3% huh, the other 97% must have followed your advice. I can't believe they just published an article that told you to quit your job because you think you might be fired. I almost gave LMR credit for this article as a ploy to make their jobs easier but that would have been way to smart for our guys in DHS.
I am pretty new to this sight but is it always anti-union and anti-workforce? Not that I mind conversing with you guys.
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
IT Specialist DoD Tue May 22, 2007 8:29 AM
How exactly is this anti-workforce? It's practical advice - if you have a 3% chance of success by filing a grievance, the author suggests saving yourself your time and money and moving on to a better job and making a better life for yourself elsewhere. Discussing getting fired is never fun, but that sounds like about as upbeat a take on it as you can get. Besides, would you really want to work in a job with supervisors you had to fight tooth and nail to let you stay there? They would probably come down on you hard in the future at the first chance they got.
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
Chief Labor Negotiator CBP Tue May 22, 2007 9:16 AM
Tough decisions are never very fun--certainly not when they involve something as unpleasant as contemplating one's potential termination of employment.
But sometimes it's necessary to put away the emotion and size things up objectively in order to make the best decision. In the fine game of poker that comes in the form of understanding and applying the odds.
When the odds are clearly against you the choice comes down to deciding whether you feel sufficiently lucky enough, or emotionally upset enough, to ignore them---and then live with the consequences of that decision.
I don't see this as anti-workforce----quite the opposite, in fact----and I seriously doubt the author intended it that way. When you boil it down, it amounts to "recognize the reality of these situations, get yourself a good rep/lawyer, and make the best/smartest deal you can." That---at least to me---sounds like friendly, good advice.
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
HR Specialist DoD Tue May 22, 2007 11:32 AM
New to this "sight" huh? Well this SITE offers some good advice for employees and supervisors. If you are looking for a one-sided view, check out a union SITE.
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
Chief Labor Negotiator CBP Tue May 22, 2007 12:47 PM
HR Specialist/DOD: Geez, lighten up a bit! Not even the spellchecker would have caught Border Patrol's substitution of "sight" for "site," and these online aren't exactly polished documents. Consequently, postings are inevitably chock full of glitches and typos like that. Maybe you've never let one slip out the door, but that would make you a member of a very small group. Congrats if you are, but it would sure improve this forum if we could all ease up a bit on zapping each other at every opportunity.
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
Reformed Conservative DFAS Wed May 23, 2007 7:47 AM
Note to Chief Labor Negotiator: I know the difference between a "sight" and a "site." Granted the person who made the mistake may be a victim of American public schools, but that handicap can be overcome. I overcame it. I urge everyone else to do so, too. Learn to read and to reason, so you'll know when the politicians are lying to you. (Hint: usually when their lips are moving, they're lying.) While you're learning, a correction should be taken as helpful, not as an insult. Who knows how many other readers of this site also learned that it's not a sight?
"Spell check" is one of my pet peeves. It's an abomination before the Lord that encourages illiteracy.
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
Innocent but Fired None Wed May 23, 2007 9:57 PM
Sunshine,
I think 3% is rather high LOLOL. I was terminated from 23 years of successful to outstanding conduct and performance. The worse part is that the MSPB upheld the charge while knowing the agency did not prove the charge. ANY federal employee thinking they are protected, forget it. Hey I know a guy that was terminated by a (non) manager that did not have authorization to remove him. ANY federal employee thinking they are protected from abitrary actions, forget it.
Management vs Retire Eligible employee
Reservist and a Civil servant DHS/Reserves Tue May 22, 2007 12:47 AM
Good advice. It seems more and more the closer an employee with a sought after position gets to retirement the more difficult DHS management makes it for the employee to not retire.
Solid Advice, Very Well Expressed
Chief Labor Negotiator CBP Tue May 22, 2007 7:21 AM
The subject line says it all.
Re: Solid Advice, Very Well Expressed
investigator eeod Wed May 23, 2007 2:38 AM
it's a little misleading writing that ."you can get a lawyer of your own after you receive a "proposed removal notice" so you can wait until then or use... the union"
Anyone has the right and can ALWAYS get a Lawyer at any time. I sure don't recommend waiting until AFTER receiving a proposed removal notice when it may be too late.. As a 22+ year employee, I called an experienced attorney this year when I was put on a performance improvement plan, and am grateful that I did.
