Federal worker protections

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

Where do you work where this is permitted?

I was reading an article on a USPS site where 20% of its staff was absent on any given day and thought how is this allowed to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50,000 is way too low. We could make 87% of them disappear outside of DHS and the Military and not a single working American citizen would notice.

u r so dum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

Where do you work where this is permitted?

I was reading an article on a USPS site where 20% of its staff was absent on any given day and thought how is this allowed to happen?

USPS isn’t federal employees.
Also, ever heard of compressed schedules?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50,000 is way too low. We could make 87% of them disappear outside of DHS and the Military and not a single working American citizen would notice.

Hope you never need a passport renewal quickly if someone to answer a social security question. Do you like clean drinking water? National Parks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50,000 is way too low. We could make 87% of them disappear outside of DHS and the Military and not a single working American citizen would notice.

Hope you never need a passport renewal quickly if someone to answer a social security question. Do you like clean drinking water? National Parks?

That PP is never leaving ‘Merica, get real they don’t need a passport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

It's already easy to do if you follow the rules. Both agencies I've worked at had very active unions and employee populations who knew their rights and filed a lot of lawsuits for HR-related claims. They almost always lost. And, ftr, we suspending, disciplined, and fired lots of people. The idea that that doesn't happen is a myth.

I was litigation counsel on these cases, so I have first had experience over the last 25 years and can speak to this directly.

I retired after Trump was re-elected.

That makes two of us. People who make spurious claims about the inability to terminate employees for poor performance are typically lazy supervisors who refused to take the requisite steps to document, with examples, of the employee’s poor performance. It was easier for the supervisors to just give a “meet expectations” on the performance evaluations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

It's already easy to do if you follow the rules. Both agencies I've worked at had very active unions and employee populations who knew their rights and filed a lot of lawsuits for HR-related claims. They almost always lost. And, ftr, we suspending, disciplined, and fired lots of people. The idea that that doesn't happen is a myth.

I was litigation counsel on these cases, so I have first had experience over the last 25 years and can speak to this directly.

I retired after Trump was re-elected.

That makes two of us. People who make spurious claims about the inability to terminate employees for poor performance are typically lazy supervisors who refused to take the requisite steps to document, with examples, of the employee’s poor performance. It was easier for the supervisors to just give a “meet expectations” on the performance evaluations.

I agree with you that is it generally a leadership failure. And it is also really difficult for military commanders whose assignments are often 2 years or less to work through the process when their civilian employees know every possible delaying tactic. This leads to really dysfunctional workplaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

It's already easy to do if you follow the rules. Both agencies I've worked at had very active unions and employee populations who knew their rights and filed a lot of lawsuits for HR-related claims. They almost always lost. And, ftr, we suspending, disciplined, and fired lots of people. The idea that that doesn't happen is a myth.

I was litigation counsel on these cases, so I have first had experience over the last 25 years and can speak to this directly.

I retired after Trump was re-elected.

That makes two of us. People who make spurious claims about the inability to terminate employees for poor performance are typically lazy supervisors who refused to take the requisite steps to document, with examples, of the employee’s poor performance. It was easier for the supervisors to just give a “meet expectations” on the performance evaluations.

I agree with you that is it generally a leadership failure. And it is also really difficult for military commanders whose assignments are often 2 years or less to work through the process when their civilian employees know every possible delaying tactic. This leads to really dysfunctional workplaces.

These types of workers are not the ones affected by Schedule F.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

Where do you work where this is permitted?

I was reading an article on a USPS site where 20% of its staff was absent on any given day and thought how is this allowed to happen?

Most postal carriers are contractors. USPS isn’t really the federal government anyway. Remember the GOP has been pushing to privatize, which is why it sucks now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50,000 is way too low. We could make 87% of them disappear outside of DHS and the Military and not a single working American citizen would notice.

71% of the federal workforce is military, veterans affairs and DHS.

You think Americans wouldn't notice is we got rid of that much of the IRS and federal law enforcement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

Consistently not showing up to work is one of the few things in federal government that is very easy to fire someone for. Assuming they're indicating that they are working and not teleworking on their timesheet on days they're not at their on-site duty station that's timecard fraud and is very easy to fire for.

And yes, theoretically it would be easier to fire people for incompetence without the previous protections, but your problem is that you're assuming that the current administration will be using the policy change to improve the function of federal agencies when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they will do that, and mountains of evidence that they will use the policy change to fire workers not slavishly loyal to Trump and the GOP. In essence, returning to the Spoils System that was the most corrupt and inefficient the federal government has ever been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read the article, but does it mean it will be easier to remove people from the federal workforce for incompetence or consistently not showing up to work?

No, it mean it will be easier to remove people from the Federal workforce for refusing to commit unethical, illegal, and/or treasonous acts in order to “advance President Trump’s agenda.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans do not care about federal workers. They have been painted as the enemy.

Wrong.

They almost single-handedly elected Spanberger. I think that poster is right, or will be soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50,000 is way too low. We could make 87% of them disappear outside of DHS and the Military and not a single working American citizen would notice.

Oh you’d notice eventually, that your life was steadily getting worse, but you wouldn’t put two and two together because you’re too brainwashed.

[Anonymous]

Passport renewals can be done in a day or two using AI. No one picks at SS office now so I see no change there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50,000 is way too low. We could make 87% of them disappear outside of DHS and the Military and not a single working American citizen would notice.

Hope you never need a passport renewal quickly if someone to answer a social security question. Do you like clean drinking water? National Parks?