Re: Collier v. U.S.

If you don't like it you're more than welcome to seek employment in the private sector. I heard malcontents are in demand!

Re: Collier v. U.S.

Wrong answer, Contracting Officer. You need to check out the cost of employee turnover, legal activity like Mr. Collier's, internal dysfunctional consequences of low morale, etc when employees are dissed. Note especially that is an HR Assistant who made that comment; not a good sign for ARS. "If you don't like it, hit the highway" isn't a chapter title in any Management or Leadership textbook I 've ever seen. Matter of fact, we just fired a guy from our shop who thought the same way; he didn't have the common sense to realize the real cost to his team or his agency. Time for a paradigm shift!

Re: Collier v. U.S.

Old HR Guy: It breaks my heart when a federal employee is allegedly "dissed" by Uncle Sam. You're missing my point. I have old college buddies employed in the private sector that would give an arm for 26 annual days a year; AWS; FSA; steady health bennies; pension plus TSP; etc, etc... Every day I feel honored and grateful to be a federal employee. Yes, there are some perceived sleights and indignities along the way, but I've been on the other side and I know I've got a good thing going. You stick w/the paradigm mumbo jumbo; I'll stick w/common sense and indebtedness to an excellent employer.

Re: Collier v. U.S.

It's just not that easy, Contracting Officer. Pay and benefits are contributing factors but current literature has said emphatically for some time now that pay & benefits are not the whole picture. While everyone should rightfully applaud your excellent working conditions (I certainly do), there are lots of places out there where, for example, Mr. Collier's unhappy experience tells us there is still a body of supervisors who need to think about the benefits of shifting from the Old School negative/dictatorial supervisory role to the more current/positive team building role.

In a happier place like yours Mr. Collier would not have to hire an attorney to seek $40-$50K in pay and benefits and then have to fork over $50K to $100K in attorney's fees because his supervisor would have taken care of business, researched the options, and resolved any remuneration questions right up front.

Happily, it appears your supervisor is already in that team building positive mode, and that's great. He's already shifted & you are the beneficiary, or so it appears in your positive comments. Let's hope more of our supervisors get on that bandwagon; it's almost always better to team build than slam dunk a person who apparently in good faith (blissful ignorance?) works for two years in a higher graded position at his same rate of pay.

Of course, in this case we don't know what turned senior management against Collier, he might be Jack the Ripper fully deserving of these results, but it might also be interesting to be a fly on the wall to see when the next employee in that work group willingly chooses to help management by following in Collier's footsteps.... That may not be very likely, even though the PD in question may make that option enforceable on a temporary basis.

After all, the "appointment" knife cuts both ways. Since there is no enforceable employment contract, folks will normally go along only until they have a better option, and everyone knows USAJOBs has about a million options! I think we agree that it is better to treat the staff with the appreciation and concern they deserve as an important (most important?) asset to the organization, as your boss apparently does, and then all's well that ends well.

Re: Collier v. U.S.

It has nothing to do w/my supervisor. I’ve toiled under some real hammer heads over the years. I’m the type that will make lemonade out of lemons…this too shall pass, etc. I know that if I do my job and stay out of trouble (and the rumor mill), I’ll get rewarded with a pay check and steady employment.

I’ve seen many instances of private sector employees being shown the door in a reorganization and finding themselves laboring away at a 7-11 (or equivalent minimum wage position) in order to provide for their family. With Uncle Sam, although there are no guarantees, I can be quite certain that I’m going to finish my career unimpeded and be able to retire at age 55…..55!!!

Finally, I too have served as an acting supervisor, albeit not for 24 months. To me, this was a learning experience and resume material to further my ambitions. And yes, I did not get the permanent promotion. I wasn’t too happy about it, but you just press on. No need to make a federal case out of it!

Re: No Back Pay, No Employment Contract, No Promotion

Right on, USCG. Where was the line supervisor or HR office in support of the extended detail when HR regs provide for a temporary promotion? The cost of the legal action 'way outspent the cost of the difference between GS-14 & 15 for 24 months, & that does not even speak to the supervisory failure to take care of his/her troops.

But note, too, there is some underlying conflict here: (1) Mr. Collier did the job for two years but was not selected to fill the job permanently; (2) then had to file a formal protest/appeal for the "back pay"; and finally, Mr. Collier is not without some responsibility for the debacle because (3) he didn't do his homework and/or received bad legal advice since the Back Pay Act is available on Internet and he could have personally reviewed the law itself & (in addition) a variety of case law precedents to determine its application in his case. The Equal Pay Act may have been a better avenue, but the Bottom Line: Mr. Collier's light at the end of the tunnel was a freight train. Time to find a new home; the odds are that from a managerial perspective he may not be the most popular employee in the office right now. He's just not the usual cowering subordinate all too many of our federal supervisors love to have in their stables. Clearly "Employer of Choice" is still a light year away in that shop!

Re: No Back Pay, No Employment Contract, No Promotion

"Other duties as assigned" is superceded by the regulations that limit, to 120 days, the amount of time an employee is supposed to be working in a higher graded position (with, as in a temp promotion, or without, as in a detail, pay). We often hear that the Federal government wants to make itself the employer of choice, but the reality these days does little to promote that image.