Fireproofing feds: Good idea. Bad idea?

If Congress passes a law making it easier to fold, staple or fire at-will feds hired after this year, how long do you think it will be before somebody suggests making it retroactive: that is, stripping the job insulation from long-time, current civil servants. Like the man or woman you slept with last night. As in you?

If making career civil servants “at-will” employees is such a good idea, and many think it is, why wait? Why kick the can into the future? The problem with the bureaucracy, we are told by various politicians and think tanks, is now. With people like you. And that gaggle of clock watchers in your office.

When I first commented on the proposal, part of a bill known as H.R. 6278, I agreed with federal union leaders who said it would likely wreck the civil service as we know it. They predicted it would be a return to the “spoils system” where the political party that won the White House sacked incumbent government workers (appointed by the previous winner) and put their own people in. It worked for Andrew Jackson, up to a point. But now the government is a lot more than an army of clerks with quill pens. While most readers agreed with me, some took exception. One said I was in effect a “cheerleader” for feds and ought to develop a broader world view. He said a little job insecurity would shake up the civil service in a good way. Here’s the column.

His defense of the at-will firing plan, with very limited appeal rights, brought this interesting response from a fed west of the Mississippi. She lives far from Washington, D.C. headquarters and in a right-to-work state. Here’s what she said about the new fed-firing proposal:

“I read your column today and it gave me chills. I live in a right-to-work state and I don’t have any union to protect me. We are different than private sector as many of the bosses are political appointees with their own agenda. Some of these are appointed from outside the agency and some from within. The scary thing is about this “at-will” being talked about right now, is there is no protections for employees who are wrongly targeted for whatever reason. I was a target and suspended without pay for 14 days. I fought it through the channels for two years and it was upheld until it came to the appeal officer. The appeal officer made the agency come back to me to settle and I recovered the lost wages plus had the personnel action removed from my record. There was nothing wrong with my performance and I had worked for the agency for almost 14 years when this happened. I had never had a bad performance rating, but unbeknownst to me, I had moved to an office in another state where the manager had a “difficult” time with employee turnover. Actually I found out after I relocated he was a bully and had the full support of the state director. Thank god for the job protections.”

Eternal question: What to keep, what to toss out Federal Report
Survey: Feds question the ‘why’ behind return-to-office push Federal Report
Another column on retirement. This time, I'm joining you Federal Report

“The other problem is we have to make tough choices and the public will write to their congressperson, state’s attorney, governor, etc., file a lawsuit stating how they have been discriminated against for whatever reason. We need these protections to have the ability to do our jobs without fear of retaliation. All I can say is thank god I have nearly 28 years in and I’m on the downhill slide to retirement. With what is being proposed, the government will no longer get the best and the brightest as the public sector will not be one of the better places to work. Job security is important as I know I can make the tough call without fear. If people are going to be ‘at will,’ other places pay better if employees have to fear for their jobs every day.”

“I also have worked in the private sector in an “at-will” state before coming to work for the government. Oh and by the way, the manager who was the bully, was promoted to the state office and just recently retired.” –Way Out West

Nearly Useless Factoid

By David Thornton

Both North and South Carolina claim to be the birthplace of Andrew Jackson. The border between both states had not yet been precisely surveyed in that remote region when he was born. Both states still have official markers that claim to pinpoint his true birthplace.

Source: History.com

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