OPM issues Final Rule creating easy-to-fire civil servant category

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is bizarre that the myth that it is hard to fire people has become a truth. We fire people on my team who cannot perform. It isn’t hard. It does take the effort to document but it can and is done today by good supervisors.

Yes. I have seen multiple people fired in my agency. And also seen how hard it can be to fire people in private sector, for regular business/personality reasons that have nothing to do with job protections. I think most of DCUM has a pretty weak grasp of how people get actually fired for cause (vs laid off) in any job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bizarre that the myth that it is hard to fire people has become a truth. We fire people on my team who cannot perform. It isn’t hard. It does take the effort to document but it can and is done today by good supervisors.

Yes. I have seen multiple people fired in my agency. And also seen how hard it can be to fire people in private sector, for regular business/personality reasons that have nothing to do with job protections. I think most of DCUM has a pretty weak grasp of how people get actually fired for cause (vs laid off) in any job.

Overall, the percent of people being fired in the federal government was much lower than in the private sector. Of course there will be in variation in both by organization.

But this isn't going to change that because it's a fairly small group of people and the firings will be political, not performance related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bizarre that the myth that it is hard to fire people has become a truth. We fire people on my team who cannot perform. It isn’t hard. It does take the effort to document but it can and is done today by good supervisors.

Yes. I have seen multiple people fired in my agency. And also seen how hard it can be to fire people in private sector, for regular business/personality reasons that have nothing to do with job protections. I think most of DCUM has a pretty weak grasp of how people get actually fired for cause (vs laid off) in any job.

Overall, the percent of people being fired in the federal government was much lower than in the private sector. Of course there will be in variation in both by organization.

But this isn't going to change that because it's a fairly small group of people and the firings will be political, not performance related.

Much lower?

.5% vs 1.5%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bizarre that the myth that it is hard to fire people has become a truth. We fire people on my team who cannot perform. It isn’t hard. It does take the effort to document but it can and is done today by good supervisors.

Yes. I have seen multiple people fired in my agency. And also seen how hard it can be to fire people in private sector, for regular business/personality reasons that have nothing to do with job protections. I think most of DCUM has a pretty weak grasp of how people get actually fired for cause (vs laid off) in any job.

Overall, the percent of people being fired in the federal government was much lower than in the private sector. Of course there will be in variation in both by organization.

But this isn't going to change that because it's a fairly small group of people and the firings will be political, not performance related.

Much lower?

.5% vs 1.5%

A quarter of the rate of the private sector. If you want to argue that it's a third of the rate, that's still much lower.

https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/schedule-fs-uncomfortable-truth

[Anonymous]

As a fed manager, the only time I saw people fired was during probationary period. Other than that, once you were in at my agency, it was next to impossible to PIP someone out. HR's solution was always "can you find somewhere to transfer them to?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can a Dem administration reverse this?

Sure but when would that be?

[Anonymous]

As a fed manager it’s incredibly hard to fire someone. I have quantitative metrics in my performance evaluations and even still, it’s impossible to get a PIP through HR. HR and I had a solid case for firing a few years ago and it took 9 months to get the attorneys to sign off on it. 9 months of this person being paid, while not working.

Why didn’t doge help us with firing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a fed manager, the only time I saw people fired was during probationary period. Other than that, once you were in at my agency, it was next to impossible to PIP someone out. HR's solution was always "can you find somewhere to transfer them to?"

Yes, this happens in private sector too. It's almost never a case of "firing this person is against the rules." So changing the rules is not a solution.

People, HR included, avoid or bungle difficult conversations. That's behind the majority of the "it's hard to fire" stories - either directly, or because people didn't address performance and pay and job expectations before it got to the firing stage. It happens everywhere, it's not a legal issue, and it doesn't have a law-based solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the issue, it specifically says for poor or underperforming employees or misconduct. If that's not you, why are you worried?

The preamble goes on at some length about civil servants actively scheming against the President's priorities. I don't think that such people exist, and I don't believe that this Administration will ever acknowledge that such folks don't exist--they'll find spurious reasons to fire folks.

Look, I’m a Dem but these folks absolutely exist. I’m not going to argue about it so whatever you want to believe is fine.

And on what basis are you so sure “these folks” absolutely exist? Are you a fed working in a policy position? I am, and I have been for over a decade, and I have never seen a civil servant hold up any administration’s priorities unless they had a strong and apolitical argument that it was outright illegal and that they couldn’t move it forward.

There were a handful of documented instances in the first Trump administration. So of course now they have extrapolated from 4 or 5 instances to the entire civil service. They love to make anecdote equal data.

