Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 45
Page 2 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Avoid Getting Fired: Practical Advice for the Likely-to-be-Tanked Federal Employee

If you want to make it in the VA, look the other way.

EX-Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System Employee
Veterans Administration
Tue May 22, 2007 12:30 PM

Post Reply

I think the title speaks for itself, but could use an explanation. In 1997, I presented evidence to the VAIG, and Congressman Terry Everett, then head of the VA Appropiations on the Hill, of fraud waste and abuse at the Montgomery VA Hospital, in Montgomery, Alabama. My allegations and the proof to back up my statements never made it into the Office of Inspector General Report, 8PR-G03-144, September 29, 1998. For ten years I endured reprisal, and multiple efforts to remove me from Federal Employement.
The Birmingham News did a follow up report a year later stating that nothing had changed. The only change was the removal of the individuals who tried to expose government corruption. The political employed individual, who were reported as the law breakers were promoted. The lab manager, with a high school diploma, was promoted to a GS-13 position, and his girlfriend was promoted to a GS-12. She never did any of the work designated in her position description.
FUMU principle.

3%

Union President
Bureau of Prisons
Tue May 22, 2007 12:59 PM

Post Reply

As a local with better than 3% success rate, I am offended by the negative union representation paragraph. Search for cases on AFGE Local 3809. I have three terminations before 3rd parties right now. There is no personal axe; just real people that were good employees and were not properly terminated.

Re: 3%

Former HR Specialist
Federal Agency
Wed May 23, 2007 11:12 AM
I think that the 3% referenced in the article probably only applies to those cases filed with a third party. My guess is that if you looked at all the cases that proposed a removal, but were challenged the percentage would be quite a bit higher. A lot of managers that I dealt with over the years proposed an action hoping that the problem employee would just fold their tent and leave. However when challenged by the employee or the union, the manager just caved in and called it a moral victory that let the employee know just how seriously the manager took the situation, when in reality the manager had trumped up the charges and went forward over the advice of the HR Office.

Can You Say 'Union-Bashing?'

Fed
DoD
Tue May 22, 2007 1:50 PM

Post Reply

"If you’re going to utilize the union, remember you may get your arm twisted (figuratively, we hope) to sign up for dues...(M)ake sure the union representative involved knows something about discipline, adverse actions (technical name for removal)...About half of union stewards..do the job because they are disgruntled, often believing themselves the victim of past personal mistreatment at the hands of supervision or management."
Mr Gilson, all unions are bound by their labor agreements to represent all members in their bargaining units. If federal BU workers facing removal went to attorneys instead, their dues $$ would seem mighty cheap comparatively. Many attorneys don't bother b/c these cases take too much time.
And Mr Gilson, you've obviously never faced any kind of adverse action--letters of reprimand, 1/3/5/10/14-day suspensions, not just removals. And no, not all of us have deserved those actions--and neither have most stewards who work hard on behalf of other feds.

Re: Can You Say 'Union-Bashing?'

Union Officer
DOL
Wed May 23, 2007 8:06 AM
You are SFS. I am an "outstanding" performer, have no gripe with my immediate supervisor and love my job.

Re: Can You Say 'Union-Bashing?'

HR specialist
retired
Wed May 23, 2007 8:24 AM
What Mr. Gilson wrote about unions may not apply to you, but I've heard many a union official acknowledge (some proudly, some sheepishly) that dues-paying members get preference. And where I worked, whenever a BU employee was facing discipline, they signed up to pay dues within a week. Hardly a coincidence.

Re: Can You Say 'Union-Bashing?'

Thorn in the Side
DOD
Wed May 23, 2007 10:09 AM
In response to Retired HR Specialist, let me say that we try to do as much as we can for everyone who comes to us. However, I am more willing to use my personal vacation time - and that's what I have to do - on behalf of someone who contributes, than on behalf of someone who only wants to take. This is fair and reasonable and I see nothing to apologize for. Our resources are very limited. If you want to get, you gotta give.

In Light of the Recent NSPS Decision...

Fed
DoD
Tue May 22, 2007 1:51 PM

Post Reply

...is this article just coincidence?

Re: In Light of the Recent NSPS Decision...

