Hiring Freezes?? Forum

[haus]

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."

I suspect that this is primarily geared at the senior positions that are often filled by appointment by an incoming administration. If the President has not named an under secretary of so-and-so, it may mean that he/his administration thinks it is of value and can be done away with.

I think a bigger problem will be how agencies that are facing the threat of considerable budget cuts will decide to staff going forward. If you are in management/HR at an agency that the current administration has stated should be slashed (e.g. EPA) you might want to re-think what type of, and how many new positions you decide to open up and attempt to fill.

[andythefir]

It would be dumb to hire anybody for a position outside of ICE until the budget comes down. I bet there are cuts, but not as bad as contemplated by the trump budget, leading to modest hiring this fall.

[Anonymous User]

Ok maybe someone can answer my question or help give me a peace of mind. So I got a tentative offer before the hiring freeze with the department of agriculture (USDA) but could not technically be hired during the freeze. In Trump's budget cuts proposal he stated he wanted to cut USDA funding by 21%. My question is now that the freeze is over will they be able to go ahead with the process and hire me or am I out of luck due to these crazy budget cut proposals?

[Anonymous User]

Ok maybe someone can answer my question or help give me a peace of mind. So I got a tentative offer before the hiring freeze with the department of agriculture (USDA) but could not technically be hired during the freeze. In Trump's budget cuts proposal he stated he wanted to cut USDA funding by 21%. My question is now that the freeze is over will they be able to go ahead with the process and hire me or am I out of luck due to these crazy budget cut proposals?

I'm in the same situation with a different agency. I accepted an offer before the freeze, got an exemption during the freeze, hiring activities resumed (background check starting, etc.), now post-freeze my agency is facing cuts and I still don't have my "firm" offer. I'm nervous about whether my tentative offer will still be honored. I can't start until the fall...

[Anonymous User]

They said you can't start until fall?! My agency was trying to seek an exemption as well and I haven't heard back. Well if that's the case even if I do get the job I'm sure I won't be able to start until fall too . Does anyone know when Congress votes on the budget? I have read that Congress is really not on board with it but who knows.

[Anonymous User]

They said you can't start until fall?! My agency was trying to seek an exemption as well and I haven't heard back. Well if that's the case even if I do get the job I'm sure I won't be able to start until fall too . Does anyone know when Congress votes on the budget? I have read that Congress is really not on board with it but who knows.

I can't start until the fall because I haven't graduated or passed the bar yet (though I may be able to start earlier as a law clerk). It was an Honors position starting somewhere around August-October...

[Anonymous User]

I was also caught in the interview-offer processes when the freeze took place. I emailed my contact today with questions similar to those posted here. They told me I'd have to wait and see if the agency was able to fill the position after interpretation of the guidance.

[Anonymous User]

I was also caught in the interview-offer processes when the freeze took place. I emailed my contact today with questions similar to those posted here. They told me I'd have to wait and see if the agency was able to fill the position after interpretation of the guidance.

Tentative offer or still interviewing?

[andythefir]

Ok maybe someone can answer my question or help give me a peace of mind. So I got a tentative offer before the hiring freeze with the department of agriculture (USDA) but could not technically be hired during the freeze. In Trump's budget cuts proposal he stated he wanted to cut USDA funding by 21%. My question is now that the freeze is over will they be able to go ahead with the process and hire me or am I out of luck due to these crazy budget cut proposals?

Seems to me there's a good news/bad news reality. Good news: 21% cut is not likely. Multiple people in congress have said the trump budget is dead on arrival. Bad news: some kind of cut is likely. If you were a manager would you sign off on bringing on someone knowing you might have to lay them off? It sucks, and I'm sorry you're caught up in this.

Pulling together everything I know, the most likely outcome is another continuing resolution in late April. That will keep agencies at their current funding levels-meaning the levels the agencies were anticipating when they extended offers. They may or may not honor them, but my guess is the funding will be available.

[Anonymous User]

I have read budget cuts will happen but not to the extent Trump wants fortunately. With proposals of 30% to the EPA, 29%to the state, 21% to the USDA and etc, these are very radical is what Congress says. These cuts could ruin agencies. If you look at last cuts by Obama and bush all of them ended up not even being close to what they proposed. The Congress either does not accept them or revamps them. That is why I can't see how some of these will pass Congress. Almost every article I have read says republican and Democrat members of Congress oppose Trump's proposals. I really feel people, especially ones who got tentative offers before the freeze, should get jobs honored. I do not think as of right now new jobs will be posted in agencies with listed budget cut proposals. But like I said ones who interviewed before the hiring freeze and got tentative offers I feel will be able to work. Just my thoughts I guess.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know when congress votes on the budgets?

[jess]

.

[Anonymous User]

What do you guys think of the state department and EPA keeping thier hiring freeze still in place? Do you think other agencies will follow?

[andythefir]

What do you guys think of the state department and EPA keeping thier hiring freeze still in place? Do you think other agencies will follow?

