Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: This move alone will move America towards being great again. [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spot wrote:
AlanShearer wrote:
I can tell you that right now it is well nigh impossible to fire a Federal worker.

And I can tell you you're wrong.


Impossible is obviously hyperbole, but at least in my 12 years working with GS DoD civilians, I can tell you that I know of many, many folks that should be canned but are not because the length of time it takes, and the amount of paperwork it takes. There are people that get schlepped from job to job because it's easier to move them out of your organization then to start the process to fire them.

Now, perhaps you can back up your statement with telling me just how easy it is to fire a federal worker.

I'd be glad to the minute you point to where I said how easy it was to fire a federal employee.

I'll agree that it is generally more difficult to terminate a public employee (federal or otherwise) than it is to terminate an at-will private sector employee.

But more difficult, being a relative statement is, not the same as a difficult.
Quote Reply
Re: This move alone will move America towards being great again. [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
One of the things supervisors are supposed to do is watch employees carefully during their probationary period, so they can identify poor performers while it's easier to get rid of them, before they fall under the regular system, and before they get more entrenched in the workplace and responsible for more things that they can screw up or that will be left hanging if their performance slides and you have to fire them.

To add to this, most employers in the private sector do not have probationary periods for their employees, or if they do, the "passing" the probationary period doesn't impact their otherwise "at will" status. The end result of this is that private sector employers don't have the pressure to seriously and properly evaluate employees during some probationary period. They are not under a deadline to terminate an employee who doesn't fit before that employee passes the probationary period. So I suspect this would mean that public sector employees are more likely to be terminated earlier in their employment, when doing so is easier, than you might see in the private sector.

Yeah, like I said, I'm not defending the system as being really good. Just countering the popular myth that federal employees can't be fired. I agree that there are changes that can be made to make the system more effective and efficient while maintaining the protections that we want these employees to have. However, we do have to balance those two objectives. I don't think we really want the federal civilian workforce to be subject to the political whims of changing administrations.

I'll agree with this. As I mentioned, public sector employees get fired all the time, and it's largely a myth that they can't be fired. (Permanent/regular certificate K-12 teachers in California are another matter.)

My experience is that the difficulties in terminating public sector employees can largely, but not completely, be attributed to poor management or lack of will.

I'll also relate back to my experience that a majority of public sector employees when faced with a potential termination either resign or retire, in which case the event is not recorded as an involuntary termination. That's far from the case in the private sector. But this phenomenon skews the data.
Quote Reply
Re: This move alone will move America towards being great again. [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlanShearer wrote:
spot wrote:
AlanShearer wrote:
I can tell you that right now it is well nigh impossible to fire a Federal worker.

And I can tell you you're wrong.


Impossible is obviously hyperbole, but at least in my 12 years working with GS DoD civilians, I can tell you that I know of many, many folks that should be canned but are not because the length of time it takes, and the amount of paperwork it takes. There are people that get schlepped from job to job because it's easier to move them out of your organization then to start the process to fire them.

Now, perhaps you can back up your statement with telling me just how easy it is to fire a federal worker.


I'd be glad to the minute you point to where I said how easy it was to fire a federal employee.

I'll agree that it is generally more difficult to terminate a public employee (federal or otherwise) than it is to terminate an at-will private sector employee.

But more difficult, being a relative statement is, not the same as a difficult.


Sorry dude, any process that takes at absolute minimum 170 days is difficult. The appeal process alone can take 243 days to adjudicate. I stated it was "well nigh impossible" to fire a federal worker based on my watching and talking with GS-14s and -15s talk about just that; you said I was wrong with zero rationale beyond that. Your notion that it isn't difficult to can a federal worker for performance is just plain wrong.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Last edited by: spot: Dec 8, 16 17:46
Quote Reply
Re: This move alone will move America towards being great again. [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
spot wrote:
slowguy wrote:
gphin305 wrote:
slowguy wrote:
TheForge wrote:
Well if they have such important skills I'm sure they will find jobs. And the economy will be better off.


But of course, that's not how the economy works. They mentioned reducing federal civilian workforce by ~10%. That's more than 250,000 people losing their jobs. Mr. Trump just made a huge deal about saving 1000. You think there are 250,000 jobs just sitting empty waiting for people?

There are definitely places to cut waste in the federal government, and the workforce is one of them. However, the federal civilian workforce is not out of proportion to where it's been for 50 years. The number of federal civilian employees is consistent with where it's been all of this century, and less than it was during the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Moving too fast is a recipe for disaster.


The only problem with this rationale is technology has made workers much more efficient over the past 20 years especially in the private sector. The same amount of productivity can be accomplished with less employees.....or more productivity from the same amount of employees.....in the private sector. These employees need to perform or they are out. Way too many federal employees (as well as state) could give a crap about their productivity. You could easily cut at least 10% of the federal civilian workforce (the dead weight) and still maintain the same amount of productivity.


Maybe. From a different perspective, I've heard time and again how the military can do all the things we're doing with fewer people. I've seen manning go down on ships, and those crews simply unable to do the things asked of them, or able to do them at significant sacrifice in terms of life-work balance over and above what we already expect from military families. People outside the organization frequently think more or the same can be done "easily" with fewer people. It's not always true.

Anyway, I think there's danger in trying to make the direct comparison to civilian sector employees. The jobs aren't the same, the end goal isn't the same, the laws aren't the same, etc, etc. It's difficult to draw an apples to apples comparison.

I completely agree with you when it comes to military manning. But, when it comes to government civilian manning doing essentially office jobs, I think there is a lot of areas where fewer people would actually be more efficient. Take acquisition...every time I see talk about acquisition reform, they talk about adding more people to the process. But in my opinion, adding more people just slows contractors down and adds more meetings, more reviews, more time having engineers billing $200 an hour building powerpoint slides for government civilians who have never built a damn thing in their lives. Our acquisition process would get better with fewer, more talented people, not more.

One of the problems at hand is lumping all federal civilians together. Maybe Defense acquisitions could afford to lose 10% or its personnel or even more, along with some streamlined procedures. Maybe Dept of Interior is strapped for people and needs to actually increase numbers. Maybe DoS could reasonably accept 5% decrease. Etc. All federal jobs aren't equal. I've worked at places where the civilians traveled non-stop, and worked hard, and they would have given their left nuts for 5 additional qualified bodies. I'm sure there are other places where you mostly have people shuffling paperwork and putting in time to retirement.

Despite Forge's certainty that federal workers are the devil, this problem actually requires a bit more thought than to just insist the system is broken and we should chop 10% from the workforce. That approach didn't make sense with budgets during sequestration, and it doesn't make sense here either.

Yes, don't disagree. I should be more specific when I say my experience is with DoD civilians. That being said, I would not be at all surprised if there were similar issues with other federal agencies.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply

Prev Next