Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 21
Page 1 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Nine Minutes Late! "You're Out of Here!"

Nine Minutes Late

HR Director (Retired)
Department of the Air Force
Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:34 AM

Post Reply

Your headline is misleading. This employee's removal was not just based on being nine minutes late. I am surprised that the AWOL charge was not upheld but I am assuming that the employee was properly notified and the agency had evidence that he received their notification.

Re: Nine Minutes Late

Analyst
DoD
Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:54 AM
Your comment is actually rather funny. Federal employees have a reputation in some quarters for whining and complaining. Perhaps retirees just have more time. I wonder how many would have complained about a headline that read something like "Federal employee fired for being awol and not moving box for two feet but third charge is not sustained. Court upholds removal anyway."

Would that be more satisfactory? Perhaps we could eliminate the headline altogether and just have an article.

In any event, I like the articles (and headlines) that are on the site and appreciate their brevity and occasional flash of wit and understanding of the issues involved.

Let the Punishment Fit the Crime!

Engineer
DCMA Maryland
Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:47 AM

Post Reply

This employee's infractions did not warrant the "death penalty" (termination). I'm not a "bleeding heart", but surely a lesser disciplinary action, such as time off without pay, would have been a more appropriate step. Further, supervisor's primary focus should be to think, lead, guide, inspire, etc.....not just to mete out punishments. I suspect that some personal issues may have driven this employee in his depicted actions. Did the supervisor (or his management chain above), explore this possibility? What about the employee's prior 10 years of performance ratings? Were they Sat/Unsat? I read no mention of this consideration.

It is bewildering that the MSPB upheld this firing. It is even more bewildering that the Appeals Court, which did not sustain the 3rd charge, still upheld the firing on the remaining two petty infractions! Come on! Let the punishment fit the crime!

Re: Let the Punishment Fit the Crime!

N/A
Used to Be GSA
Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:36 PM
Hey I was terminated for insusbordination. Although the MSPB's decision identfies that I was not insubordination, they upheld the agencies charge. Hey, even the supervisor did not claim that I was insubordinate...

See for yourself. I never disobeyed an order because an order was not given.

MURRY, REGINA K. - DA010570I1 - OPINION AND ORDERRegina K. Murry, Fort Worth, Texas, pro se. Mark A. Duffy, Esquire, Fort Worth, Texas, ... and other related material at our web site, http://www.mspb.gov. ...
www.mspb.gov/decisions/2003/murry_da010570i1.html

The problem is that I have a disability. Maybe agencies don't want my kind around.....

Re: Let the Punishment Fit the Crime!

Reformed Conservative
DFAS
Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:20 AM
It looks to me like you weren't fired for being handicapped, you were fired because they thought you were a jerk. Please give your side of the incident.

Impossible to fire a fed employee???

Federal Officer
DHS
Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:39 AM

Post Reply

Not in CBP. We are firing people, old, young, good, bad, every single day. Noo problems here.

Handholding

HRS
DOI
Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:56 AM

Post Reply

Other TSP participants should not have to bear the expense associated with tracking individuals who are not responsible enough to open their mail or check on the status of their money. The employee must participate and should not have their hands held! Each participant has the ability to check the status of their accounts by accessing the web - if they have not requested that they receive a statement, dont send one.

Removal action

Analyst
DON
Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:13 AM

Post Reply

Very interesting...does seem a tad bit harsh when, in comparison, I just read yesterday in the Federal Employee News Digest about a GS12 supervisor (Customs Agent) who repeatedly used a gov't credit card for personal items yet she was only demoted, vice removed. She racked up expensive personal purchases - high-end shoes and clothes, cosmetics, rental car fees, even a massage - over $4000 worth of consumer purchaes. The administrative judge recommended a lesser penalty to demote to nonsupervisory vice removal. Go figure.

Re: Removal action

editor
FedSmith.com
Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:19 AM
FedSmith ran an article on the case referenced in your note on February 5, 2007 regarding the use of a credit card by an employee of DHS who was then demoted. The article is at:
http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/articles.showarticle.db.php?intArticleID=1150

Easier than Ever to Fire a Federal Employee....

N/A
Used to Be GSA
Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:28 PM

Post Reply

I agree that it’s very possible to fire a federal employee, even if the employee did not commit the charged offense. I was fired for insubordination that was never proven. Even the MSPB found that I was not insubordinate, but upheld the charge anyway.

Re: Easier than Ever to Fire a Federal Employee....

Bill the employee
VA
Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:02 PM
How did they prove the statements quoted in the MSPB decision? Just off your sup?

Removal

Letter Carrier
USPS
Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:39 AM

Post Reply

I'm sorry for Mr. Jones, but for having had prior military, he sure has no clue. Always do what you are told. I have been in the PO 20 years, with NO discipline. I do what I am told even if I don't like it, and think it is stupid, then I grieve.
Sorry for his family too.

Total Comments: 21
Page 1 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.