USAO has posted a couple AUSA positions here and there, but it's radically fewer than normal. My guess is there won't be any movement on hiring until there's a budget, and even then I wouldn't hold out hope for the EPA or state.

[Anonymous User]

What do you guys think of the state department and EPA keeping thier hiring freeze still in place? Do you think other agencies will follow?

USAO has posted a couple AUSA positions here and there, but it's radically fewer than normal. My guess is there won't be any movement on hiring until there's a budget, and even then I wouldn't hold out hope for the EPA or state.

Any guesses at how appointments of USAs will affect hiring? I've heard that the closer to confirmation the slower the positions come. I've posted before but starting circuit clerkship in August, so 9/18 is my target start date and have no fucking clue if all the activity lately and lack thereof is good or bad.

[Anonymous User]

I'm thinking if they get a budget set by the 28th which is this next Friday, agencies will be able to hire. This is of course if Trump's proposals do not go through congress. I am hoping this will happen and agencies can start hiring where they need people. I am in a situation where I got a tentative offer before the freeze and than during the freeze my agency had a 21% budget cut proposal. So I am hoping things will not only work out for me but everyone else who has been in limbo for the last three months.

[haus]

Sadly, dysfunction is likely going to lead the way next week. We may dodge a governmental shutdown (although we are going to get a lot closer to this than we have any business getting). But we will not have a real budget that would allow agencies to do real planning, instead, we will have another stop gap measure that punts the can down the road a few more months.

[JakeTappers]

Incredible speculation here, but, I have to assume that this proposed cut in corporate tax rate (not to mention the WALL and everything else) is going to have a catastrophic affect on hiring--even in criminal positions?

The inside word lately has been that even border district USAO's that asked for a certain amount of funding/positions for increased prosecutions were: 1) only granted half of what was requested (which was modest IMO); and 2) were told they will only be internally filled (i.e. other offices will detail AUSAs).

Seems like the AUSA-soon dream may be withering in the era of Trump.

[Anonymous User]

Incredible speculation here, but, I have to assume that this proposed cut in corporate tax rate (not to mention the WALL and everything else) is going to have a catastrophic affect on hiring--even in criminal positions?

The inside word lately has been that even border district USAO's that asked for a certain amount of funding/positions for increased prosecutions were: 1) only granted half of what was requested (which was modest IMO); and 2) were told they will only be internally filled (i.e. other offices will detail AUSAs).

Seems like the AUSA-soon dream may be withering in the era of Trump.

I'd agree with probably 60% of this. 1 the cuts proposed by Trump, both to the tax rate and to the spending, have to make it through congress. I find that very unlikely. More likely (in my opinion) is another continuing resolution, which means everyone keeps going at prior funding levels.

2 I think USAO jobs will be flat for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't mean there will be no hiring. All prosecutor's offices have a pecking order, and boring, repetitive, and frankly gross cases like immigration go to attorneys at the very bottom. If you go from, say, bringing 10 immigration cases a month to 40 a month, you're going to have to distribute those cases around to folks who focus on other kinds of cases. Some (who knows how many) will not go along with that, either because they disagree with it morally or because they're gross cases to prosecute. If those folks who quit are making good money, you could hire a few baby attorneys for the salary of the senior folks that left (combined with the usual turnover)-although I do agree those open spots will likely go to border districts.

3 Detailing USAOs to border districts is an interesting idea, but I don't think very many would go for it. Places like Las Cruces or Yuma build into their hiring model people splitting after a few months/years-I can't imagine someone in Chicago, LA, DC, etc willingly going to El Paso. It would also be tough to tell vested AUSAs "go to Tucson or you're fired." Now, all the folks who haven't vested-totally can do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if lots of young/new AUSAs wind up in border districts.

[Anonymous User]

2 I think USAO jobs will be flat for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't mean there will be no hiring. All prosecutor's offices have a pecking order, and boring, repetitive, and frankly gross cases like immigration go to attorneys at the very bottom. If you go from, say, bringing 10 immigration cases a month to 40 a month, you're going to have to distribute those cases around to folks who focus on other kinds of cases. Some (who knows how many) will not go along with that, either because they disagree with it morally or because they're gross cases to prosecute. If those folks who quit are making good money, you could hire a few baby attorneys for the salary of the senior folks that left (combined with the usual turnover)-although I do agree those open spots will likely go to border districts.

3 Detailing USAOs to border districts is an interesting idea, but I don't think very many would go for it. Places like Las Cruces or Yuma build into their hiring model people splitting after a few months/years-I can't imagine someone in Chicago, LA, DC, etc willingly going to El Paso. It would also be tough to tell vested AUSAs "go to Tucson or you're fired." Now, all the folks who haven't vested-totally can do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if lots of young/new AUSAs wind up in border districts.

re: 2 - not all immigration cases are "gross" cases to prosecute (though I guess I'm not really sure what you think makes a case "gross" to prosecute), and there are plenty of prosecutors in border districts (which is where it matters) who don't have a moral problem with prosecuting immigration cases. (Keep in mind that people who bring undocumented people into the country are making money off of other people's desperation and don't exactly treat their cargo well. When you see undocumented people killed in a rollover because a smuggler decided to put 30 people in a truck, you probably won't mind prosecuting the smuggler.)

