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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought they didn’t need cause to let probationary employees go and that was the point? I’m realizing I’m pretty ill informed though!

You do need to document cause (performance and/or conduct) with probationary employees, but the threshold for firing them is lower. They also have limited appeal rights.

Far lower, I've seen probationary employees walked out the door the day before their probationary period ends. But mass firing probationary employees is pretty clearly not about performance or conduct so they can appeal it. This is also why probationary employees are included in RIFs but are listed as the first to be let go unless term employees are first, I can't remember.

Anonymous wrote:It sounds good in theory but I don't know anybody who has been rated less than fully successful. Even the guy at my last office (fully in person) who openly read online sports websites daily got that.

Yeah - unfortunately your hall file doesn't count towards this.

It sounds good in theory but I don't know anybody who has been rated less than fully successful. Even the guy at my last office (fully in person) who openly read online sports websites daily got that.

this is very common in the private sector. in fact, my company is compiling a list right now, I believe, for layoffs.

You have to be really bad at your job to be rated less than fully successful. I'm a fed and 100% behind this.

This should be the way it is. Low performers need to go right away instead of high performers or people randomly getting selected for RIF.

Anonymous wrote:I thought they didn’t need cause to let probationary employees go and that was the point? I’m realizing I’m pretty ill informed though!

You do need to document cause (performance and/or conduct) with probationary employees, but the threshold for firing them is lower. They also have limited appeal rights.

I thought they didn’t need cause to let probationary employees go and that was the point? I’m realizing I’m pretty ill informed though!

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 didn’t get many fork deal takers so they’re casting a wider net

PP - that is where the 1% is from (quoted wrong post)

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.

Project 2025

Don't employees typically get put on a PIP if they are less than successful? I imagine this list will just be people currently on a PIP or those who successfully completed their PIP and are now fully successful.

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.

I believe I read somewhere that less than 1% of the workforce gets a rating of less than fully successful.