Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 25
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Temporary or Permanent: What's In a Name?
Total Comments: 25
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.7116 | +0.0013 | +3.51% |
| F | $12.1775 | +0.0497 | +2.07% |
| C | $9.4002 | -0.9235 | -43.24% |
| S | $10.4051 | -1.2566 | -47.42% |
| I | $12.2414 | -0.9997 | -50.56% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $11.1768 | -0.8749 | -38.72% |
| L 2030 | $11.4481 | -0.7783 | -34.24% |
| L 2020 | $11.8446 | -0.6618 | -28.86% |
| L 2010 | $13.2444 | -0.3625 | -14.33% |
| L Income | $12.4113 | -0.2200 | -7.86% |
December 2, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Term
CIS
Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:26 AM
Post Reply
I am a term employee, and was a permanent one in 2002. I've been trying to get a perm job since 2003. I understand this person's problem. If you are perm, don't ever take a term or temp job. It's a big mistake. I thought it would be easy to get another perm job and it's not.
Nice try
GSA
Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:51 AM
Post Reply
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
Where was the documentation for federal status?
DHHS
Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:00 AM
Post Reply
The Human Resources Specialist for the Army should have caught this before Ms. Robinson was placed on the certificate or list of eligibles. Why wasn't her SF-50 required for this position? This would have shown that she did not have competitive status. As far as Ms. Robinson's jobs go, it is just tough luck. Her temporary appointment can be terminated at anytime anyway and her competitive position was made erroneously. So, to answer your final question, yes, Ms. Robinson should have taken the Army up on their offer.
Re: Where was the documentation for federal status?
DOI
Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:06 AM
Should have taken the exam
US Forest Service
Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:42 AM
Post Reply
She should have taken the exam. I do understand her position I was a "career" temp for years then had a perm, lost it to downsizing, I am a temp again and its near impossible to get a perm EVEN though I have NON competitive reinstatement eligibility-I only get reinstated into temporary positions so I have been working continuously without a break in service now for two years as a temporary! I am not complaining though at least I am working for decent wages. It would be nice to be a perm again though and have the benefits.
NSPS Selection Process and Temporary Employees
Navy
Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:47 AM
Post Reply
We recently were inducted into the National Security Personnel System and were trying to fill a positon that had previously been graded at the GS-12 level. We had a candidate who had qualified for and was interviewed for another GS-12 position in our organization who we now wanted to hire for this job. The employee was in a temporary position at another command at a GS-9 level (lower cost of living area and no higher permanent positions available). NSPS provisions allow for an increase of only 5% when 'promoting' an employee within NSPS. Even though this indivudual was not currently in NSPS we could not hire at the equivalent GS-12 level pay. In a desparate 'leap of faith', the employee resigned, we readvertised the job and were able to hire at a GS-12 level pay.
And NSPS is supposed to make it easier to hire the best qualified individual!
Re: NSPS Selection Process and Temporary Employees
usda
Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:39 PM
Re: NSPS Selection Process and Temporary Employees
DOD
Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:01 AM
Re: NSPS Selection Process and Temporary Employees
USDA
Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:46 PM
Hardly an EMERGENCY
NASA
Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:57 AM
Post Reply
Since when does incompetence in HR meet the criteria for a 30 day EMERGENCY appointment?
SF75 info should be obtained on an transfer candidate, and reviewed prior to establishing an effective date, much less bringing one on board.
Army does owe her an apology, since she left one job (however temporary it may have been) to take theirs.
The supervisor of the HR specialist needs to remember this at NSPS evaluation time. If the top score is given after this kind of mistake, shame, shame.
Watch out, throwing stones can hurt...
DVA
Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:47 PM
Post Reply
A close read of the article will reveal to the reader a sgnificant comment in one paragraph, which reads...
"application originally left blank -{WAS THIS DONE ON PURPOSE? BASED ON FOLLOWING IT APPEARS SO}- whether her current position was temporary or permanent. When Army asked about her status, Robinson checked both the "temporary" and "career" -{LYING ON THE APPLICATION}- boxes on the form.
She knew the position was not open for temps so it appears she purposely left that little item off the record; however, after getting caught and asked about it she lies and checks both boxes, probably hoping to win the case she just lost if it came up.
HR probably did not get the info until they selected her and requested the screens from the losing command.
She was not only stupid, but appears to be a fraud and a liar as well. Similar to other fraud tactics: withold, confuse, blame the other guy and hope to win.
She deserved to lose and no one owes her anything.