I am probationary. Can OPM fire me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were a superstar, your agency will fight very very hard for you. If not, you will likely be fired.

Give me a break. You mean the new agency heads who started two weeks ago would fight hard for someone they haven't met yet? Or their SES who also has never met the person? This is just sheer brainless cutting. Don't pretend that someone is actually sitting down to see who brings value and who doesn't. That's simply not happening here.

NP and this is my understanding as well. No one at the manager level was asked to provide input regarding retain or not and I just don't see the SES people tsking the time to do write ups justifying retention of people they don't even know. If they've really going to do this the right way they would have asked for management input.

Yes they were. At my agency all managers were asked to provide input on each probationary employee regarding whether or not they would retain them.

It was busy work.

Get out troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The memo did say if you are probationary the agency can decide to keep you.

Which memo?

https://www.chcoc.gov/content/guidance-probationary-periods-administrative-leave-and-details

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were a superstar, your agency will fight very very hard for you. If not, you will likely be fired.

Give me a break. You mean the new agency heads who started two weeks ago would fight hard for someone they haven't met yet? Or their SES who also has never met the person? This is just sheer brainless cutting. Don't pretend that someone is actually sitting down to see who brings value and who doesn't. That's simply not happening here.

NP and this is my understanding as well. No one at the manager level was asked to provide input regarding retain or not and I just don't see the SES people tsking the time to do write ups justifying retention of people they don't even know. If they've really going to do this the right way they would have asked for management input.

Same at my agency. We were told that the Business units pushing back we causing trouble for themselves.

My org was told they love us and we do great work blah, blah, blah but no exceptions would be made for us.

I feel like Elonski is writing some of these answers - using term "business unit" etc. and trying to get the person to take the fork. Person, I think it's 50-50 whether the fork is real. My SEC lawyer spouse thinks it's 100% not real. I think with the fork the worst that will happen is that your last date will be March 14. If you can hang on until after that, I'd do that. It would depend on where your agency is with telework, whether you are union, etc. FWIW in typical times you do need cause to fire people, even if they are on probation. Good luck.

No mass firings have happened yet? What is there to push back against?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were a superstar, your agency will fight very very hard for you. If not, you will likely be fired.

Give me a break. You mean the new agency heads who started two weeks ago would fight hard for someone they haven't met yet? Or their SES who also has never met the person? This is just sheer brainless cutting. Don't pretend that someone is actually sitting down to see who brings value and who doesn't. That's simply not happening here.

NP and this is my understanding as well. No one at the manager level was asked to provide input regarding retain or not and I just don't see the SES people tsking the time to do write ups justifying retention of people they don't even know. If they've really going to do this the right way they would have asked for management input.

Same at my agency. We were told that the Business units pushing back we causing trouble for themselves.

My org was told they love us and we do great work blah, blah, blah but no exceptions would be made for us.

I feel like Elonski is writing some of these answers - using term "business unit" etc. and trying to get the person to take the fork. Person, I think it's 50-50 whether the fork is real. My SEC lawyer spouse thinks it's 100% not real. I think with the fork the worst that will happen is that your last date will be March 14. If you can hang on until after that, I'd do that. It would depend on where your agency is with telework, whether you are union, etc. FWIW in typical times you do need cause to fire people, even if they are on probation. Good luck.

No mass firings have happened yet? What is there to push back against?

You absolutely do not need to have cause to fire a probationary employee. That’s why probationary periods exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were a superstar, your agency will fight very very hard for you. If not, you will likely be fired.

Give me a break. You mean the new agency heads who started two weeks ago would fight hard for someone they haven't met yet? Or their SES who also has never met the person? This is just sheer brainless cutting. Don't pretend that someone is actually sitting down to see who brings value and who doesn't. That's simply not happening here.

NP and this is my understanding as well. No one at the manager level was asked to provide input regarding retain or not and I just don't see the SES people tsking the time to do write ups justifying retention of people they don't even know. If they've really going to do this the right way they would have asked for management input.

Yes they were. At my agency all managers were asked to provide input on each probationary employee regarding whether or not they would retain them.

PP here and interesting, maybe different agencies did it differently. I can only speak to my division of my agency.

[Anonymous]

The thing about SES vouching for you is that it seems like SES are almost more vulnerable than probationary-- I'm very worried my SES will get Schedule F'ed and be fired and replaced with someone Trump likes.

Or is the Schedule F thing no longer a thing-- maybe a court invalidated the concept? Or Congress did . . . something . . . to make it not an option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing about SES vouching for you is that it seems like SES are almost more vulnerable than probationary-- I'm very worried my SES will get Schedule F'ed and be fired and replaced with someone Trump likes.

Or is the Schedule F thing no longer a thing-- maybe a court invalidated the concept? Or Congress did . . . something . . . to make it not an option?

Not invalidated, but it will be slower to roll out.

[Anonymous]

Any chance that you are a lawyer (and working in that capacity at your agency), OP?

The guidance my agency got from OPM was explicitly to remove any lawyers from the list of probationary employees. I know that the same guidance went to at least one other agency. Probably to others as well, but I only have reliable information about these two agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any chance that you are a lawyer (and working in that capacity at your agency), OP?

The guidance my agency got from OPM was explicitly to remove any lawyers from the list of probationary employees. I know that the same guidance went to at least one other agency. Probably to others as well, but I only have reliable information about these two agencies.

Just name the agency.

[Anonymous]

Why would lawyers not be on the list if they are probationary? I don’t understand how lawyers would be any different.

[Anonymous]

I'm a supervisory attorney. My agency sent a list of probationary attorneys to OPM.

[Anonymous]

Supervisors - what did you state in your justification for retaining probationary employees? Just curious to know what would be good reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were a superstar, your agency will fight very very hard for you. If not, you will likely be fired.

Give me a break. You mean the new agency heads who started two weeks ago would fight hard for someone they haven't met yet? Or their SES who also has never met the person? This is just sheer brainless cutting. Don't pretend that someone is actually sitting down to see who brings value and who doesn't. That's simply not happening here.

NP and this is my understanding as well. No one at the manager level was asked to provide input regarding retain or not and I just don't see the SES people tsking the time to do write ups justifying retention of people they don't even know. If they've really going to do this the right way they would have asked for management input.

Same at my agency. We were told that the Business units pushing back we causing trouble for themselves.

My org was told they love us and we do great work blah, blah, blah but no exceptions would be made for us.

I feel like Elonski is writing some of these answers - using term "business unit" etc. and trying to get the person to take the fork. Person, I think it's 50-50 whether the fork is real. My SEC lawyer spouse thinks it's 100% not real. I think with the fork the worst that will happen is that your last date will be March 14. If you can hang on until after that, I'd do that. It would depend on where your agency is with telework, whether you are union, etc. FWIW in typical times you do need cause to fire people, even if they are on probation. Good luck.

No mass firings have happened yet? What is there to push back against?

You absolutely do not need to have cause to fire a probationary employee. That’s why probationary periods exist.

This is not true. Probationary employee must be given a legitimate reason in writing for separation. There are less avenues for appeal for the probationary employee. But if they were fired for political reasons, they can appeal to the MSPB.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me the more probationary employees managers can get to leave, the better chance they have of being retained. To some degree this is a numbers game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance that you are a lawyer (and working in that capacity at your agency), OP?

The guidance my agency got from OPM was explicitly to remove any lawyers from the list of probationary employees. I know that the same guidance went to at least one other agency. Probably to others as well, but I only have reliable information about these two agencies.

Just name the agency.

Treasury.