Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
I used to cover federal agency management for a newspaper and once did a study where I found that from 1998 to 2003, eight Cabinet-level departments had not fired a single employee for poor performance. Now USA Today reports:
Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.
The federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 — 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce. Research shows that the private sector fires about 3% of workers annually for poor performance, says John Palguta, former research chief at the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles federal firing disputes.
Word to the wise: get a job in the federal government. One of the reasons the firing rates are so low is the power of federal employee unions. I've spoken to dozens upon dozens of managers who didn't want to lose years of their life defending an adverse employee action from a zealous federal union. So what would they do? Well, they'd promote the problem employee out of their department.
Also 2.1 million employees? And that doesn't count postal workers, the military or seasonal employees. Sheesh.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
The only certain things in life are death and paying taxes to keep federal employees employed, and so they don't have to make do with much less than their salary after they retire.
Jan '11
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
This aspect of federal employment - job security - was always seen by the working class as the compensatory benefit for the lower salaries and minimal advancement possibilities which also came with working for the government. You weren't going to get rich, but at least you weren't going to lose your job. To folks raised in the Depression-era, that meant a lot.
Of course that was when job security meant that the employer - the US Government - would not go out of business, not that a federal worker couldn't be fired for poor performance.
But once one salient is secured, others become targeted. With job existence concerns irrelevant, job security became paramount. With security established by contract, benefit battles were negotiated and health and retirement plans soon exceeded the private sector's. The rationale was that those benefits balanced for the lower pay - that job security had done that balancing was conveniently forgotten.
Finally, with better security and benefits now gained there was nothing else to do but insist that federal workers needed higher pay, either to attract and hold "the best people" or under the maxim of "equal pay for equal work."
The ratchet turns and grinds us.
Feb '11
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
— “Stolte is really underperforming, but unless I’m willing to face a serious lawsuit, it looks like I’m stuck with him for the rest of his life.”
— “Pity. How long does he have?”
— “You’re not … I wasn’t … Do you think we could?”
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
The price one pays for taking such a job is lifelong boredom.
Mar '11
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
Not necessarily. As in the private sector, there are exciting government jobs and boring ones. It depends on the agency, the occupation, and the commitment of the individual employee. If it's the job security you hold responsible for creating lifelong boredom, then what's to be said of the life of a tenured academic?
Jun '10
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
Mollie may have stumbled on at least one good reason for the Obamacare "death panels" [No nasty responses, this was a lame attempt at humor].
Jul '10
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
Wow, the number has gone up tremendously over the last 20 years. It used to be three digits rather than five.
Nov '10
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
"Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security..."
And it's not always the death of the employee. In this instance the chickens came home to roost at the cost of another's life. Lloyd was known throughout my agency as shockingly incompetent, but highly litigious. He was actually granted time during working hours to pursue his legal defenses against the feeble attempts to discipline him. What's disturbing is that he is not an anomaly, even in the gun-toting agencies, which should make every taxpayer's blood run cold.
Nov '10
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
In general you are right, but I forwarded your comment to my two friends who run federal fugitive task forces so they could have a good laugh.
Jan '11
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
The size of the federal workforce that Mollie gives - 2.1 million, not counting postal workers and the military - points out the fantasy nature of all this talk about federal budget cuts and about smaller government when it is measured in dollars.
Unless "deficit hawks" and "fiscal conservatives" have the cojones to announce how many people they will fire from the federal workforce (not attrit, discharge), and specifically how many agencies, bureaus and authorities they will permanently shut down, then you can be sure they are just trying to be nice and not mean.
And nobody can "out-nice" the Democrats. After all, the entire appeal the Democrat Party has for secular, educated, predominantly urban folks who make their livings with their verbal skills is that the Democrats have "A Nice Agenda for Nice People."
The Recession will end in the USA the day it begins in the Beltway.
Feb '11
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
Word to the wise: get a job in the federal government.
John Derbyshire is standing in the wings nodding sagely.
Jan '11
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
By the way Mollie, job security and an expanding federal workforce have some quantifiable economic benefits.
I saw a map of the US on a TV news show the other day showing the 4 areas where housing prices are going UP.
One was the Seattle area, which the host attributed to "Silicon Valley." Another was San Francisco. I forget what the third was. Sorry.
But the area that showed the greatest percentage increase in home prices of the 4 was the Washington DC area. And we know what they manufacture there:
Government. The dead weight around the necks of the citizens and taxpayers of this country.
I repeat: The Recession will end in the USA the day it begins in the Beltway.
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
True and -- as you point out -- sadly irrelevant these days. I don't know about the rest of the Ricochetoise, but I'd happily embrace a public employment system that is the inverse of the one described below. That is, higher pay (driven by performance incentives for discharging the work of the public in a timely and efficient fashion) tied to much more flexibility in firing and hiring decisions. By necessity, that would also mean a greatly reduced workforce.
Of course it's impossible under the current union strictures, but that would be something much closer to the government we deserve -- and it would put some meaning back into the phrase "public servant"
May '10
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
A warning...if this coming financial meltdown is bad enough...they will be marching to the modern day version of an employment guillotine. Voter dissatisfaction with the federal bureaucracy is high.
Mar '11
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
Of course, these were exactly the goals of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which created the current insane system. Like most reforms, it got derailed during implementation. The federal personnel system is now the plaything of arbitrators, unions, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the federal courts, all of whom have conspired to make it impossible to manage.
Troy Senik: True and -- as you point out -- sadly irrelevant these days. I don't know about the rest of the Ricochetoise, but I'd happily embrace a public employment system that is the inverse of the one described below. That is, higher pay (driven by performance incentives for discharging the work of the public in a timely and efficient fashion) tied to much more flexibility in firing and hiring decisions. By necessity, that would also mean a greatly reduced workforce.
Of course it's impossible under the current union strictures, but that would be something much closer to the government we deserve -- and it would put some meaning back into the phrase "public servant" · Jul 20 at 12:08pm
Dec '10
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
As a federal employee I suppose I should speak up. However, I am not one of those federal employees. I am not a GS anything. I am a wage grade (read blue collar) employee. I probably do make slightly more than someone doing a similar job in the real world. The difference (at least for the specific job I have) is that it does not occur in the real world. There are crane operators, truck drivers, and equipment operators out there, but none of them move the things I move, except Lockheed Martin contractors, and they make more, not less, than I do. The bloat is in the bureaucracy, not in the people who actually do things. Lumping all federal employees together is simply not accurate. Most of the federal work force could be let go without a noticeable effect on the running of the country. However, when the axe falls it will be on those like me who see the job as service to our fellow citizens rather than a gravy train.
Dec '10
Re: Death Only Way To Get Rid Of Poor-Performing Federal Employees
To set the record straight, we do not collectively bargain for our pay or benefits. All that is decided in congress, and congress has tied their pay and benefits to ours. Sadly, lobbying by the [expletive][expletive][expletive][expletive] unions is how pay and benefits are argued for.