Just in Time
Veterans Service Representative Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Agency Tue May 22, 2007 7:26 AM
After 26 years of Federal service, 25 spent at DOD as an HR specialist, I'm made the biggest mistake in changing agencies and I was informed last Friday that I am failing at my "new" job with VA. Their production schedule is killing me, one age 85 WWII veteran parent is painfully dying from cancer, one age 90 WWII veteran parent is racking up the credit card bills indiscriminately, and I suffered a painful work injury that's slow to heal. I've had to use practically all my leave and missed valuable time in learning my new job. The AFGE union agreement looks good but the union reps are worthless and the HR liaison knows very little but the supervisors follow the bad advice anyway. What a blessed mess and I'm stuck for the present but trying to get free. Thanks for the advice in this article. It reinforces a lot of what I know to be true in Federal life even if it's beyond an employee's control. There's no free lunch until you get to retirement. Thanks!
Re: Just in Time
Retired HR Spec DoD Tue May 22, 2007 10:00 AM
Gee, did I just write this --- and I don't even work at VA? My story WAS very much the same, I did what Bob G. suggests and got outta Dodge, thus avoiding tons of bad kharma. Thus, I should be happy on the beach with my Free Lunches. Sure, the system assures enough to live on coming in, we get those generous 2.1% raises, but we also sit around for years popping Prozac like peanuts and thinking that surely our emolument wasn't computed correctly, but the folks at OPM don't have time to look at old cases.... Here's your "up" side: in another few years, we'll be dead. And in the meantime, we don't have to get up by the alarm clock, only for the... ummm---
Re: Just in Time
Small agency HR Specialist Wed May 23, 2007 8:45 AM
VSR--this is the perfect example of a situation where the employee can work with the supervisor/agency to resolve the situation. Acknowledge that the job was not a good move for you and look for a new job, possibly back at your old agency where you were succeeding. Just ask the supervisor for a little time before they take action. Like the article says, most supervisors don't want to fire employees and will try to help employees find a way out of a bad situation.
As for the retired HR Specialist--you don't have to sit around popping prozac during your retirement. That's your choice. You could also go out and get another job--something that is meaningful to you, supplements your current income, and gives you a reason to get up in the morning.
Re: Just in Time
Concerned None Wed May 23, 2007 9:46 PM
Sounds to me like you may have been a whistleblower?
Send an email to rkayem@yahoo.com.
There is someone that may be able to help you move in the right direction. Also, please cut and paste your response here into the email, and make sure you put FedEmp in the subject line.
On Being Marginalized
HR Manager VA Tue May 22, 2007 10:06 AM
After twenty-eight years of Federal civilian service as an outstanding employee in Human Resources Management, I found myself being rejected by senior management of my VA facility for reasons other than performance and conduct. At the beginning of my career in 1979, I started at the bottom as a personnel clerk and then was progressively promoted up the ranks to the position of Human Resources Officer in 2000.
In hindsight my rejection in late 2006 was primarily based on the principal senior leader’s perception after a period of more than six years that my personality was not to his liking because I was insufficiently subservient and lacked his ideal of an overly vivacious personality. Despite my excellence in technical competencies, leadership, management of limited resources and customer service, I was reassigned to a role outside the HR realm for which I had no related experiences. Clearly the allegations made to disparage me gave no credence to nor formed a basis for any discipline or performance action against me.
It is disheartening when a senior leader moves to destroy your career for reasons that are personal and that are foreign to the merit principles, which are the hallmark of Federal service. I’m finding that more and more senior leaders feel that they have an unfettered right to marginalize subordinate staff for reasons not based on merit or just cause. This is a form of injustice that must be eradicated from work environments of Federal servants.
termination for going to osc
medical technologist department of veterans affairs Tue May 22, 2007 10:15 AM
a lot of the problems for federal employees now are caused by the makeup and mindsets of the merit systems protection board and the federal circuit for federal appeals. additionally, the va will initiate well planned campaigns to terminate an individual with an eye to ridding themselves of an employee via a settlement. i watched them fire one guy by deliberately provoking him into emotional outbursts. he got a pretty decent settlement--excellent attorney. they tried the provocation with me, but i didn't act out even when i was shouted at by multiple members of management. watch out for a sudden flurry of "progressive discipline" that happens so fast all individual right of actions are before the mspb at once. even though the proposing official admits under oath that you are a good tech. another problem is that the system is supposed to be pro se friendly. it ain't.