Additionally, this administration interprets arguments that something is illegal as taking a position against the President's priorities. They do not care about legality. They do not care about morality. They want to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, and anyone who pushes back is ripe for firing. Look at the gutting of the sciences and DOJ for examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a fed manager, the only time I saw people fired was during probationary period. Other than that, once you were in at my agency, it was next to impossible to PIP someone out. HR's solution was always "can you find somewhere to transfer them to?"

This varies by agency and given that MSPB in a normal year receives 5k appeals, at least 1/4 of which involve firing, people clearly do get fired. Not everyone appeals, of course, or appeals through MSPB.

My agency has no problem firing people, though many people resign in the face of a proposal letter so the actual firing rate is lower than it might have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I am eligible to retire and I get fired for whatever, I just retire right. I do not lose my pension?

You do not lose your pension if you get fired, regardless. Your pension is something both you and the government paid into, somewhat like Social Security.

You better read up on the claim that you get still get a Fed pension if you get fired REGARDLESS. That is not the right answer...

Actually it is at least for FERS, although if you are not retirement eligible at the time of firing, you would not receive it until you attain retirement age. Just like if you resigned. Of course if you didn't put in much time, it will be very small, but it is something. I have 15 years in - if I resigned or were fired tomorrow, then when I reach retirement age, I'd get less than half of what I would have gotten if I'd stayed until 30 years in.

There was some legislation a couple years ago that would have clawed back retirement benefits at certain agencies for certain financial misdeeds. I don't recall if it passed, and it was very limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a fed manager, the only time I saw people fired was during probationary period. Other than that, once you were in at my agency, it was next to impossible to PIP someone out. HR's solution was always "can you find somewhere to transfer them to?"

This varies by agency and given that MSPB in a normal year receives 5k appeals, at least 1/4 of which involve firing, people clearly do get fired. Not everyone appeals, of course, or appeals through MSPB.

My agency has no problem firing people, though many people resign in the face of a proposal letter so the actual firing rate is lower than it might have been.

20 years in, and I have seen the resignation or we will fire you more often than anything else. I worked in one small group (at our largest we were 12) for about 10 years and during that time we let go two probationary employees and had three where it was a leave or we will fire you situation. My current group is minuscule and we have never fired anyone because we only hire internally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is, this rule solves nothing. Managers are still going to be risk adverse about firing anyone. They’ll still be sued, accused of discrimination, etc etc (in their personal capacities too). The agency may eventually win, but only after a real pain in the butt for mgmt.

THIS. So imagine you’re a manager (or even agency head), and you have 2 choices with how to deal with an employee who isn’t “sufficiently enthusiastic toward the cause”:

Option A: fire him and point to Schedule F, and then deal with all the lawsuits, allegations of discrimination, etc.

Option B: just sideline him and let him sit in the office and be quiet. (sorta like what currently happens).

I’m going with option B. Why do I care? It’s not my money. I don’t get paid based on how much money I save. I don’t have a P&L. Path of least resistance.

This whole thing is just academic fodder for the increasingly irrelevant heritage faction.

This isn't for some low-level manager to use. This is for when the White House tells the agency head directly "fire this person," or "get rid of this office." Now it's easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I am eligible to retire and I get fired for whatever, I just retire right. I do not lose my pension?

Correct

But say you are 52 with 25 years and got RIFd, you would still get early retirement, to include healthcare as you would qualify for VSIP. But if they say you are being fired because they do not think you meet the administration priorities, then does that mean you are fired for cause and is that why it says not VSIP eligible? An I reading that right?

I thought that the VERA/VSIP discussion in the reg preamble related only to the proposal that folks whose jobs are being reclassified as "Policy/Career" [Schedule F] be given the option to VERA or be offered a VSIP. OPM declared no, they don't want to incentivize reclassified folks to leave.

(pp. 227-228, https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-02375.pdf)

This was the most disappointing bit in the whole thing. Wasn't eligible for VERA last year so was really hoping I'd get VERA through reclassification. I guess resigning is what I need to do now. Too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I am eligible to retire and I get fired for whatever, I just retire right. I do not lose my pension?

Correct

But say you are 52 with 25 years and got RIFd, you would still get early retirement, to include healthcare as you would qualify for VSIP. But if they say you are being fired because they do not think you meet the administration priorities, then does that mean you are fired for cause and is that why it says not VSIP eligible? An I reading that right?

I thought that the VERA/VSIP discussion in the reg preamble related only to the proposal that folks whose jobs are being reclassified as "Policy/Career" [Schedule F] be given the option to VERA or be offered a VSIP. OPM declared no, they don't want to incentivize reclassified folks to leave.

(pp. 227-228, https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-02375.pdf)

This was the most disappointing bit in the whole thing. Wasn't eligible for VERA last year so was really hoping I'd get VERA through reclassification. I guess resigning is what I need to do now. Too bad.

+1! Can't believe I missed VERA by 6 months!!! Why couldn't my parents have had me sooner??