OPM Asking For List of Probationary Employees

[Anonymous]

They aren't looking for your run of the mill people to fire from the probation list. They are looking for newly hired upper level GS who may have influence on policy, etc. Known people associated with the Biden administration. Agency leadership will flag those people for removal. Hopefully, they will also get rid of some poor performers across the board, although with the hiring freeze also in effect...a warm body is a warm body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They aren't looking for your run of the mill people to fire from the probation list. They are looking for newly hired upper level GS who may have influence on policy, etc. Known people associated with the Biden administration. Agency leadership will flag those people for removal. Hopefully, they will also get rid of some poor performers across the board, although with the hiring freeze also in effect...a warm body is a warm body.

No. They are looking for people to fire. A low level manager at one agency reported on Reddit that they were asked to mark up lists of employees as retain/do not retain. It was in the news a month ago that DOGE was considering a mass firing of probationary employees to make a quick show of cost cutting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They aren't looking for your run of the mill people to fire from the probation list. They are looking for newly hired upper level GS who may have influence on policy, etc. Known people associated with the Biden administration. Agency leadership will flag those people for removal. Hopefully, they will also get rid of some poor performers across the board, although with the hiring freeze also in effect...a warm body is a warm body.

No, that's schedule F. This is clearly intended to be a blunt tool for reducing the number of feds.

If you really want to bend over backwards to give this administration the benefit of the doubt, then maybe this is just a hollow threat intended as leverage on the agency downsizing plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They aren't looking for your run of the mill people to fire from the probation list. They are looking for newly hired upper level GS who may have influence on policy, etc. Known people associated with the Biden administration. Agency leadership will flag those people for removal. Hopefully, they will also get rid of some poor performers across the board, although with the hiring freeze also in effect...a warm body is a warm body.

This is highly unlikely to be the case with this request. Probationary employees at certain agencies, and for sure certain offices within certain agencies, have a good chance of getting axed.

[Anonymous]

Does this include PSCs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Amanda Scales at OPM?

I really hope this is just a coincidence. https://washingtonprogram.ucdavis.edu/alumni/amanda-scales

She stripped down her LinkedIn. It calls her “Amanda S.”

Weak tea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my SF-50 says I have “tenure” am I non-probation?

This is so confusing. I’ve been in my current role less than a year, but I’ve been with the agency and federal government for many years.

This is what I want to know as well. What's determines if you are on probation, getting a new job anywhere even though you've been employed with the fed gov for many many years.

You need to look at the SF-50 from when you moved to the new position and see if it mentions probation anywhere in the remarks section. It will specifically say if you’re subject to a new probationary period and for how long. If it says nothing, you’re fine (assuming you weren’t still in probation at the old job before you moved).

How long is the typical civil service probationary period? I thougnt it was 1 year for career conditional but an above comment indicates 3 years? The remarks on my SF50 only state the clock began on X date.

[Anonymous]

What about all the people in leave all the time—FMLA, then sick, then LWOP, then late, then leaving early every week? Obviously working the system? (And I support all the leaves but one person taking this many is a bit much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about all the people in leave all the time—FMLA, then sick, then LWOP, then late, then leaving early every week? Obviously working the system? (And I support all the leaves but one person taking this many is a bit much

You’re upset at people taking their earned leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about all the people in leave all the time—FMLA, then sick, then LWOP, then late, then leaving early every week? Obviously working the system? (And I support all the leaves but one person taking this many is a bit much

When you remove workplace flexibilities you're going to force people into taking more leave.

[Anonymous]

Don't put anyone name on a list, ever.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know offhand the probationary period for FDA - a lawyer in Regulatory Policy specifically CDER? And what are they doing if the lawyer went out on leave during that first year - i.e. sick leave/annual leave for maternity, followed by FMLA for the child? I mean not that anyone knows for sure what they'll too but I guess I'm asking does mat leave/FMLA affect the probationary time at all?

[Anonymous]

If an agency wants to keep all its probationers, will OPM force them to make cuts whether the agency wants to keep everyone? Just trying to understand if implicit in this order is to cut people regardless of keep or don't keep.

[Anonymous]

How many years is the probation period - does it vary by agency? Not asking for myself as I'm close to 10 years in but my group at the SEC has hired 2 fantastic junior attorneys in the last 1.5-2 yrs. Can I assume they are safely past probation? I seem to recall it being a year but genuinely can't remember.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If an agency wants to keep all its probationers, will OPM force them to make cuts whether the agency wants to keep everyone? Just trying to understand if implicit in this order is to cut people regardless of keep or don't keep.

No one knows. There’s no precedent for abusing the process like this.