Not unusual
Gov Worker DOD Tue May 22, 2007 10:32 AM
People often quit jobs that are not a good fit. Happens all the time.
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
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
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
"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
...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
Given the success rate of the Employer, why does the Employer find it necessary to implement new personnel systems for 3% of the workforce?
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 ?
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
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
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!
Avoid Getting Fired...
Assistant Regional Counsel \(Ret.\) Social Security Administration \(most recent\) Wed May 23, 2007 12:33 PM
Good article–so good I’m forwarding it to a client for perspective. The most important point made was that the difficulties supervisors face in firing a federal employee make it so that they only take on the most egregious cases and that’s why they win most of the time. So a great number of employees who deserve to be fired are not fired simply because of the difficulty, time and uncertainty involved in the process. I also do not completely agree with the analysis of the appeals process. From years of experience I see the MSPB as the only legal analysis of the action. The MSPB applies a rational analysis based on law and precedent and there is a reasonable appeal process for both sides. The EEOC generally sides with management but only because it is difficult to make a case of discrimination. However, the EEOC–at all levels–does not respect law or precedent and often looks for discrimination whether or not it in fact occurred. Arbitration is the most uncertain. Arbitrators act as if they are adjudicating conditions of employment rather than adverse actions and they tend to split the baby. In a removal case this is dangerous for management but for employees is the best possible result.
Re: Avoid Getting Fired...
Former VA Nurse - ProSe Litigant VAMC - VISN 9 Thu May 24, 2007 8:32 AM
"...Good article–so good I’m forwarding it to a client for perspective. "
I assume you got the retainer!
3% rule
CSI FSIS Wed May 23, 2007 5:22 PM
Good point made. Is there a way we can retire prior to 62 years with less than 25 yrs but more than 15?
Disagree
Supervisor HHS Thu May 24, 2007 9:14 AM
Bob certainly has a pro management view of the world. As a reluctant supervisor in an agency with many aggressive management practices, I would counsel the worker to get an outside opinion on whether the punishment fits the crime. Around here, production employees are often unfairly blamed for management failures. Guess I better get ready to resign too?
office of special counsel
engineer energy Thu May 24, 2007 9:53 AM
anyone who has ever filed a prohibited personnel practice complaint (PPP) with OSC, particularly if it was a whistleblower reprisal complaint and they later filed a whistleblower appeal with MSPB, needs to visit blog http://whsknox.blogs.com/osc and consider joining a amicus curiae brief that argues the Federal Ckt should set aside an MSPB decision because of OSC's non-complaiance with its statutory duties to protect a fed from a PPP.
Re: office of special counsel
Former VA Nurse - ProSe Litigant VAMC - VISN 9 Thu May 24, 2007 2:21 PM
I'm in!
Re: office of special counsel
Union Attorney DHS Sat May 26, 2007 2:56 AM
Yeah, the world would be a better place if everyone just gave up. Maybe we should call it cutting and running, wouldn't that be ironic. Fact of the matter is that we don't lose even 30 percent of our cases that go before arbitration. Mostly because the guys like Mr. Gilson rather wait an employee out than fire him, so they lose their case on timeliness, coupled with a lack of just cause. However, if you just quit, or take your case to MSPB, then people like him can make a living
Quit before you are fired.
EX-Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System Employee Veterans Administration Fri Jun 1, 2007 9:45 PM
An individual who retired as a Major form the USAF with 33 years of laboratory experience was hired as the Chemistry Supervisor at the CAVHCS. He was hired as a GS 11 Step 1. the beginning grade and rate as if this was his first supervisory position. This individual noticed a problem with supplies, and sent an email out about the situation. Needless to say this was his Waterloo. He was harassed, and threatened by the laboratory manager to the extent he quit.
