What are fireable offenses for government employees?

[Anonymous]

Just correcting a few errors:

1. In the post immediately above it says that it takes "at least 45 days" to remove someone for misconduct. Not true. It takes at least 31 days.
2. In another post someone said that you must go through at least two people, a proposing and deciding official. Only half true. You need a proposing and deciding official, but there is no legal prohibition on the same individual filling both roles.
3. You do not have to conduct a PIP in order to remove a poor performer. You can skip the PIP process and take a Chapter 75 misconduct action with a charge of poor performance. I've done it and it works.

To the OP, there are very few government-wide "fireable offenses." Failure to maintain a condition of employment is the only one I can think of. (Losing a security clearance, losing a bar license, losing a drivers license, firearm license, etc.). Lack of Candor or False Statements will also almost always get you there. I suggest checking your particular agencies Standards of Conduct and/or Table of Penalties, if you have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
To the OP, there are very few government-wide "fireable offenses." Failure to maintain a condition of employment is the only one I can think of. (Losing a security clearance, losing a bar license, losing a drivers license, firearm license, etc.). Lack of Candor or False Statements will also almost always get you there. I suggest checking your particular agencies Standards of Conduct and/or Table of Penalties, if you have one.

Engaging in partisan political activity (even off the job) is another.

[Anonymous]

A co-worker at my agency was fired for failing to report a DUI arrest.

[Anonymous]

You can skip the PIP process and take a Chapter 75 misconduct action with a charge of poor performance. I've done it and it works.

Is there any distinction in terms of how bad the performance has to be? I had an employee in my office who showed up to work, put in a moderate effort, but his work product was just terrible. I think he was either not very smart or just a not good at this particular job. I know he was on a PIP. Could someone like that have been Chapter 75ed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just correcting a few errors:

1. In the post immediately above it says that it takes "at least 45 days" to remove someone for misconduct. Not true. It takes at least 31 days.
2. In another post someone said that you must go through at least two people, a proposing and deciding official. Only half true. You need a proposing and deciding official, but there is no legal prohibition on the same individual filling both roles.
3. You do not have to conduct a PIP in order to remove a poor performer. You can skip the PIP process and take a Chapter 75 misconduct action with a charge of poor performance. I've done it and it works.

To the OP, there are very few government-wide "fireable offenses." Failure to maintain a condition of employment is the only one I can think of. (Losing a security clearance, losing a bar license, losing a drivers license, firearm license, etc.). Lack of Candor or False Statements will also almost always get you there. I suggest checking your particular agencies Standards of Conduct and/or Table of Penalties, if you have one.

1. I wrote that it takes 45 days. I didn't say that was a legal requirement. I meant in practical terms. You're being too literal.

2. Although one could use the same person as proposing/deciding official legally, I know of no agency that would be dumb enough to do so.

3. I have also done misconduct charges for Negligent Performance of Duties. But that's not a performance based action. It's still conduct.

[Anonymous]

PP, As to your third point, I'm not sure how you are disagreeing with what I said? I specifically wrote that it was a misconduct action with a charge of poor performance. How is what you are saying any different?

I've seen the same individual serve as proposing and deciding official. It actually isn't so dumb and I'm surprised more smaller agencies do not do it. You essentially eliminate Stone issues altogether.

As to the distinction between 45 and 31 days, maybe I am being "too literal." However I think it is mistake and a self-fulfilling prophesy when people talk about how long it takes to conduct a Chapter 75 action. Assuming there is no union involved, it absolutely can occur in a shorter timeframe. For NBU employees, I have completed three removals in under 40 days.

[Anonymous]

My agency will fire people if they aren't fast enough to meet the quotas 95% of the time. They won't hesitate. I think it depends on the agency's culture. If you don't hear about ppl getting fired at your agency, then its probably a lot tougher to get fired there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not hard to fire a federal employee if the Agency wants to do it. Managers just then to be wussies when it comes to giving accurate performance evaluations.

+1
Although it is much more difficult than in the private sector, where generally you can just say "you're fired," and that's it. In the fed, they need to document your conduct, maybe put you on a performance improvement plan, document that you failed to meet the goals, etc. etc. Perversely, to avoid this managers will give you bad assignments but good reviews to get you to want to leave. This is because they know you'll never be able to find another job in the fed if they give you bad reviews.

Of course, you can be fired for things like stealing, violence, etc., though they would probably first suspend you pending an investigation and some poor schmuck will have to write a report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
To the OP, there are very few government-wide "fireable offenses." Failure to maintain a condition of employment is the only one I can think of. (Losing a security clearance, losing a bar license, losing a drivers license, firearm license, etc.). Lack of Candor or False Statements will also almost always get you there. I suggest checking your particular agencies Standards of Conduct and/or Table of Penalties, if you have one.

Engaging in partisan political activity (even off the job) is another.

