New OPM Memo - Seeks List of Low Performers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to be really bad at your job to be rated less than fully successful. I'm a fed and 100% behind this.

I agree. At our agency, it’s literally been pass/fail for the last ~5 years. It used to be 4 or 5 categories, then three, and now 2. Union successfully fought having any meaningful way to distinguish among people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe I read somewhere that less than 1% of the workforce gets a rating of less than fully successful.

Maybe it varies from agency to agency because I’ve heard it’s around 10%.

I’m wondering if someone told them that firing all the probationary employees without cause would result in an expensive and protected legal battle that they would lose, and now they’re pivoting to the lowest performers instead.

They are going after both.

I'm a little surprised/amused by the pushback on this thread. Admittedly, we all only have our own experiences, but people aren't getting put on PIPs out of the blue. And if there's going to be a RIF exercise I'd expect that probationary employees will be looked at to see if they are performing successfully before they move to non-probationary status.

I personally know of two probationary employees that have performance issues - one is on a PIP. I'm not their supervisor, but I highly doubt they will be able to turn their performance around. The other is someone hired with a lot of experience, was hired at a high grade, etc. They don't want to work, and refuse to accept any constructive criticism or direction.

[Anonymous]

Tell OPM to pound sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know every office is different but for my office, the remaining two not taking the buyouts should be on that list. LOL

It’s not a buyout fool .

There has to be payment in a buyout there will be no pay out it’s called civics 101

And the fact you sign you rights away

The most important part of the contract released by OPM is Section 13. It states that the federal employees who accept the agreement waive their right to enforce the agreement in court or in any other forum.

Given you did not know this you should be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to be really bad at your job to be rated less than fully successful. I'm a fed and 100% behind this.

I agree. At our agency, it’s literally been pass/fail for the last ~5 years. It used to be 4 or 5 categories, then three, and now 2. Union successfully fought having any meaningful way to distinguish among people.

Yep this. You have to really try to fail at my agency. If you’re on the list, well, better you than the other people who are unfairly getting pushed out for political reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Create another data call this is so efficient.

They should retain only those employees who consistently earned Outstanding ratings for the past five years. We are hardcore.

[Anonymous]

Let’s remind OPM to also look at a list of people who have been punished for misconduct - AWOL, time card fraud, travel card fraud, etc. That’s another list of names that should be ripe for picking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s remind OPM to also look at a list of people who have been punished for misconduct - AWOL, time card fraud, travel card fraud, etc. That’s another list of names that should be ripe for picking.

This is a weird fixation if, as you say, they've been punished already. Especially because you know it's going to turn into firing people for missing a phishing email test or whatever.

As a PP said, there's a process for all of this. I've seen plenty of people get fired through the process, but also plenty of paperwork mistakes and petty tyrant bosses and other issues that the process rightly sorts through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Create another data call this is so efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This should be the way it is. Low performers need to go right away instead of high performers or people randomly getting selected for RIF.

Don’t worry, they are doing all the ways. None of these are alternatives and success in any one approach will not prevent the other approaches from being implemented.

[Anonymous]

They should make it easy and trace everyones computer keystrokes it's fast, easy, accurate and they can see who is not keeping up quickly instead of making managers pick a target. I think it would be more fair too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Create another data call this is so efficient.

The irony is that this is exactly the kind of data/data calls that are ripe for automation or AI. It's not a great sign that a manual data call has to go out to each agency/department.

[Anonymous]

These are the people who are going to us AI after they fire 75% of the government yet they can't figure out how to use AI and computers to find out who the lower performers are?

They should have been doing this DAY one March 2020. Insanity this is now an after thought. This should have been being monitored all along. People brought back or fired along the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should make it easy and trace everyones computer keystrokes it's fast, easy, accurate and they can see who is not keeping up quickly instead of making managers pick a target. I think it would be more fair too.

What government jobs involve typing speed as the main criteria for success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OPM has told agencies to compile and send to it a list of their employees who have received a performance rating below “fully successful” in the last three years and to describe what steps have been taken regarding them.

The requirement to provide that information by March 7 is part of a memo on chcoc.gov on “developing new performance metrics for evaluating the federal workforce that aligns with the priorities and standards” of several Trump administration executive orders.

https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/opm-asking-for-lists-of-employees-rated-below-fully-successful/amp/

I've been thoroughly appalled at a lot of what's happened, but identifying low performers is not an area where I have an issue.

I'll reserve judgement on the rest.

Aren't they already identified? If you've gotten low reviews for the last three years, you already know this.