The position is listed in USAjobs.gov, announcement # 619-07-1367-JS, with the minimum educational requirement of a Associate Degree. A taylor made position for a preselected individual, and nothing can be done about this. The question I have, is how can OPM establish requirements for a position, in this case, at least a BS in Medical Technology, or a Master's Degree, only to have a lab manager lower the requirements to meet the qualifications of a cronie?
Is this country now The Union of Socialist America?
wow
ssa staff ssa Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:10 PM
Wow, wish I had read this article two months ago before I went over the deep end.
retirement
Nurse Department of Veterans Affairs Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:45 AM
"Employees fired for cause cannot retire until they are 62 years old unless they are back in service."
So lets say you have 20 years of service and are fired for cause, are you saying you ARE entitled to you're retirement benefit at age 62? I have heard lose you're benefit entirely if this is the case.
Never surrender
Deportation Officer DHS/ICE Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:06 AM
As a Union Rep, I have seen management engage in vicious attacks on older employees, especially those nearing reitrement. One in particular was a good fellow, average employee with 21 1/2 years of service when they proposed his removal for conduct and performance. Managers cited that they knew he had been drinking on the job for over 3 years and that is why they decided to remove him 6 months before he could retire. Nice folks. Long story short, we fought long and hard and finally got him admin leave until he was able to retire. Pity they never counseled him, sent him to eap or tried any other method to help this man.
Avoid Getting Fired
research Engineer DOD Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:45 PM
The federal government has a lot of employees and lot of places to work, so if you have kept current in your field and become concerned about getting fired. Move on and move on quickly, even it means taking a down grade. My observation over years is that the management team (no matter how deficient in intelligence the manager is) has everyone in HR on his/her side and you are the target. SO find another job, your performance may not be the problem but no one in HR is going to listen to you.
PENDING PROPOSAL OF REMOVAL
COOK NAVY Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:23 PM
I have been waiting since 10/12/08 for my proposal of disciplainary action(REMOVAL)I have a good union/rep.I am considering representing myself before the deciding official only because a fellow worker admiited guilt and prevailed with getting a removal modified to 14 day.He was satisfied.I have not had a decend nights sleep since.PLEASE ADVISE
Filed A EEO Complaint
Eng Army Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:40 PM
The man I filed it against is determined to fire me-I have proof that the things are false.Of course, it is retaliation ,but he and his helpers are making up things right and left using the Table of Penalties and Violations.
help
nurse va Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:51 PM
I am trying to figure out what the policies are and if they are trying to remove me. I have gotten wonderful evaluations etc. However the supervisor makes me crazy and I always feel like he is trying to set me up. He says something then denies saying it, give me 20 to 30 percent increase work load, will not give me an expected census I am to manage. He encouraged to me to work from home then we recieved a memo stating no one had permission to work from home and would be disciplined if doing so.
Once he screamed at me, suggested we go to mediation and then denies it ever happened.
Management loves him, he does not behave this way. Anyhow there is no place to transfer, I need my job. Any advice?
Mr. Sunshine!
Border Patrol
Mon May 21, 2007 8:55 PM
3% huh, the other 97% must have followed your advice. I can't believe they just published an article that told you to quit your job because you think you might be fired. I almost gave LMR credit for this article as a ploy to make their jobs easier but that would have been way to smart for our guys in DHS.
I am pretty new to this sight but is it always anti-union and anti-workforce? Not that I mind conversing with you guys.
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
DoD
Tue May 22, 2007 8:29 AM
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
CBP
Tue May 22, 2007 9:16 AM
But sometimes it's necessary to put away the emotion and size things up objectively in order to make the best decision. In the fine game of poker that comes in the form of understanding and applying the odds.
When the odds are clearly against you the choice comes down to deciding whether you feel sufficiently lucky enough, or emotionally upset enough, to ignore them---and then live with the consequences of that decision.
I don't see this as anti-workforce----quite the opposite, in fact----and I seriously doubt the author intended it that way. When you boil it down, it amounts to "recognize the reality of these situations, get yourself a good rep/lawyer, and make the best/smartest deal you can." That---at least to me---sounds like friendly, good advice.
