Anonymous
08/31/2013 20:06
Subject: What are fireable offenses for government employees?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is not hard to fire a federal employee if the Agency wants to do it. Managers just then to be wussies when it comes to giving accurate performance evaluations.
+1
Although it is much more difficult than in the private sector, where generally you can just say "you're fired," and that's it.
No, not really. My brother works for a large IT company (you've heard of it) and there are these non-performing people, the porn people, the alcoholics, etc., and they let them stay on because they are afraid of law suits. It's just like the federal government. I was really surprised when he told me about that. In fact, in my fed office we're currently in the process of firing an alcoholic.
Anonymous
08/30/2013 12:14
Subject: Re:What are fireable offenses for government employees?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:PP, As to your third point, I'm not sure how you are disagreeing with what I said? I specifically wrote that it was a misconduct action with a charge of poor performance. How is what you are saying any different?
I've seen the same individual serve as proposing and deciding official. It actually isn't so dumb and I'm surprised more smaller agencies do not do it. You essentially eliminate Stone issues altogether.
As to the distinction between 45 and 31 days, maybe I am being "too literal." However I think it is mistake and a self-fulfilling prophesy when people talk about how long it takes to conduct a Chapter 75 action. Assuming there is no union involved, it absolutely can occur in a shorter timeframe. For NBU employees, I have completed three removals in under 40 days.
How can you possibly eliminate Stone issues? You are automatically creating them...you are handing them over to the appellant on a silver platter. Good grief.
I said "essentially." One of the main Stone issues is DOs who confer with POs and learn more information than is disclosed in the materials relied upon. If the DO is the PO, the potential for ex parte communications is greatly reduced. Can you elaborate on why you think there is an inherent and necessary Stone issue?
I'm not that PP but the issue is more than just DO-PO communication, it includes ex parte communication by the DO with anyone regarding facts not in the record (I realize that you probably know this, others here may not). In our office that was as big an issue as DO-PO communication, so having the same person do both is still definitely an issue. A single point of decision DO-PO can still have ex parte contacts.
In either case it's not an issue if you are very careful that whenever there's an ex parte contact, you document it, put it in the record, let the respondent know about it and give them an opportunity to respond, and add that to the record, too.
So you protect the record in any case and blunt any challenges re ex parte contacts. We did it this way and were never challenged on the basis of ex parte contacts.