Name:   Talullahhound - Subject:   Trump's best order Date:   5/26/2018 4:02:32 PM (updated 5/26/2018 4:28:55 PM)

As a former Fed manager, this is a double edged sword.  First of all, the union is not as powerful as you all seem to believe, at least as it pertains to white collar jobs.   I don't see them as a very effective means of protecting employee rights.  They are more effective in the blue collar jobs and low level employees, rather than the professional white collar jobs.  It is also more powerful in the "excepted service", i.e., intelligence and law enforcement services.  

Now, most federal managers will be glad for the ability to make it easier to remove poor performing employees.  But I doubt they will have the right to just fire them.  As it has been, it is a long process of documenting poor performance, then establishing a rating of poor performance and then developing seemingly endless plans to bfing the employee up to satisfactory performance - it is time consuming and that is why most managers don't even try to do it.  Additonally, it's like 80% of fired employees are reinstated on appeal.  And the manager is also liable to civil suite, which can drag on.  The government provides a lawyer for managers who have done everything in accordance with the regulations, but in the meantime, the employee can tie up your personal possessions for years, until the civil case is decided.  That's why most managers carry liability insurace.  Additionally, performance goals against which employees are rated, will have to be quantified and much more specific than in the past.  Since they are not making widgets, it can be very, very difficult to quantify and get specific about duties of white collar, policy developers.  Rumsfeld tried this in Defense, spent a great deal of money developing and getting it into place, only to have it fail miserably and be abandoned once he left.  

 Managers will applaud the shortened duration time for performance improvement, and I think it is a positive thing  to get the Personnel office involved quickly and put on official notice.  But with the devil in the details, it will be critical to the create the standards to which against which white collar employees are held. And as the article points out, it may result in fewer whistle blowers and sources to Congress.  I wonder what time period Trump is giving agencies to develop the new standards? The article doesn't say.  

But this is where I see a double edged sword.  If you are doing a good job, but the boss doesn't like you, you can be fired.  If you refuse to tow the party line, you can be fired, although one reason for civilians is to provide consistency and objective assessment on a proposed action.  Believe me, you do not want a work force of "yes" people, given the ideas of some political appointees.  

It may increase the personal libabiliy of managers and you'll see more civil suits.  

I'm not sure I understand the "preference to which long tenured employees are given".  I'm not aware of that at all.  If an employee is a poor performer, I am not aware of anything in current civil service laws that prevent them from being rated against their standards and found wanting.  You know, sometimes the biggest barrier against getting people fired has to do with the most senior managers  - agency directors and such.  They tend to not want to take the final step and start caving.  I don't see anything in the EO that will prevent that.  Human nature being what it is.  

Keep in mind that those in the Senior Executive Service and political appointees can already be fired with no appeal.  And it doesn't have to be for poor performance.  It can be for judgement errors and failure to support the Admnistrantions goals.  So they have already had the power to "drain the swamp" from that persepctive without this EO.  

Now as far as the time and money spent by union officials on union duties being capped - I'm all for that.  And they should extend it to EEO officers as well.  These are elected positions outside of their normally duties, and I have seen it abused.  In fact, in my experence, most of the people drawn to these positions are not people that you would want representing you in an action.  At least, I wouldn't.  

So while you are crying Yipee and think this is the solution to draining the swamp, it may also be a double edged sword that gets rid of good people too.  Nothing is all good or all bad.  

And keep in mind, that the EOs are only good for the term of underwhich they are issued.  It's not permanent.