The author says that to many employees, the concept of discipline usually conjures up a very negative impression as being punitive. However, he says that if applied effectively, discipline is designed to modify behavior or performance and should always be the first and foremost goal of supervisors and management.
A “Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration in 2017” proposes changes for the federal workforce that would save about $330 billion by 2026. The proposals envision cuts to federal pay and benefits in a number of ways from changes to retirement, the federal leave program, and removing federal workers. Here is a summary.
Change is afoot in Congress for the federal human resources system for rating and removing federal employees. Federal employees who have been around for awhile may think we are moving forward to 1978—the last major legislative change in these areas.
In its annual report, the MSPB cites record-setting case processing actions and decisions. Publicity for the quasi-judicial agency has not all been favorable though.
While it would be nice if federal employees always work in jobs suited to their talents, the author shares wisdom for the situations when this doesn’t happen.
When it comes to defending your rights as a federal employee, it is important to be sure you understand the process and perform the necessary steps correctly. The author describes some of the complexities of the appeals process and what federal employees need to know when it comes to protecting their jobs.
Historically, federal agencies have used what is known as the “mailbox rule.” This maxim provides that if a notice or letter is properly addressed and duly mailed, it is presumed to have arrived at the mailing address in due course. However, the author cites cases which illustrate that this does not always work out as an agency would expect.
The author provides the text of the senate bill to change the SES system at the Department of Veterans Affairs and a plea to the Congress to control its knee jerk response to allegations of misconduct at the Agency. He asks the reader to judge whether this is good or bad law and whether it supports good or bad government based on its words versus the present system.
Fewer than 3% of the EEO cases were litigated are lost by agencies. The EEOC tried to put a spin on this disturbing statistic by noting that more than one-fourth of cases are settled and “Many of these resolutions contained favorable outcomes for the complainant, including monetary and non-monetary benefits.”
In denying a hearing on the matter (certiorari), the Supreme Court backed the Federal Circuit in setting limits on the MSPB’s jurisdiction to hear appeals of removals or other actions taken by an Agency when an employee loses the ability to hold a “sensitive” government job. As the author points out, many more Federal employees hold positions with a sensitive rating than do those with security clearances.
