Is a little job insecurity a good thing?

Would Uncle Sam be a better boss, and perhaps put out a better product, if it was a little easier to fire civil service employees? Would he (and we as taxpayers) be better still if it was much, much easier to sack people?

It sounds like a trick question. Maybe it is. But one of the “reforms” in a pending House package to revamp the bureaucracy would put feds hired in the future under an “at will” employment system. It would also provide for “immediate suspension for misconduct or poor performance.” With or without pay. And with limited appeal rights.

The bill, H.R. 6278, would give agency heads the authority to suspend or fire employees. The employee in question would be entitled to written notice (within 10 days) of what he/she had done (or not done) to warrant the action. The employee would then have up to 10 days to answer any charges, be represented by an attorney or “other representative,” which could mean a union official or coworker. The case would then be reviewed by the agency head with a final written decision “at the earliest practicable date.” The employee could take his/her case to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

In the private sector, many (most???) employees are at-will unless there is a union contract or they have a contract with their employer. Even so, they can often still be fired by going through the proper channels. Or by simply driving the employee nuts until he/she quits.

With that extended background, consider this letter from a Colorado-based fed who took issue with Monday’s column. He said my bias was showing because I questioned the wisdom of putting future feds under at-will working conditions. Here’s what he said:

“I enjoy reading your column because you generally have a balanced view of issues and concerns for federal employees. Unfortunately, on this one you seem to be heavily biased and what is worse is that I don’t share the same bias you have.

“First, I would like to explain my creds. I have 30 years of federal service and 10 years in the private sector. Both segments have been as employee and manager. I have worked everywhere from Texas to Alaska. I have a little experience.

“Your bias that ‘at-will’ service is a bad thing is just that, a bias. As a manager in the private sector in “right to work states,” I was able to remove problem employees quickly and effectively. Sometimes it was because of poor performance, sometimes it was because they were being disruptive to office morale and once it was because the company was “down-sizing” and we had to cut budgets to survive (employees included along with projects and CAPX). I have also been a manager in government and faced the same type of employees. Regrettably, it took years for me to remove problem employees and my program suffered for it. In my current position, there is a problem employee that hides behind government regulations to keep their job when they are a drain, not a contributor to the overall program.

“Not to say that ‘at-will’ is always good. It can be abused just like a gallon of your favorite ice cream if you try to eat it all at once. No system is perfect, it is the people that operate them that make the difference.

“Please come back to the balance that you normally show because on this one, your bias is really sticking out and it doesn’t look good.” — Stan in Colorado

Nearly Useless Factoid

By Michael O’Connell

George Orwell came up for the name of his book 1984 by inverting the last two digits in 1948, which was the year within which most of the book was written.

Source: World’s Strongest Librarian

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.