The author looks at problems that he says exist under the current disciplinary system for the federal workforce and what questions he says must be answered to fix these problems.
In the first of two articles on job restructuring as a reasonable accommodation, the author explores how managers ascertain what an employee’s essential functions of his or her job position are, how to restructure a job position to accommodate an employee, and explores some cases that shed light on how the EEOC and federal courts look at these issues.
The author says that it is a well established fact that managers have the right to establish standards for requiring employee attendance at work. He notes, however, that failure to enforce attendance requirements can result in further attendance problems and lower morale among employees. He says that supervisors should never be afraid to initiate the appropriate action when warranted and cites some cases as precedent for enforcing consistent attendance in the federal workplace.
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.
Should two employees with different work histories, attitudes, and behaviors receive the same discipline for the same offense?
Federal employees have many options when it comes to challenging disciplinary actions, but many times the process can seem like a confusing maze. The author provides some information regarding the rights and legal remedies available to federal civilian employees facing disciplinary action.
The author offers suggestions for dealing with employee behavior issues.
Will a person’s behavior change when getting a written reprimand? The author analyzes the disciplinary process and offers suggestions for those who may be involved in a disciplinary situation.
The author says it’s time to consider limiting the Douglas Factors to a smaller number.
A federal court concludes that a decision resulting in the 342 suspension of an employee in the Social Security Administration was arbitrary because it was based solely on a “time served” suspension without logical deliberation on the length of the suspension.
