Federal Employees

[philibusters]

In my military career then a decade as a defense contractor, there were more than a few that did next to nothing, other than showing up at the jobsite, but still got a paycheck. Ask 1 of the supervisors and they claim there isn't anything they can do to get rid of them nor make them productive.

As far as I know, federal gov't service is the only field where this happens. Any other sector and you are gone in a heartbeat.

They could get rid of them if they really were motivated to. However, the supervisors usually aren't as motivated as supervisors in the private sector because their job is less performance driven. But it would take a long time, like a year, but if the supervisor really wanted to document the employee was not performing at a satisfactory level they could do so. First they would have to give them multiple letters stating how to improve their work. Then the supervisor would have to draw up a performance improvement plan and takes steps to try to help the employee follow the plan. Then the supervisor would have to continue documenting everything and they could fire the employee. This would probably be a year long process. Usually the only time a supervisor is motivated enough to do this is when they have a personal grudge against the employee in addition to the employees poor work performance.

 

[DoWhat]

Good read.
https://federalnewsradio.com/commen...for-civil-service-reform-what-they-got-right/

 

[philibusters]

I am an attorney for the DOD. We are fairly busy in my office. You can slack some, but only so much, because your case is your case. Another attorney is not going to pick up your cases for you so if you do an unsatisfactory job you will get exposed. That is not to say we all put in the same effort and that some are not better than others--just that its not the type office where the slackers can simply pass the work they don't do to the hard workers.

 

[Monello]

And to be fair - government workers, whether state or local or federal often have to work under policies that make it hard to do their job efficiently.
You might complain about the MVA - but when you actually KNOW someone who works there, you hear stuff and think - damn, it's amazing ANYTHING gets done.

I used to complain about our timekeepers - we've long since not had "secretaries", since their function has been supplanted with automation and the paperwork has been shifted
back to the worker - but I didn't realize that while our old secretaries handled the paperwork for twenty people, the timekeepers must manage all the documentation for as many
as a hundred and fifty - and not just their work hours, but also the coding for their projects and hours for each task - pretty much everything.
So when someone says they have a "secretary" who gets paid 30k, I might say there's no way you would do what they do, for that small pay.

Ditto our guards. Yep, they're security guards, not widely known for great pay - but they are civilians who DO get shot at sometimes. Because it's happened.

I'm not going to endlessly defend federal employ - certainly a good case could be made for improving things - for example, raises and increased pay based on performance
and not longevity. They've tried them, by the way, in my workplace. Besides the fact that the union usually kills it on the spot, budgets have made it difficult.
In lieu of THAT, they used to have awards that were bonuses given just for excellence on the job - and they have all been quashed over the years due to budgetary
constraints. Ditto quality pay - it's just easier to grant everyone a 1.5% raise than devote resources to determine who gets more.

Here's an interesting factoid - during the three year pay freeze - which was followed by a *1*% increase in the fourth year - numerous analyses were made
to determine what the average worker's increase was, during those poor economic years - somewhere in the vicinity of 3% - a number which continues to be more or less consistent
that way ever since the freeze. I can't recall the last time federal workers got even that big a raise, and that's the national average.

Even with no pay raises, how many government workers leave voluntarily? Very few. That goes to show how good of a deal they have.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Even with no pay raises, how many government workers leave voluntarily? Very few. That goes to show how good of a deal they have.

I beg to differ, we cannot keep people because we get treated ####ty. The folks we do work for never plan and expect us to jump, change directions, work ridiculous amounts of OT without warning and then treat us ####ty when done with us. For every 10 engineers we hire only 2 or 3 are left within 5 years.

 

[Ken King]

They could get rid of them if they really were motivated to. However, the supervisors usually aren't as motivated as supervisors in the private sector because their job is less performance driven. But it would take a long time, like a year, but if the supervisor really wanted to document the employee was not performing at a satisfactory level they could do so. First they would have to give them multiple letters stating how to improve their work. Then the supervisor would have to draw up a performance improvement plan and takes steps to try to help the employee follow the plan. Then the supervisor would have to continue documenting everything and they could fire the employee. This would probably be a year long process. Usually the only time a supervisor is motivated enough to do this is when they have a personal grudge against the employee in addition to the employees poor work performance.

