If you've ever tried to fire a fed...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pattern is low performers either stay and do nothing or someone comes along to hold them accountable,they get fired and then they claim discrimination and then they get rehired.

This is such BS. No they don’t get rehired. They may settle for a pittance or a clean record. Or they may pursue administrative remedies which usually either settle or find against the employee. The MSPB’s rate of finding on the merits for employees is extremely low, like probably less than 5%. It’s in their public statistics.

The real problem is managers don’t want to do the work to fire them. I get that. I’ve been there and it’s a ton of work to supervise and separately to do the PIP - some would rather just keep supervising and not bother with the extra work and unpleasantness on top of that. But if you are willing to do the work, and do it well, then it’s pretty fool-proof so long as there actually was documentation.

[Anonymous]

You can fire a long-time Fed employee over performance issues, but it could easily take 6 to 12 months and you will have to spend hours thoroughly documenting all of the performance issues, placing the employee on a PIP, providing them with remedial training, and giving them an opportunity to perform. If all that doesn't work and the performance is still unacceptable, you can fire them at that point, and many of those long-term employees will opt for voluntary retirement instead of being fired.

[Anonymous]

A few thoughts:

-It takes a LOT of time to fire a fed employee. Some supervisors simply don't have time, or support from upper management. My agency is terrified of firing people because of settlements, unions, and the time/energy needed. They just rotate the problematic people around and give them BS tasks.

-I have seen excellent employees rotate to a new team/branch/division and fail or become seen as "problematic" employees, not because of their skills, but because of the manager. Yes, sometimes it is the manager's fault.

-Obtain federal liability insurance if you are a supervisor.

[Anonymous]

My husband did this with 2 employees one had multiple issues of grooming and sexually harrasing women besides not showing up to work over 3 years before they finally got him fired.

The other transferred to a different job thankfully before firing.

[Anonymous]

Our tax dollars hard at work. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have forced out of my agency every post-probationary, problem child I have had the misfortune to supervise. I made their professional life a living hell by enforcing against them the applicable eppes and my own professional standards.

It’s a kick in the groin when they leave for a non-sup 15, but that pain is temporary.

Sounds like too many fed supervisors. No real work to do, so they go out of their way to “make their professional life a living hell…”. With all the trainings and “work” meetings required of fed supervisors, I’m surprised you don’t see how unethical this is.

To address some points, for some occupation series, a non-sup 15 is (while not common) not rare. One non-prestigious agency in particular hired dozens last fiscal year.

The only negative feedback (directly and anonymously) that I have received is a failure to deal with poor performers. I have no grievances filed against me. And my agency’s employee morale consultant has spoken with me twice because my office’s rating are so high vis-a-vis the agency as a whole.

I find it more ethical to inform my low performer that his work is substandard and not improving to enable him to find other employment in an environment better suited to his abilities. I find extremely unethical and wasteful the idea of putting such employees in a corner for 20+ years until he/she retires.

Dude keep trying. Nobody except you believes that all these supposedly low performers are miraculously failing upwards into non-supervisory 15s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts:

-It takes a LOT of time to fire a fed employee. Some supervisors simply don't have time, or support from upper management. My agency is terrified of firing people because of settlements, unions, and the time/energy needed. They just rotate the problematic people around and give them BS tasks.

-I have seen excellent employees rotate to a new team/branch/division and fail or become seen as "problematic" employees, not because of their skills, but because of the manager. Yes, sometimes it is the manager's fault.

-Obtain federal liability insurance if you are a supervisor.

That’s right. It is extremely easy for a bad or malevolent manager to send a good employee into a tailspin. The better the employee the easier it is, because it becomes a form of gaslighting. It goes like this:
- employee completes a project well but with some errors that are within the accepted usual range of errors
- manager blows up and magnifies the error
- employee who has never faces this before is horrified, works harder
- manager micromanages and imposes arbitrary standards
- employee gets more upset, tries to defend work
- manager criticizes “tone”
- downward spiral ensues

[Anonymous]

Op, curious how long you've been in the position? If you are new, is there a chance that you are the problem? I'm asking because this is currently happening to me. I have never had performance issues and consistently receive high ratings/cash awards, etc. Yet I have a new boss, and we don't mix well.

She talks too much, gives confusing guidance, and constantly moves the goalpost. It's only been two months, and I am looking elsewhere. If you are new, give it time, the employee likely dislikes you too and is looking to leap.

[Anonymous]

These threads always amaze me.

