New OPM Memo - Seeks List of Low Performers

[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.

How old are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This. I print off my work to review, then provide comments via email, etc.

[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.

So anyone who spends part of their day reading research is out?? Those who are writing complex regulations should just be typing as fast as possible not thinking about how to get all the details correct? Sounds like you think all feds are in data processing...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our agency doesn’t even use that scale. We only have Unacceptable, Successful, and Outstanding.

I think you can figure out how to convert that, right?

I can't. I simply lack the brainpower. I fold under your skilled cross-examination.

Well, I guess you aren’t Fully Successful. Bye!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm embarrassed for your ignorant comment!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm embarrassed for your ignorant comment!

DP. Could you answer the question? What jobs involve typing as the performance metric?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So anyone who spends part of their day reading research is out?? Those who are writing complex regulations should just be typing as fast as possible not thinking about how to get all the details correct? Sounds like you think all feds are in data processing...

Such an elitist. Real men don’t need to “read” or “research” to be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You know the more i think about it the more i realize these guys are actually fearful of their jobs going away via AI...and therefore are trying to desperately latch into a sector (government !) where AI isn't really the ideal tool for the majority of the work. Sure lots of specific tasks can be automated but as a whole the government CANNOT and SHOULD not be even 50% AI!

How funny that they've gotten their panties in bunch about this...it's like doth protest too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So anyone who spends part of their day reading research is out?? Those who are writing complex regulations should just be typing as fast as possible not thinking about how to get all the details correct? Sounds like you think all feds are in data processing...

I make court appearances multiple times a week. At least a few times a year I have a week+ trial where I'm in court basically all day. I guess I'm insufficiently productive?

[Anonymous]

Who on this forum has ever gotten below a 3 in a 5 point system or a 3 equivalent in a different system?

It’s pretty hard to score that low.

[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.

Agreed!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who on this forum has ever gotten below a 3 in a 5 point system or a 3 equivalent in a different system?

It’s pretty hard to score that low.

+1

[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.

Shouldn't they have already been fired?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not worried about it being used with historical data. I am worried about how it will be used with whatever performance measures they put in place and how that will be deployed, and who will make those decisions moving forward. So, yeah, I am worried.

[Anonymous]

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/

Should have started with this.