Only for certain employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just correcting a few errors:

1. In the post immediately above it says that it takes "at least 45 days" to remove someone for misconduct. Not true. It takes at least 31 days.
2. In another post someone said that you must go through at least two people, a proposing and deciding official. Only half true. You need a proposing and deciding official, but there is no legal prohibition on the same individual filling both roles.
3. You do not have to conduct a PIP in order to remove a poor performer. You can skip the PIP process and take a Chapter 75 misconduct action with a charge of poor performance. I've done it and it works.

To the OP, there are very few government-wide "fireable offenses." Failure to maintain a condition of employment is the only one I can think of. (Losing a security clearance, losing a bar license, losing a drivers license, firearm license, etc.). Lack of Candor or False Statements will also almost always get you there. I suggest checking your particular agencies Standards of Conduct and/or Table of Penalties, if you have one.

In the Agency I was at for 26 years the recommending and deciding official could not be the same person and there was an Order saying so, so if not then there are clear grounds for an MSPB appeal in that case. Other than that I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20:33/36 &c. here ...

Performance-based actions (after PIPs, etc.), are harder to do than conduct-based (violence, AWOL, leave abuse, etc.), but they can all be done and made to stick....

I spent more than 10 yrs. of my career as a manager overseeing these issues in my office. They were not overused but they were used when appropriate and not a single one was challenged successfully. You have to know the law, managers have to do their jobs (document), and work with HR and legal counsel and if you do, a righteous case can succeed.

OTOH we had cases where managers with bad judgment went overboard in overcharging, etc., (the opposite of tolerating too much) and those cases blew up in their faces (as they should have).

What is this?

Leave abuse is, for example, taking sick leave and then posting on your FB page that you were at the park or the zoo or the pool, etc. Or claiming excessive sick leave when you're really not sick (you can be put on leave restriction requiring medical documentation for sick leave in that case) ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been at my agency for almost 10 years. In that time, I've never heard of anyone getting fired. Not the senile lady, not the major drug addict who did nothing but make incomprehensible statements to everyone at work, not the man who pretty much never showed up but submitted leave, not the alcoholics who sleep at their desks all day, not the people who supervisors have stated literally won't do work if asked, not the man found guilty of sexual harassment. I have known people to be transferred to another office, but I have never heard of anyone being fired.

should be, "but never submitted leave."

the problem, then, is with the managers, not the system in which they operate... if they do their jobs, those are all potential firing offenses (the alcoholic may fall under the Rehabilitation Act and be a more complicated case).

Yeah, but the alcoholic has to ask for accommodations. And, the only accommodation he is entitled to is time off to seek treatment and recovery.

Exactly. You just validated/elaborated on my point, not contradicted it. If they ask for and get treatment and come back and can't do the job, they can still be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, As to your third point, I'm not sure how you are disagreeing with what I said? I specifically wrote that it was a misconduct action with a charge of poor performance. How is what you are saying any different?

I've seen the same individual serve as proposing and deciding official. It actually isn't so dumb and I'm surprised more smaller agencies do not do it. You essentially eliminate Stone issues altogether.

As to the distinction between 45 and 31 days, maybe I am being "too literal." However I think it is mistake and a self-fulfilling prophesy when people talk about how long it takes to conduct a Chapter 75 action. Assuming there is no union involved, it absolutely can occur in a shorter timeframe. For NBU employees, I have completed three removals in under 40 days.

How can you possibly eliminate Stone issues? You are automatically creating them...you are handing them over to the appellant on a silver platter. Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, As to your third point, I'm not sure how you are disagreeing with what I said? I specifically wrote that it was a misconduct action with a charge of poor performance. How is what you are saying any different?

I've seen the same individual serve as proposing and deciding official. It actually isn't so dumb and I'm surprised more smaller agencies do not do it. You essentially eliminate Stone issues altogether.

As to the distinction between 45 and 31 days, maybe I am being "too literal." However I think it is mistake and a self-fulfilling prophesy when people talk about how long it takes to conduct a Chapter 75 action. Assuming there is no union involved, it absolutely can occur in a shorter timeframe. For NBU employees, I have completed three removals in under 40 days.

How can you possibly eliminate Stone issues? You are automatically creating them...you are handing them over to the appellant on a silver platter. Good grief.

I said "essentially." One of the main Stone issues is DOs who confer with POs and learn more information than is disclosed in the materials relied upon. If the DO is the PO, the potential for ex parte communications is greatly reduced. Can you elaborate on why you think there is an inherent and necessary Stone issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is not hard to fire a federal employee if the Agency wants to do it. Managers just then to be wussies when it comes to giving accurate performance evaluations.

Almost impossible. Even after documenting, and more documenting, and more documenting.

I handle these cases at my Agency. I'd say on average, 10 to 12 people get fired or leave before they are fires every year. Managers who say you can't fire someone without excessive documentation are just lazy. The termination reason has to be conduct or performance related, as it should be, but it is not that hard to document either problem.