At the Board of Veterans Appeals they do not care AT ALL they will fire someone who is one case behind the quota, no matter what is going on in the attorney's life. Sure, there's a union and while they make a lot of noise, the Board management doesn't care and they just fire people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts:

-It takes a LOT of time to fire a fed employee. Some supervisors simply don't have time, or support from upper management. My agency is terrified of firing people because of settlements, unions, and the time/energy needed. They just rotate the problematic people around and give them BS tasks.

-I have seen excellent employees rotate to a new team/branch/division and fail or become seen as "problematic" employees, not because of their skills, but because of the manager. Yes, sometimes it is the manager's fault.

-Obtain federal liability insurance if you are a supervisor.

That’s right. It is extremely easy for a bad or malevolent manager to send a good employee into a tailspin. The better the employee the easier it is, because it becomes a form of gaslighting. It goes like this:
- employee completes a project well but with some errors that are within the accepted usual range of errors
- manager blows up and magnifies the error
- employee who has never faces this before is horrified, works harder
- manager micromanages and imposes arbitrary standards
- employee gets more upset, tries to defend work
- manager criticizes “tone”
- downward spiral ensues

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can fire a long-time Fed employee over performance issues, but it could easily take 6 to 12 months and you will have to spend hours thoroughly documenting all of the performance issues, placing the employee on a PIP, providing them with remedial training, and giving them an opportunity to perform. If all that doesn't work and the performance is still unacceptable, you can fire them at that point, and many of those long-term employees will opt for voluntary retirement instead of being fired.

This sounds about right. First step is to document the issues (without notifying employee you are doing that). Second, make sure your boss will back you agreeing that there is a problem with employee when HR asks him/her. Third, go to HR and ask about their process to put someone on a PIP. The PIP should have a clear easily measured deliverable and a reasonable date. PIP deliverable ideally only needs skills listed on their hiring resume.

When we have done this, generally employee transfers, quits, or retires irrevocably shortly before the PIP due date. Start to finish takes maybe 6-12 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These threads always amaze me.

At the Board of Veterans Appeals they do not care AT ALL they will fire someone who is one case behind the quota, no matter what is going on in the attorney's life. Sure, there's a union and while they make a lot of noise, the Board management doesn't care and they just fire people.

It’s a lot easier to fire in a quota based position. But so many positions don’t have a quota system to point to a the manager has to show that the employee can’t do the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband did this with 2 employees one had multiple issues of grooming and sexually harrasing women besides not showing up to work over 3 years before they finally got him fired.

The other transferred to a different job thankfully before firing.

...and the obligatory MY-HUSBAND-has-experienced-this-so-let-me-act-like-I-know-everything-about-this poster has entered the chat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts:

-It takes a LOT of time to fire a fed employee. Some supervisors simply don't have time, or support from upper management. My agency is terrified of firing people because of settlements, unions, and the time/energy needed. They just rotate the problematic people around and give them BS tasks.

-I have seen excellent employees rotate to a new team/branch/division and fail or become seen as "problematic" employees, not because of their skills, but because of the manager. Yes, sometimes it is the manager's fault.

-Obtain federal liability insurance if you are a supervisor.

That’s right. It is extremely easy for a bad or malevolent manager to send a good employee into a tailspin. The better the employee the easier it is, because it becomes a form of gaslighting. It goes like this:
- employee completes a project well but with some errors that are within the accepted usual range of errors
- manager blows up and magnifies the error
- employee who has never faces this before is horrified, works harder
- manager micromanages and imposes arbitrary standards
- employee gets more upset, tries to defend work
- manager criticizes “tone”
- downward spiral ensues

This is completely true. Years ago, I had a manager who guilt-tripped me for asking to have my role clarified. We were both new, and she accused me of adding undue stress on her while she was acclimating to her role. Gaslighting wasn't a commonly used term back then, but looking back, that's exactly what it was. She was book-smart but a horrible manager of people, self-absorbed, and skilled at hiding her incompetence under her fancy title.

[Anonymous]

Having spent my entire career in the private sector what goes on with feds would drive me nuts. If we have a poor performer we document it in their performance review, write up and agree to an action plan and if they fail to meet those objectives they know they are on the way out. For many, having to agree to an action plan is a clear message that they should look on the outside. A bad performer on a team can wreck the team and you do them a favor by getting rid of a problem. So sad that taxpayer money is being wasted on incompetent people and that management can't get rid of them.