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
DoD
Tue May 22, 2007 11:32 AM
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
CBP
Tue May 22, 2007 12:47 PM
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
DFAS
Wed May 23, 2007 7:47 AM
"Spell check" is one of my pet peeves. It's an abomination before the Lord that encourages illiteracy.
Re: Mr. Sunshine!
None
Wed May 23, 2007 9:57 PM
I think 3% is rather high LOLOL. I was terminated from 23 years of successful to outstanding conduct and performance. The worse part is that the MSPB upheld the charge while knowing the agency did not prove the charge. ANY federal employee thinking they are protected, forget it. Hey I know a guy that was terminated by a (non) manager that did not have authorization to remove him. ANY federal employee thinking they are protected from abitrary actions, forget it.
Management vs Retire Eligible employee
DHS/Reserves
Tue May 22, 2007 12:47 AM
Good advice. It seems more and more the closer an employee with a sought after position gets to retirement the more difficult DHS management makes it for the employee to not retire.
Solid Advice, Very Well Expressed
CBP
Tue May 22, 2007 7:21 AM
The subject line says it all.
Re: Solid Advice, Very Well Expressed
eeod
Wed May 23, 2007 2:38 AM
Anyone has the right and can ALWAYS get a Lawyer at any time. I sure don't recommend waiting until AFTER receiving a proposed removal notice when it may be too late.. As a 22+ year employee, I called an experienced attorney this year when I was put on a performance improvement plan, and am grateful that I did.
Just in Time
Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Agency
Tue May 22, 2007 7:26 AM
After 26 years of Federal service, 25 spent at DOD as an HR specialist, I'm made the biggest mistake in changing agencies and I was informed last Friday that I am failing at my "new" job with VA. Their production schedule is killing me, one age 85 WWII veteran parent is painfully dying from cancer, one age 90 WWII veteran parent is racking up the credit card bills indiscriminately, and I suffered a painful work injury that's slow to heal. I've had to use practically all my leave and missed valuable time in learning my new job. The AFGE union agreement looks good but the union reps are worthless and the HR liaison knows very little but the supervisors follow the bad advice anyway. What a blessed mess and I'm stuck for the present but trying to get free. Thanks for the advice in this article. It reinforces a lot of what I know to be true in Federal life even if it's beyond an employee's control. There's no free lunch until you get to retirement. Thanks!
Re: Just in Time
DoD
Tue May 22, 2007 10:00 AM
Re: Just in Time
HR Specialist
Wed May 23, 2007 8:45 AM
As for the retired HR Specialist--you don't have to sit around popping prozac during your retirement. That's your choice. You could also go out and get another job--something that is meaningful to you, supplements your current income, and gives you a reason to get up in the morning.
Re: Just in Time
None
Wed May 23, 2007 9:46 PM
Send an email to rkayem@yahoo.com.
There is someone that may be able to help you move in the right direction. Also, please cut and paste your response here into the email, and make sure you put FedEmp in the subject line.
On Being Marginalized
VA
Tue May 22, 2007 10:06 AM
After twenty-eight years of Federal civilian service as an outstanding employee in Human Resources Management, I found myself being rejected by senior management of my VA facility for reasons other than performance and conduct. At the beginning of my career in 1979, I started at the bottom as a personnel clerk and then was progressively promoted up the ranks to the position of Human Resources Officer in 2000.
In hindsight my rejection in late 2006 was primarily based on the principal senior leader’s perception after a period of more than six years that my personality was not to his liking because I was insufficiently subservient and lacked his ideal of an overly vivacious personality. Despite my excellence in technical competencies, leadership, management of limited resources and customer service, I was reassigned to a role outside the HR realm for which I had no related experiences. Clearly the allegations made to disparage me gave no credence to nor formed a basis for any discipline or performance action against me.
