Why’s that?..In the end he ended up getting his pension didn’t he? His firing was a political vindictive move on Trumps part.
Blessing and a curse.
of course it is. there will be political ramification if its abused. there should be. but the president should be able to do it.
If nothing else, the last 5 years have made it clear that the “political ramifications” check on Presidential abuse of authority is but a figment and a dream.
and yet i’ve seen no abuse of authority since the obamassiah decided he needed only his phone and his pen to create laws congress wouldn’t
1 Like
I disagree.
good for you.
I believe there should be due process, hence suspension with pay (moving an actual insubordinate employee to another job doesn’t fix anything) pending a probable cause review within 30 days. And if probable cause exists suspension without pay and initiation of the formal termination process.
No thanks. We made a law to stop that.
Then you run into the problem of the people that are doing the reviewing of the case being part of the system that wants them employee gone. They themselves could be let go for not doing the wishes of their superiors, and so on.
Well you could actually run it and much better but the bureaucrats certainly hate the idea of it.
1 Like
It’s like needing lawyers just to talk to lawyers because corporate lawyers wrote bills for corrupt lawyers in the legislatures who didn’t read them.
1 Like
No, I think you have to have them. Otherwise there’s no continuity or expertise.
You have to figure out a way to keep the hubris in check. Of course nobody has ever done that.
Well, that’s why I said the “lawful orders” of a President and not just following the orders of the President. Legislators get a say in what orders are lawful.
Ages ago I was talking to a newly hired federal employee. He told me that he would never obey an unlawful order unless he were specifically ordered to do so. Struck me as funny.
Even if they follow lawful orders they do not become our ‘representatives’.
They try to implement bills our representatives pass.
And the solution is to find the root cause and fix it, not destroy the system completely.
As I mentioned in the OP:
Now there ARE changes I would make, but they are aimed at making it easier to remove true deadweight from the Civil Service. The truly lazy and incompetent should be easier to fire.
Forbid union representation of any Career Civil Service worker. Career Civil Service have all the protections that unions are supposed to provide. They possess a solid grievance procedure that goes all the way to the Merit System Protection Board. Their pay and benefits are set by law. The only Civil Service workers who should be eligible for union representation are those without Merit System protection, such as TSA employees.
Streamline the disciplinary process so that problem employees can be identified and terminated within a matter of months, not several years as is often the case.
Establish at least a partial “up or out” system, so that a mediocre employee can’t simply ride to retirement over 20 years. I am not talking about a strict system, such as exists in the Foreign Service. But something that at least forces an employee to achieve at least a couple of promotions over 20 years in order to be carried to retirement. To use the example of the Armed Forces:
Air Force - you must reach E-5 to ride to 20 years
Army - E-6 for 20
Navy - E-6 for 20
Marines - E-6 for 20Those last three changes are designed to improve the Civil Service. Removing Civil Service protections entirely would destroy the Civil Service.
I fully agree that the discipline and termination system need to be reformed.
-
First of all, remove unions for any position that is careerist. Union protections essentially are redundant to career protections, making it unnecessarily difficult to terminate a poor or insubordinate employee.
-
Streamline the discipline process so that termination can be accomplished in weeks to months (including the appeal to the Merit System Protection Board).
-
Establish at least a partial up or out system to act as a slough to clean out the most mediocre.
I fully believe that my proposals are 100% compatible with due process. It should be easier to take out the trash, without destroying the fundamental nature of a merit based civil service.
I’m not sure I agree with the above.
I’m in Human Resources Information Systems and have had the same job for going on 22 years. When I took the job I knew there wouldn’t be any “upward advancement” and that was fine with me. It’s my second carrier, I did the politics and rat climb once in the military and didn’t need it again.
I’m a database coordinator and super user within the HR field and function as a force multiplier. The next “promotion” for me would “HR Manager” and I’d have to deal with people with all there problems. I had enough of that in my first carrier and hated being an Operations Chief with 180 sailors that worked for me as it seemed like I spent most of my time on personnel issues and evaluations.
Just because someone has a niche, does not mean they are “mediocre”.
WW
1 Like
the way the president tells them to.
Arbitrary government rather than governance by Constitutional means is the root cause here in America.
