Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 32
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Let The Supervisor Sign
Total Comments: 32
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2114 | +0.0012 | +0.70% |
| F | $13.6201 | -0.0062 | +2.14% |
| C | $13.8116 | -0.0706 | +4.49% |
| S | $17.9282 | -0.1903 | +8.91% |
| I | $18.5079 | -0.0782 | -0.16% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1968 | -0.0789 | +3.59% |
| L 2030 | $15.9593 | -0.0673 | +3.23% |
| L 2020 | $15.7365 | -0.0532 | +2.72% |
| L 2010 | $15.4595 | -0.0197 | +1.57% |
| L Income | $14.0856 | -0.0155 | +1.48% |
March 21, 2010
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Let the Supervisor Sign
GRA, Inc. & Rushford & Associates
Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:09 PM
Post Reply
I think Robbie has hit on a very significant issue. I, too, have recently conducted training classes on conduct and discipline for managers and supervisors and found that in some cases first-line supervisors had very little, if any, authority to issue disciplinary actions of any kind, including reprimands. I agree with Robbie that, in most instances, it makes sense for the first-line supervisor to sign such letters of reprimand.
If a first-line supervisor does not have the authority to sign a reprimand, I think that the supervisor's authority would generally not match her/his responsibility for maintaining discripline, which is a prescription for trouble.
Reprisal
W.G. Bill Hefner VA Medical Center
Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:08 PM
Post Reply
Our agency is #3 in the nation for EEO complaints! Most supervisors know to maintain our jobs, we are forced to join the gang. Unfortunately, there are many good employees, that are perceived as threats due to questioning policies and protecting their co-workers. I witnessed an excellent RN being bullied by the entire management gang, following her protected EEO activity. She was eventually terminated despite having no disciplinary action. Now I am being called as a witness in her hearing. This RN did nothing wrong, but I do not want to lose my position.
What leaders?
DLA
Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:09 PM
Post Reply
The rules, regulations, and bureaucracy that exists doesn't allow any man or woman to 'lead' effectively. Why do I need to go through 4 layers of management, just to give someone a warning letter. The process of disciplining someone takes too much time and effort, and many managers just don't want to deal with it. So, the poor performing employee continues to perform poorly. Then there are the managers who avoid conflict at all costs. They don't even attempt to deal with the problem, because they are too scared to. So, combine the two and the taxpayer wonders why government is so inefficient. My wife owns a small business and do you think she puts up with poor performance from employees? Absolutely not, because if she did, she would lose the business and file bankruptcy. What's the worse that would happen to a manager that doesn't hold their people accountable? I know, they will put him/her in another area. What a joke, and you wonder why people don't want govt. HC.
Supervisors
DOL
Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:24 PM
Post Reply
Far too often the "supervisor" doesn't want to be the bad guy when it comes to disciplinary actions which is a real shame. look at how many sup's fail to stand tall under NSPS. Those weasels try to make the board look like the bad guys rather than owning up to the real reason someone is only getting a 1 share
returned early from deployment
usace
Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:48 AM
Post Reply
a coworker recently returned from deployment in Iraq a full 4 months early due to her poor performance and terrible attitude and behavior - earning her 21 counselling sessions with her supervisor(s) in Iraq. why they didnt just fire her, we will never know. but now... a letter of reprimand has been sent to her supervisor here in the states to complete and process - as if he were there and could vouch for the Iraq supervisors' findings... his hands are tied and it's a shame because the opportunity we have to get rid of this dead weight will be lost. this rule that the "home" supervisor must complete these things isn't right.
Management is Trying to Protect its Assets
Dept fo Edumacation
Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:59 AM
Post Reply
I read with some consternation the previous 20 comments. You all may be missing the point.
The reason my Agency does not delegate these actions much lower than the GS-15 level is quite clear: We have been losing our shirts in petty ante cases where the employee was clearly in the wrong, yet a 1st or 2nd line supervisor botched the case. (Failed to work with ELR, improperly counseled the employee, violated Weingarten, did not properly complete the discilipnary forms, etc.).
It's not that the supervisors aren't trained--they receive plenty of disciplinary training--it just doesn't stick and many 1st and 2nd line supervisors are overwhelmed with "running the shop." As well, upper level management routinely ends up fixing ULPs and silly grievances mishandled by these supervisors.
We are just tired of it and now insist on upper-level review and handling of almost all cases. We're seen a significant decrease in grievances and subsequent appeals.
Sorry folks, dems da facts.
Re: Management is Trying to Protect its Assets
Navy
Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:12 PM
Re: Management is Trying to Protect its Assets
Dept fo Edumacation
Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:44 PM
Not so much a micro-manager (lord knows I'mas busy as the rest of you) I guess I'm just a "big picture" guy.
Thanks for sharing.
Re: Management is Trying to Protect its Assets
fed
Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:20 AM
Re: Management is Trying to Protect its Assets
W.G. Bill Hefner VA Medical Center
Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:33 PM
Upper-Level Concurrence
USPS
Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:12 AM
Post Reply
In the Postal Service, the Supervisor signs the Letter of Warning, but the 2nd-line manager -- the Supervisor's supervisor -- must concur. This concurrence is not intended to undermine the Supervisor's authority, but is an additional level of protection for the employee by requiring an automatic review of the discipline by someone once-removed from the situation. It prevents discipline resulting from personality conflicts in which the employee and Supervisor are "pushing each other's buttons."