Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Rethinking RIFs

DAILY BRIEFING

Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Rethinking RIFs.

Here are the responses we have received to the June 26 Ned on Feds column, "Rethinking RIFs "

I truly enjoyed the truthful explanation on what is really wrong with the current process to hire and fire ineffective employees. Individuals and unions alike need to wake up to the fact that protecting non-productive workers will not aid anyone in these times of reform. In the long run, privatization will be the only cost effective way to operate many agencies. Where will the unions be then?

-Name withheld

I resent your sentiment that the older workers with seniority are the worst workers. It is attitudes like this that force unions to resist "reform".

- Name withheld

One "merit" factor is already in place. The RIF formula incorporates the latest three year's performance evaluations. However, some agencies, like mine, have taken the easy way out and have gone to the "pass/fail" method of performance evaluations. This method completely eliminates the possibility of "merit" entering the RIF process. In my current agency RIF, everyone had been rated as "pass" therefore everyone received a "3" for each of the three rating periods considered. Since everyone got exactly the same rating, it became totally meaningless. What good would new legislation be if agencies refuse to use that which is already in place?

-Name withheld

One major flaw with giving management more discretion on who goes and stays in a RIF based on performance is the subjectivity factor. The more subjectivity involved in the RIF procedure, the more political it becomes as to who stays and who goes. In my organization there already appears to be favoritism given to younger and minority employees with regard to performance appraisals, promotions and awards. The existing RIF rules already consider performance as a factor in retention status. It is now possible to "weight" retention status for certain employees by rating the ones management wants to keep higher than ones they don't. Of course, this violates all kinds of EEO and veterans protections. However, that doesn't seem to stop management from skewing performance ratings to give favor to selected groups of employees. Changing the rules to allow more subjectivity would just streamline and legalize what is already being done.

I'm sure that many of the "older" and "less valuable" employees would be willing to work longer if they got a fair shake with regard to training, appraisals, promotions and awards. If the federal workplace was one where employees weren't waiting for the opportunity to get "bought out" due to the lack of appreciation for their experience and capabilities, it's possible that the aging workforce could contribute an additional 10 years. This most certainly would allow for a smoother transition for their replacement.

-Name withheld

The federal government's civil service system is badly in need of a "blood transfusion". It would be easy for even a casual observer to see that the current pool of civil service employees leave a lot to be desired. Laziness and inefficiency run rampant from organization to organization. Average salaries are increasing with each passing year, while production goes down. Accountability is virtually non-existent. Creativity and innovation are fought against vigorously, by staunch supporters of maintaining the status quo.

It is a rare occurrence to see any full-time permanent employee under 30 years of age. The system is overloaded with old, fat, and practically brain dead "has been" or "never were" type of folks. A bunch of corporate America rejects and working welfare recipients. Government works because we simply throw enough resources at things. It is like filling a one quart oil can with a 50 gallon drum of oil. We accomplish the objective, but waste 49 gallons and three quarts of oil in the process. No doubt about it, those who fight to maintain this current inefficient system, will fight long, hard, and continuously. If the same effort were put into improving the system, corporate America would look to government employees to show them the way. I suspect retirements will continue to be slow and resignations non-existent. No one will get off this "gravy train", unless the train starts going in a different direction. For the time being, everything is going just great. Just like the oil can analogy above, the government obviously is working. I guess in the minds of some, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

-John L.

Human Capital; Walker hasn't the slightest idea on what it means. If the GAO is given a waiver on conducting RIF's you can bet NEPOTISM will rule and that's a fact. Since when is a senior employee any less effective then a good young employee??? Please tell me!! No matter how you look at it your dealing with human beings here, people not capital.Your job skill and performance are one persons opinion and if that person doesn't like your looks or dress or your religion, etc., then you can be the best there is and your going out buddy. If the government doesn't want its older employees around then do the right thing retire them with a full pension. Be honest, this isn't about less effective employees, if one reads between the lines all this is about is those dam Vets and those who have put their time in.

-Mike Purcell
Fleet Industrial Supply Center
Bremerton, WA.

Dear Mr. Lynch:

As a female federal worker of 20+ years (and a military veteran entitled to veterans' preference in a RIF), I am really getting tired of being referred to as "human capital" as if I am some bolt or widget that doesn't think, can't learn and must automatically be replaced every X number of years. In addition I find the prevailing thought that agencies "would lose good young employees and retain senior, but less effective, employees" in a RIF insulting. "Management" has the means of addressing poor performers should they wish to actually do so.

What this train of thought really appears to be is age discrimination at its most blatant. Agencies appear to be trying to cut senior people right before they qualify for retirements. This has the added benefit of reducing salaries by having more junior people on the books. If agency heads really felt that "human capital" was a valuable asset, these agencies would be providing training to these senior experienced people in the additional skills the agencies now find are needed (usually this means computer skills).

BTW, while we are discussing "senior employees," have you looked in the mirror lately? Do you feel that you are less effective at your job (and thus less deserving of keeping your job) than 20 years ago?

-JK. Kozakiewicz
Manager, Internal Revenue Service

Ned derides the state of the world in which expenditures to improve federal employees' training and education might garner a larger portion of the relatively small part now allocated. Yet he neglects to include any private industry data. Could it be that major companies expend far more on a per capita basis? If facts aren't supportive, just ignore them.

A further instance is the fact that many federal employees do not readily vote with their feet and leave government service. True-for now. However change is imminent as CSRS employees age and FERS employees who have a mobile pension system become a greater proportion of the work force. Comparability of wages, benefit packages and training opportunities will be more critical to the continuation of essential government services in the FERS environment.

Finally, Ned is concerned by politicians caring for their constituents. Sorry but this condition is inherent in democratic forms of government. Placing a spotlight on such activities is the best method to curb excesses, but that activity will continue into future millennia.

-Mel Waldgeir
Chief, Human Resources

Hi Ned,

This is in response to your recent article on RIFs, and your addressing the issues at the GAO. First of all, I'm a retired GAO employee-took early out in 1997-and, to put it bluntly, I'm offended that any human being masquerading as an "expert" on Federal employement issues, such as yourself, would put such language into print. You have disgraced anyone who put in long, faithful years with GAO, and more importantly, you have disgraced yourself. As an example, I am not a veteran, but have the utmost respect for those who served our country admirably. You obviously do not, or you would be proactive, and supportive in print, of the rights of veterans in the Federal "RIF pecking order." Did I miss this in your column? Are you a veteran?

I guess, Ned, that I'm just old school enough to want to play by the rules that I was hired into, and which I tacitly agreed to when I was hired-those being that it is first in, last out with Uncle Sam. Early in my career, had the ax fallen, I would have walked with my head high, fully accepting the "rules of the game." For you to imply otherwise is a disgrace to every government worker who ever took the oath, perhaps in your case many oaths.

-James S. Moores