Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it’s pretty sad that there are some people here in this thread wishing that federal employees would lose their jobs just because they’re jealous of them. These people have families and bills to pay just like you do.
Agreed. Such a lack of humility in this thread as well. Definitely seems like some posters are embittered and jealous that federal workers have a due process associated with firing them, rather having their employment and financial stability at the whim of a bunch of greedy sociopaths.
He's basically saying, each employee is a unique individual and their performance should be judged on an individual basis, not collectively.
A problem employee's disciplinary record should be fully available to the supervisor and taken into account, and not just "similar past misconduct".
Suspension should not be a substitute for removal, when removal of a problem employee is the obvious action.
Discipline should be tailored to each employee's situation and actions, not boilerplate.
Get it done quickly (30 days written notice, 15 days for removal decision, according to existing law).
Use probationary periods for new hires.
If there's a layoff, base it on performance rather than longevity.
Plus some stuff about collective bargaining.
In the private sector, all of this makes sense and is basically how things are done. However, in the federal bureaucracy world, it may not make sense and is not how things are done.
Whether Mr. Trump can push through this kind of reform is going to be interesting to watch. I'd like to see the conversation move more toward the actual topic which is the order, and stop bashing federal employees.
Sure, there is a lot of waste and corruption in the bureaucracy at federal, state, and local levels; that's never going to change. But making it easier to remove problem employees, without hurting the good employees or making it too easy to fire good employees for political reasons and so forth -- that's the trick.
Last edited by blisterpeanuts; 05-29-2018 at 07:53 AM..
The biggest reason it's "difficult" to fire federal employees is because there's due process...as it should be. And many managers are just lazy and don't want to do the work. If the employee really has a performance problem and you're not just trying to railroad them out of a job for your own psychotic and vindictive reasons (*ahem*), the removal will stick...because you've done everything by the book and you have credible, objective evidence backing your decision. The current process works if used in the spirit it was intended. What these "reforms" do is make it easy for bad managers to discriminate. Period. But Trump seems to enjoy being embroiled in unnecessary litigation, so this EO isn't really all that shocking.
Some agencies have pretty big financial impacts. The Bureau of Land Management historically gets about a billion dollars a year from Congress and returns about TEN billion yearly to the federal treasury from their labors. Returning ten dollars for every one you are given is a pretty good return on Congress's investment, don't you think?
That return comes from the Minerals Management Service within the BLM. The MMS leases parcels to oil exploration companies, and then collects a royalty on actual oil extracted from the ground. Ditto for geothermal, coal, and other such energy resources, but oil and natural gas are the big ones.
It was the Minerals Management Service of the Bureau of Land Management that was asleep at the switch regarding the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/..._n_578079.html
The MMS / BLM , by failing to inspect offshore rigs as it was chartered to do, caused one of the largest environmental disasters in history.
The problem with 'at will' in government is that you can get politically appointed leaders who will release everyone who tells them no and sometimes, often sometimes, they need to be told no.
And then some managers will release folks because they do not like them, their race, etc. When people have to compete to get a job, they should have some level of protection from the 4 year pendulum swing.
Otherwise some administrations would release all scientists, others all social workers, etc.
What you see as a problem, I see as a benefit. Everyone should be protected from illegal filing (e.g., based on protected class) but everything else should be at-will. It is good to get clearout the deadwood and get fresh blood.
The biggest reason it's "difficult" to fire federal employees is because there's due process...as it should be. And many managers are just lazy and don't want to do the work. If the employee really has a performance problem and you're not just trying to railroad them out of a job for your own psychotic and vindictive reasons (*ahem*), the removal will stick...because you've done everything by the book and you have credible, objective evidence backing your decision. The current process works if used in the spirit it was intended. What these "reforms" do is make it easy for bad managers to discriminate. Period. But Trump seems to enjoy being embroiled in unnecessary litigation, so this EO isn't really all that shocking.
Have you looked at the Executive Order? What part of it, specifically, is going to cause discrimination and "unnecessary litigation"?
I interned for an agency in the fed govt during my college summers and the level of incompetence I witnessed some summers was second to none. My first year, only one out of four secretaries in my assigned area did anything resembling work. The rest read romance novels or watched soap operas on little tvs they had on their desks. Very little work being done.
My last summer there I worked with a fabulous group that had a leader who knew when it was time to work hard and when it was time to take a break. The balance was effective and his team rewarded him by being very hard workers and extremely good at their jobs. But that was definitely NOT the norm.
The United States has laws in place that Trump can't just do away with by the stroke of his pen. We don't live in a monarchy.
What laws, specifically, is Trump "doing away with by the stroke of his pen"?
If you read the order, it references existing laws; the problem is that the existing laws have too much wiggle room and rely too much on people to do the right thing. The EO removes some of that wiggle room and spells out some common sense guidelines.
Federal agencies have contracts with unions, and those contracts must adhere to the law. There is a judicial system in place that Trump just can't negate with an EO. I don't believe there is "wiggle room" in the law. The law is the law...and a judge's job is to interpret it. Federal managers are free to act according to this EO that may or may not be in conflict with their existing contracts and the existing laws...and once challenged, a judge will determine what's proper. And ya know...may be that's the point of this whole thing. To force litigation so things that were previously unlawful can be made lawful. Perhaps the president is smarter than we think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