HR Specialist
Navy
Tue May 22, 2007 2:37 PM
Dunno about coincidence. Looks to me like most of the seriously unhappy people posting on this article work for the VA.

Why The Need For More Flexibility

Engineer
Army
Tue May 22, 2007 3:09 PM

Post Reply

Given the success rate of the Employer, why does the Employer find it necessary to implement new personnel systems for 3% of the workforce?

Re: Why The Need For More Flexibility

Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol
Tue May 22, 2007 7:56 PM
So they can cheat the good ones out of a pay raise every year.

Re: Why The Need For More Flexibility

HR Specialist
Navy
Wed May 23, 2007 8:58 AM
Border Patrol Agent: Yeah, it's a clever supervisor ploy to reward the folks who make you look bad by not doing their work, creating lots of flack and drama, and spending all their time online or elsewhere bitching about things real and imagined. That's balanced by NOT rewarding those folks who are, in fact, doing a great job and---accordingly---making the supervisor look good.

Does something seem amiss in your view of reality? Why would a supervisor act to his/her disadvantage ?

Re: Why The Need For More Flexibility

Border Patrol Agent
Border Patrol
Wed May 23, 2007 6:59 PM
Show me an agency where it has worked? When you are left competing for a pool of money with your co-workers every year, that can only make the work place a hostile place to be. Not only that, but how would you equate pay for performance to the Law Enforcement Field? The current system works just fine in terms of rewards and punishment but the managers and supervisors don't want to take the time to utilize it. What they don't know is that a new pay for performance system will take far more time and effort. Oh and this 3% figure is way off. He might want to qualify these figures. Our experience is far greater in front of an arbitraitor.

Object Lesson in Recent Case

HR Professional
DHS
Wed May 23, 2007 9:02 AM

Post Reply

A case reported within the last week on FedSmith substantiates the validity of the advice in the author's article.

Specifically, the article by Susan Smith relating the termination of a Bureau of Prisons employee from Iraq highlights what amount to a series of blunders in picking the forum, then losing the ability to get the case decided on the merits before it finally went down the drain. See Welcome Back to The Civilian World: You're Fired!

Statistics Lie

IT Specialist
DOD
Wed May 23, 2007 10:44 AM

Post Reply

Your 3% statistic is very interesting, and does not seem to follow my real world observations. That led me to recall Mark Twains saying "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". The reason for the low number probably can be explained by multiple reasons. Such as large monetary settlements instead of returning to work, people going on disability, agencies dropping their actions, employees not wanting to return to work, and I am sure there are many more. Basically, I think the number needs to be expanded upon showing the number of attempts at removal, number of actions halted, number of actions where the employee did not want to return to work, and other numbers.

Re: Statistics Lie

medical technologist
department of veterans affairs
Wed May 23, 2007 12:08 PM
yup, the va offered me a 2 year back promotion and retirement. but my job is not the issue. the issue is that they persist in causing the death of veterans. see diane king v department of veterans affairs cases. one on its way to the supreme court (i know, i know, cert very unlikely) and another recently appealed from the mspb in dc. the mspb appeal addresses the patient deaths. two more before the dc mspb and one remanded long, long ago to atlanta. all individual right of actions. mspb refuses to grant any reasonable discovery in ira cases--they've been bastardized by both the mspb and the federal circuit for federal appeals. no real due process unless you are fired and even then you can cite a case that is on point and the administrative judge just ignores your argument. something seriously wrong and deaths will continue if something doesn't change.

Re: Statistics Lie

Former VA Nurse - ProSe Litigant
VAMC - VISN 9
Thu May 24, 2007 9:14 AM
The 97% of victims don't have the stomach/money for a fight.
Our supervisor testified under oath that there had been a
185% turnover of nurses on our unit.

The nurses apparently instinctively did what
Bob Gilson suggests in his article.

Nurses vote with their feet!

Re: Statistics Lie

Former VA Nurse - ProSe Litigant
VAMC - VISN 9
Thu May 24, 2007 9:17 AM
The 97% of victims don't have the stomach/money for a fight.
Our supervisor testified under oath that there had been a
185% turnover of nurses on our unit.

The nurses apparently instinctively did what
Bob Gilson suggests in his article.

Nurses vote with their feet!
Total Comments: 45
Page 2 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.