The key to what you have stated is the very first sentence. There are many supervisors/managers that aren't motivated enough to do their jobs and as that is clearly seen many employees aren't inclined to be stellar either. Lead by example and the followers emulate the behavior. As to the length of time it takes, wouldn't that be driven by whether the supervisor and HR choose chapter 43 or 75 process?

 

[SamSpade]

Even with no pay raises, how many government workers leave voluntarily? Very few. That goes to show how good of a deal they have.

I guess it depends on the office. Where I work, most people I knew twenty years ago are ten years gone.

And people stay not so much because it's a sweet deal - it's stable. I worked for a private contractor briefly here in St Mary's
which HAD a reputation for keeping people. Their modus operandi was for years - if you're not working out HERE, let's find
a fit for you doing something else. That ended right around the time I joined. I was laid off after two years, and five years
after that, absolutely no one I ever knew there was gone. New management, new way of doing things and I saw people
canned just because a manager didn't like them.

The difference for them and for the government is/was - we will keep you if we can. And private industry USED to be that way -
you could work for a company your entire life, and people DID. I also know people down here who have worked for
several companies over several years - getting a better deal here and there - because the environment does not lend
itself to loyalty.

It IS true that in some parts of the government - getting and keeping people is very hard.
They've implemented any number of policies to keep people from jumping ship - I remember back in the 90's and early 00's,
we had a hard time keeping people once they got certified in their area - the employees were young, they got training
their first year, got their certificate - and left. It wasn't everybody, but it was often enough.

I'd say - a wild guess - that 30-40% of our staff are now contractors who work on site. And they DO come and go quickly.

 

[SamSpade]

The key to what you have stated is the very first sentence. There are many supervisors/managers that aren't motivated enough to do their jobs and as that is clearly seen many employees aren't inclined to be stellar either. Lead by example and the followers emulate the behavior. As to the length of time it takes, wouldn't that be driven by whether the supervisor and HR choose chapter 43 or 75 process?

You know, I hear this argument and I have to think the world around DoD and defense contractors is very different from the rest of the government.
I've seen people do all they can to get rid of someone, and usually the biggest adversary is the union. Does that happen in DoD? Do you have to run into
charges of racism, EEO, diversity, stuff like that?

In one of the posts above, it was mentioned that incidents need to be properly documented. Yup. BUT I also know until you gather your evidence, you cannot
single out ONE employee for such documentation without doing the same for every other person under you. Which means, you really need to be determined.

 

[Ken King]

You know, I hear this argument and I have to think the world around DoD and defense contractors is very different from the rest of the government.
I've seen people do all they can to get rid of someone, and usually the biggest adversary is the union. Does that happen in DoD? Do you have to run into
charges of racism, EEO, diversity, stuff like that?

In one of the posts above, it was mentioned that incidents need to be properly documented. Yup. BUT I also know until you gather your evidence, you cannot
single out ONE employee for such documentation without doing the same for every other person under you. Which means, you really need to be determined.

Not sure I'm following what you are referring to. To be fair, many supervisors (in DOD based solely from my own experience) elevated from the lower ranks and were more subject matter experts than supervisors, they came from the group they worked with and now manage them. That transition from coworker/peer to boss seems an impediment to effective management. And I say many, and not all, because I did come into contact with some very effective supervisors.

As to the biggest adversary, as you put it, I never really saw the union bringing up those issues you mention unless justified, but more of them ensuring that the rules were being adhered to by those contemplating/taking action.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Not sure I'm following what you are referring to. To be fair, many supervisors (in DOD based solely from my own experience) elevated from the lower ranks and were more subject matter experts than supervisors, they came from the group they worked with and now manage them.