It is disheartening when a senior leader moves to destroy your career for reasons that are personal and that are foreign to the merit principles, which are the hallmark of Federal service. I’m finding that more and more senior leaders feel that they have an unfettered right to marginalize subordinate staff for reasons not based on merit or just cause. This is a form of injustice that must be eradicated from work environments of Federal servants.
termination for going to osc
department of veterans affairs
Tue May 22, 2007 10:15 AM
a lot of the problems for federal employees now are caused by the makeup and mindsets of the merit systems protection board and the federal circuit for federal appeals. additionally, the va will initiate well planned campaigns to terminate an individual with an eye to ridding themselves of an employee via a settlement. i watched them fire one guy by deliberately provoking him into emotional outbursts. he got a pretty decent settlement--excellent attorney. they tried the provocation with me, but i didn't act out even when i was shouted at by multiple members of management. watch out for a sudden flurry of "progressive discipline" that happens so fast all individual right of actions are before the mspb at once. even though the proposing official admits under oath that you are a good tech. another problem is that the system is supposed to be pro se friendly. it ain't.
Not unusual
DOD
Tue May 22, 2007 10:32 AM
People often quit jobs that are not a good fit. Happens all the time.
If you want to make it in the VA, look the other way.
Veterans Administration
Tue May 22, 2007 12:30 PM
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%
Bureau of Prisons
Tue May 22, 2007 12:59 PM
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%
Federal Agency
Wed May 23, 2007 11:12 AM
Can You Say 'Union-Bashing?'
DoD
Tue May 22, 2007 1:50 PM
"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?'
DOL
Wed May 23, 2007 8:06 AM
Re: Can You Say 'Union-Bashing?'
retired
Wed May 23, 2007 8:24 AM
Re: Can You Say 'Union-Bashing?'
DOD
Wed May 23, 2007 10:09 AM
In Light of the Recent NSPS Decision...
DoD
Tue May 22, 2007 1:51 PM
...is this article just coincidence?
Re: In Light of the Recent NSPS Decision...
Navy
Tue May 22, 2007 2:37 PM
Why The Need For More Flexibility
Army
Tue May 22, 2007 3:09 PM
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
Tue May 22, 2007 7:56 PM
Re: Why The Need For More Flexibility
Navy
Wed May 23, 2007 8:58 AM
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
Wed May 23, 2007 6:59 PM
Object Lesson in Recent Case
DHS
Wed May 23, 2007 9:02 AM
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
DOD
Wed May 23, 2007 10:44 AM
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
department of veterans affairs
Wed May 23, 2007 12:08 PM
Re: Statistics Lie
VAMC - VISN 9
Thu May 24, 2007 9:14 AM
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
VAMC - VISN 9
Thu May 24, 2007 9:17 AM
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!
Avoid Getting Fired...
Social Security Administration \(most recent\)
Wed May 23, 2007 12:33 PM
Good article–so good I’m forwarding it to a client for perspective. The most important point made was that the difficulties supervisors face in firing a federal employee make it so that they only take on the most egregious cases and that’s why they win most of the time. So a great number of employees who deserve to be fired are not fired simply because of the difficulty, time and uncertainty involved in the process. I also do not completely agree with the analysis of the appeals process. From years of experience I see the MSPB as the only legal analysis of the action. The MSPB applies a rational analysis based on law and precedent and there is a reasonable appeal process for both sides. The EEOC generally sides with management but only because it is difficult to make a case of discrimination. However, the EEOC–at all levels–does not respect law or precedent and often looks for discrimination whether or not it in fact occurred. Arbitration is the most uncertain. Arbitrators act as if they are adjudicating conditions of employment rather than adverse actions and they tend to split the baby. In a removal case this is dangerous for management but for employees is the best possible result.
Re: Avoid Getting Fired...
VAMC - VISN 9
Thu May 24, 2007 8:32 AM
I assume you got the retainer!
3% rule
FSIS
Wed May 23, 2007 5:22 PM
Good point made. Is there a way we can retire prior to 62 years with less than 25 yrs but more than 15?
