The actual problem is the GAO and Government defining ‘poor performance’.

Quote: A minimum of 170 days is required to fire a federal employee for poor performance, if a government agency properly follows the required dismissal process.

The government firing process is so lengthy that departments often keep bad employees to avoid it, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

“The time and resource commitment needed to remove a poor performing permanent employee can be substantial,” the GAO said. “It can take six months to a year (and sometimes longer) to dismiss an employee.”

In order to fire a government worker federal managers can consult a 12-step flow chart, which the GAO provided in the report released Monday. The report examined the “long-standing personnel issue” of the government’s inability to fire bad employees.

Federal agencies have two procedural options when faced with firing a poor worker: chapters 43 and 75 of title 5 of the United States Code, and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) implementing regulations.

Chapter 43 takes between 170 to 370 days to complete, and includes “counseling sessions” for the worker. The employee also gets a chance to improve their performance, which can last up to 110 days.

Throughout the process the government agency must consult with the Human Resources department and their General Counsel before the worker is informed of their dismissal and their “grievance rights.”

After dismissal, the employee is then given the opportunity to appeal, which itself takes an average of 243 days to complete.

Alternatively, agencies can use chapter 75, which is “largely similar to chapter 43.” Chapter 75 is generally faster since it does not require time to allow the employee to improve, but the “burden of proof for sustaining a dismissal” is higher.

Agencies are able to avoid both processes by firing poor performers during their first year on the job, or by declining to dismiss a bad employee.[…]

The government fired just 3,489 employees for performance in 2013, representing 0.18 percent of all federal workers. Seventy percent of these dismissals occurred during the initial probationary period, 21 percent through chapter 75, and 8 percent through chapter 43.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-it-t...-employee/

What's wrong with that?

(03-10-2015 11:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's wrong with that?

It's essentially impossible to fire an incompetent government employee. And if they're female or a minority, forget about it.

(03-10-2015 11:21 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's wrong with that?

It's essentially impossible to fire an incompetent government employee. And if they're female or a minority, forget about it.

The GovMint has Lot's of Money........Mo Money !

(03-10-2015 11:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's wrong with that?

you're schitting us.....Right?

(03-10-2015 11:21 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's wrong with that?

It's essentially impossible to fire an incompetent government employee. And if they're female or a minority, forget about it.

You pretty much either want to be fired or commit a crime. This is why these jobs are so sought after.

(03-11-2015 05:44 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's wrong with that?

you're schitting us.....Right?

Considering its impossible to actually fire a teacher for incompetence or worse, 170 days seems reasonable to him.

(03-10-2015 11:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's wrong with that?

Do you ever offer anything of substance?

(03-11-2015 05:44 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's wrong with that?

you're schitting us.....Right?

No. 170 days is excessive but there does need to be due process.

A school district in Western New York has been trying to fire a teacher, who got caught having sex with a student, for almost 5 years. During that time, he has been on paid administrative leave and has received all the step increases that were in the contract.

On the flip side, a Co worker of mine almost got fired because a girl made up a story that he touched her inappropriately all because he told her she was ineligible to participate in a field trip. The investigation took several months and almost ruined him emotionally.

(03-11-2015 11:21 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  On the flip side, a Co worker of mine almost got fired because a girl made up a story that he touched her inappropriately all because he told her she was ineligible to participate in a field trip. The investigation took several months and almost ruined him emotionally.

Trust me, I want individuals protected from that kind of slander as well. But I think it teachers gave on the obviously bad apples with overwhelming evidence then they would see greater support for teachers facing unbiased accusations from students and parents.

It's no laughing matter. The guy never really recovered from it and left teaching.

(03-11-2015 01:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's no laughing matter. The guy never really recovered from it and left teaching.

The problem is that the teachers' unions/associations would have closed ranks behind him whether it was a made up story or they had him dead to rights. Be willing to get rid of the bad apples and you have far more credibility when a good apple is falsely accused.

(03-11-2015 10:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 05:44 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's wrong with that?

you're schitting us.....Right?

No. 170 days is excessive but there does need to be due process.

Why? If you can't pump gas the right way, bossman is gonna can you on the spot. Why are federal employees a protected class? Or ANY public employee for that matter?

Why? Because its the world's biggest social program.

Bud,

You're talking about two different things. Poor performance isn't a crime and you aren't guaranteed due process for it. Sexual misconduct IS and you ARE. TOuching a child isn't poor job performance.

I'll accept that there should be standards and a process for firing people that involves some sort of review... but 170 days as a MINIMUM is flat crazy.

I always wondered why government employees (whom I now deal with a lot in healthcare) were always very cognoscente of their probationary periods.... and I suspect it is because they can easily be fired during that time, and much more difficult to fire thereafter. These are friends of mine and I notice that their attitudes about the jobs change. During probation, they are on time, they do their job to their best ability no matter how long it takes, they do everything correctly... after that, they watch the clock... they adhere to their breaks religiously and they admit that they do 'just enough'.

It is easier for their bosses to get more money from the legislatures to hire more employees to do the job than to fire ineffective employees and replace them with efficient ones.

That is insane. Government inefficiency is legendary, but half a year to fire someone who can't do their job is asinine. It should take about 2 seconds to fire a poor performer, the amount of time it takes to get the words "your fired" out of your mouth.

trying to fire someone in California seems to take that long too in my experience.

There's a reason the phrase "good enough for government work" is a staple in my rotation of sayings

(03-11-2015 10:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 05:44 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's wrong with that?

you're schitting us.....Right?

No. 170 days is excessive but there does need to be due process.

No one is against that. I give my private sector employees due process. Even with the most leniency it never takes me more than a couple of months. In general...After I have built a case against them in their file?...They usually fire themselves. The most common dismissal is for excessive absenteeism and tardiness. It just cant be tolerated in industry where you are running a production line. There are "on the spot" dismissals for stealing, safety violations, workplace violence, sexual harassment, horseplay ect. All this is up front and understood at the time of employment.