger piece of legislation. Otherwise, the President would veto it. If budgetary legislation isn’t passed by December 11th, the nation could be faced with another shutdown, so it is feasible that the congressional Democrats could try and attach their bill to a must-pass budgetary measure. The bill itself, the Saving Civil Service Act, would remove “Schedule F,” switch anyone back who was transitioned to it from competitive service, and rehire anyone who was fired while under it (with backpay). The only thing the act would not do is transition any worker who was hired under the new “Schedule F.”
The History
The first six of the country’s Presidents were considered “moderate” when it came to whether the Federal Government’s civil service was based on their own administration’s favoritism or a public servant’s personal merit. This all changed in 1829 with Andrew Jackson, who purged the previous administration’s personnel by removing over 900 government officials and coining the phrase, “to the victor go the spoils.” This “spoils” system created a ravenous political environment that endured through the Civil War and culminated in the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield, whose murderer bore a grudge that was a product of the spoils system. In response, the Civil Service of the US shifted to a merit-based system. Significant reforms in 1920 (CSRS) and 1986 (FERS) have occurred, but the merit-based fashion of the country’s public service has remained. Opponents of this new executive order fear it is a move on the path of reverting back to a spoils system that the country rejected 137 years ago with the 1883 Pendleton Act.
Until Next Time,
**Written by Benjamin Derge, Financial Planner. The information has been obtained from sources considered reliable but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. Any opinions are those of Benjamin Derge and not necessarily those of RJFS or Raymond James. Links are being provided for information purposes only. Expressions of opinion are as of this date and are subject to change without notice. Raymond James is not affiliated with and does not endorse, authorize, or sponsor any of the listed websites or their respective sponsors.
Executive Order, Schedule F