I work for the same department that you used to Ken, and I have to say the best supervisors came from outside but there is a real aversion to bringing someone in from outside. To be fair one of the slimiest supervisors I have met came in from outside our organization too.

 

[SamSpade]

As to the biggest adversary, as you put it, I never really saw the union bringing up those issues you mention unless justified, but more of them ensuring that the rules were being adhered to by those contemplating/taking action.

That was the first course of action sometimes, with some employees. Bring up prejudice and racism, and no one wants to fight it.
I even saw people bring up charges based on prejudice that I thought were completely ridiculous - but the union went to bat for them.

Out of all the things I defend government over, I totally agree that firing a bad employee is something I've seen over 30 years can be VERY hard to do.
And it does need to change. The only counter I have is, out of any 30 or 40 employees, there might be just one utterly useless person.
What most managers I've seen do is, get them to do something trivial and menial to get them marginally productive.

(Admittedly - one tactic I saw as being INCREDIBLY clever - they promoted her to management - and THEN brought a case against her.
The union cannot defend someone in management. She was canned.)

I started writing a post and realized - if I write this, I might as well write their name on the Internet - but I have seen people get fired.
Usually, once someone realized - we've just had enough. It's one thing to deal with a lazy employee but another thing to deal with an openly
sexist, bigoted, homophobic obnoxious manager.

More often than not - the person of concern is someone close to retirement. We had a guy like that back in the early 90's and figured -
six months to retirement, a year to two years of trying to get him fired over harassment. Yeah, let him retire.

 

[Monello]

I beg to differ, we cannot keep people because we get treated ####ty. The folks we do work for never plan and expect us to jump, change directions, work ridiculous amounts of OT without warning and then treat us ####ty when done with us. For every 10 engineers we hire only 2 or 3 are left within 5 years.

It's a different animal in the IT world.

 

[Clem72]

Even with no pay raises, how many government workers leave voluntarily? Very few. That goes to show how good of a deal they have.

Hard to justify jumping ship when your pension is tied to your employer. Maybe easier for TSP folk with little time invested. I know I had many offers over the years to switch to contractor for a decent bump in pay, but I always had to consider that either I was walking away from a large investment in my pension, or assuming I could easily get back into the government I would be losing 2% a year off the back end or extending out my retirement date. All three fairly unpalatable options.

 

[SamSpade]

It's a different animal in the IT world.

Really? That's the world I know. Or at least, did know. Back when A+ certification was a thing, we'd lose EVERYONE once they were certified.
Cisco certified - gone. On down the line it made no sense to train these guys. They were gone just like that.

Young guys were very hard to keep.

And as someone observed - retirement benefits were hard to dismiss - 1% per year served per * ave of best three = Not bad.
Who else actually offers you a real pension anymore?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Who else actually offers you a real pension anymore?

Coca-Cola, for one.

 

[Starman]

Coca-Cola, for one.

Mostly union shops and governments offer traditional pensions.

 

[black dog]

Really? That's the world I know. Or at least, did know. Back when A+ certification was a thing, we'd lose EVERYONE once they were certified.
Cisco certified - gone. On down the line it made no sense to train these guys. They were gone just like that.

Young guys were very hard to keep.

And as someone observed - retirement benefits were hard to dismiss - 1% per year served per * ave of best three = Not bad.
Who else actually offers you a real pension anymore?

Every Union Skilled Trade Job..

 

[SamSpade]

Every Union Skilled Trade Job..

Good to know - didn't know that. But it does sound like outside of government work and union jobs, pensions are kind of a lost thing.

 

[nutz]

Coca-Cola, for one.

I'd double check that one.

 

[nutz]

Every Union Skilled Trade Job..

With the elevator guys still holding damn close to number one? Funny though, a friend was a union mechanic for years then opened their own shop and complained that they couldn't "afford" to keep union guys. The owners did keep up their personal union dues though.