Disagree
HHS
Thu May 24, 2007 9:14 AM
Bob certainly has a pro management view of the world. As a reluctant supervisor in an agency with many aggressive management practices, I would counsel the worker to get an outside opinion on whether the punishment fits the crime. Around here, production employees are often unfairly blamed for management failures. Guess I better get ready to resign too?
office of special counsel
energy
Thu May 24, 2007 9:53 AM
anyone who has ever filed a prohibited personnel practice complaint (PPP) with OSC, particularly if it was a whistleblower reprisal complaint and they later filed a whistleblower appeal with MSPB, needs to visit blog http://whsknox.blogs.com/osc and consider joining a amicus curiae brief that argues the Federal Ckt should set aside an MSPB decision because of OSC's non-complaiance with its statutory duties to protect a fed from a PPP.
Re: office of special counsel
VAMC - VISN 9
Thu May 24, 2007 2:21 PM
Re: office of special counsel
DHS
Sat May 26, 2007 2:56 AM
Quit before you are fired.
Veterans Administration
Fri Jun 1, 2007 9:45 PM
An individual who retired as a Major form the USAF with 33 years of laboratory experience was hired as the Chemistry Supervisor at the CAVHCS. He was hired as a GS 11 Step 1. the beginning grade and rate as if this was his first supervisory position. This individual noticed a problem with supplies, and sent an email out about the situation. Needless to say this was his Waterloo. He was harassed, and threatened by the laboratory manager to the extent he quit.
The position is listed in USAjobs.gov, announcement # 619-07-1367-JS, with the minimum educational requirement of a Associate Degree. A taylor made position for a preselected individual, and nothing can be done about this. The question I have, is how can OPM establish requirements for a position, in this case, at least a BS in Medical Technology, or a Master's Degree, only to have a lab manager lower the requirements to meet the qualifications of a cronie?
Is this country now The Union of Socialist America?
wow
ssa
Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:10 PM
Wow, wish I had read this article two months ago before I went over the deep end.
retirement
Department of Veterans Affairs
Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:45 AM
"Employees fired for cause cannot retire until they are 62 years old unless they are back in service."
So lets say you have 20 years of service and are fired for cause, are you saying you ARE entitled to you're retirement benefit at age 62? I have heard lose you're benefit entirely if this is the case.
Never surrender
DHS/ICE
Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:06 AM
As a Union Rep, I have seen management engage in vicious attacks on older employees, especially those nearing reitrement. One in particular was a good fellow, average employee with 21 1/2 years of service when they proposed his removal for conduct and performance. Managers cited that they knew he had been drinking on the job for over 3 years and that is why they decided to remove him 6 months before he could retire. Nice folks. Long story short, we fought long and hard and finally got him admin leave until he was able to retire. Pity they never counseled him, sent him to eap or tried any other method to help this man.
Avoid Getting Fired
DOD
Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:45 PM
The federal government has a lot of employees and lot of places to work, so if you have kept current in your field and become concerned about getting fired. Move on and move on quickly, even it means taking a down grade. My observation over years is that the management team (no matter how deficient in intelligence the manager is) has everyone in HR on his/her side and you are the target. SO find another job, your performance may not be the problem but no one in HR is going to listen to you.
PENDING PROPOSAL OF REMOVAL
NAVY
Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:23 PM
I have been waiting since 10/12/08 for my proposal of disciplainary action(REMOVAL)I have a good union/rep.I am considering representing myself before the deciding official only because a fellow worker admiited guilt and prevailed with getting a removal modified to 14 day.He was satisfied.I have not had a decend nights sleep since.PLEASE ADVISE
Filed A EEO Complaint
Army
Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:40 PM
The man I filed it against is determined to fire me-I have proof that the things are false.Of course, it is retaliation ,but he and his helpers are making up things right and left using the Table of Penalties and Violations.
help
va
Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:51 PM
I am trying to figure out what the policies are and if they are trying to remove me. I have gotten wonderful evaluations etc. However the supervisor makes me crazy and I always feel like he is trying to set me up. He says something then denies saying it, give me 20 to 30 percent increase work load, will not give me an expected census I am to manage. He encouraged to me to work from home then we recieved a memo stating no one had permission to work from home and would be disciplined if doing so.
Once he screamed at me, suggested we go to mediation and then denies it ever happened.
Management loves him, he does not behave this way. Anyhow there is no place to transfer, I need my job. Any advice?