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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.