[Anonymous User]

re: 2 - not all immigration cases are "gross" cases to prosecute (though I guess I'm not really sure what you think makes a case "gross" to prosecute), and there are plenty of prosecutors in border districts (which is where it matters) who don't have a moral problem with prosecuting immigration cases. (Keep in mind that people who bring undocumented people into the country are making money off of other people's desperation and don't exactly treat their cargo well. When you see undocumented people killed in a rollover because a smuggler decided to put 30 people in a truck, you probably won't mind prosecuting the smuggler.)

Sure, it's possible you'll get a few cases here and there that are interesting and impactful. But even if you're fine with prosecuting illegal re-entry/illegal crossing, it's super repetitious, rarely goes to trial, and presents limited opportunities to develop as an attorney compared to other kinds of cases.

It's like DUI/DV. You might get a very cool case here and there, but even if you're ok prosecuting the crime, they get real old real quick.

[Npret]

re: 2 - not all immigration cases are "gross" cases to prosecute (though I guess I'm not really sure what you think makes a case "gross" to prosecute), and there are plenty of prosecutors in border districts (which is where it matters) who don't have a moral problem with prosecuting immigration cases. (Keep in mind that people who bring undocumented people into the country are making money off of other people's desperation and don't exactly treat their cargo well. When you see undocumented people killed in a rollover because a smuggler decided to put 30 people in a truck, you probably won't mind prosecuting the smuggler.)

Sure, it's possible you'll get a few cases here and there that are interesting and impactful. But even if you're fine with prosecuting illegal re-entry/illegal crossing, it's super repetitious, rarely goes to trial, and presents limited opportunities to develop as an attorney compared to other kinds of cases.

It's like DUI/DV. You might get a very cool case here and there, but even if you're ok prosecuting the crime, they get real old real quick.

Plus immigration court makes NYC housing court look like the heaven. Nothing about immigration court works easily or well.

[Anonymous User]

AUSAs don't appear in immigration court. Immigration court is civil, not criminal.

And my point was that there are lots of alien smuggling cases out there, and many are interesting and allow the opportunity to develop investigative skills. Also, illegal re-entries are a good way to get trial experience if you don't have any, and are more likely to be going to trial these days. (Yes, more advanced lawyers working in other areas aren't likely to be interested, but generally here we seem to be talking about people trying to break into the USAO, not experienced AUSAs.)

(Still don't know what you meant by "gross.")

For the record re: hiring, details are voluntary, not mandatory, so you're never going to tell someone to go to Tucson or be fired. Also, the only districts this is really going to affect is border districts, and prosecutors there are used to doing immigration. So I really don't think experienced AUSAs are going to be quitting over immigration cases.

[Npret]

AUSAs don't appear in immigration court. Immigration court is civil, not criminal.

And my point was that there are lots of alien smuggling cases out there, and many are interesting and allow the opportunity to develop investigative skills. Also, illegal re-entries are a good way to get trial experience if you don't have any, and are more likely to be going to trial these days. (Yes, more advanced lawyers working in other areas aren't likely to be interested, but generally here we seem to be talking about people trying to break into the USAO, not experienced AUSAs.)

(Still don't know what you meant by "gross.")

For the record re: hiring, details are voluntary, not mandatory, so you're never going to tell someone to go to Tucson or be fired. Also, the only districts this is really going to affect is border districts, and prosecutors there are used to doing immigration. So I really don't think experienced AUSAs are going to be quitting over immigration cases.

My bad. Lost thecontext of the thread.

[Anonymous User]

AUSAs don't appear in immigration court. Immigration court is civil, not criminal.

And my point was that there are lots of alien smuggling cases out there, and many are interesting and allow the opportunity to develop investigative skills. Also, illegal re-entries are a good way to get trial experience if you don't have any, and are more likely to be going to trial these days. (Yes, more advanced lawyers working in other areas aren't likely to be interested, but generally here we seem to be talking about people trying to break into the USAO, not experienced AUSAs.)

(Still don't know what you meant by "gross.")

For the record re: hiring, details are voluntary, not mandatory, so you're never going to tell someone to go to Tucson or be fired. Also, the only districts this is really going to affect is border districts, and prosecutors there are used to doing immigration. So I really don't think experienced AUSAs are going to be quitting over immigration cases.

All I can say about the detailing point is that it is fact - at least that the administration is saying that is where scores of AUSAs are going to come from in terms of D AZ, SD Cal, etc. whether they have the ability to effectuate or will have to make some changes, the word from Washington and from acting US attorney in border district is going to happen.