General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes this administration have the right to fire career civil servants?
Sure doesn't work that way in Parliamentary systems
MineralMan
(146,350 posts)still_one
(92,502 posts)spanone
(135,924 posts)still_one
(92,502 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)and their resignations were accepted.
Kennedy, who was working closely on the departments transition after Donald Trump was elected president, decided to call it quits. David Wade, former chief of staff for
John Kerry, called it the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and thats incredibly difficult to replicate. He added that such positions are extremely difficult to fill. Those who left were reportedly career foreign-service officers whove served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/01/26/report-all-senior-state-dept-management-officials-resign.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl
djg21
(1,803 posts)If they are actually civil service employees, as opposed to political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the chief executive. High level positions tend to be political.
Sunny05
(865 posts)not at all like a political appointee. I mean, if he or one of his own conjured up excuse to fire based on supposed misdeeds that violate rules, terms of employment, then maybe they would get away with it, unfortunately. But you are correct in that there is a difference -- or at least there was -- a big difference, even, between appointees and career civil servants.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)Not fired for cause but laid off as in "restructuring".
wiggs
(7,820 posts)marybourg
(12,648 posts)Political appointees, which the State Department officials were, "serve at the pleasure of the President".
Ordinary civil service employees - the people who help you at Social Security or who answer the phone at the IRS -are immune from political interference.
There may be another classification in between the two; I'm not sure.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,204 posts)In United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), the Court confronted a federal law that named three people as subversive and excluded them from federal employment. Previously, the Court had held that lack of judicial trial and the narrow way in which the law rationally achieved its goals were the only tests of a bill of attainder. But the Lovett Court said that a bill of attainder 1) Specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) Imposed punishment; and 3) Did so without benefit of judicial trial.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they serve at his or her pleasure. That doesn't mean they are kicked out of the government - they are merely moved to another position.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)because Trump and Bannon (a) don't believe in practicing diplomacy and (b) want to purge the State Department of people who have risen via merit and replace them with their fascist puppets
hack89
(39,171 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)The Civil Service system exists as it does to prevent overtly political firing and hiring. It was put in place to prevent the sort of patronage that used to go on.
mercuryblues
(14,556 posts)to fill these positions, with the hiring freeze?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,227 posts)To Russia.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)malaise
(269,278 posts)his brain is not frozen - it is fried
TygrBright
(20,779 posts)But that does allow RIFs and restructuring.
However, I believe that if substantially similar jobs are then created in the same job category, the RIF'd employees have preferential consideration in hiring.
There's a lot of ways to bend and wiggle, but at some point the public employees unions are going to become an issue.
May take a while, though.
wearily,
Bright
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)He can fire appointments at will.
onenote
(42,829 posts)they were all, I believe, currently were presidential appointees and thus subject to dismissal.