Does the government fire enough people? Does it deal effectively with poor performers? Is the disciplinary and adverse action process effective?
At the risk of offending a few folks, I have to say the answer to all three questions is probably no. The government does not fire a large percentage of its employees in a typical year. The data is available in OPM’s excellent Fedscope tool. In Fiscal 2016, the number fired was 10,519. At the end of fiscal 2016 the government had 2,097,038 employees, so roughly 1 in 200 or 0.5% of employees were fired. If we look only at permanent employees, 9,579 of 1,951,334 employees were fired (1 in 204 or 0.49%). The VA fired 2,575 employees (1 in 145 or 0.69 percent) in FY2016.
Direct comparisons to the private sector are not easy, but if we compare the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) “layoff and discharge” rate we see that the private sector lays off or fires about 1.2 – 1.3 percent of employees. Government rates (adding in the small number of RIFs as well) are much lower than that of the private sector. However, the private sector numbers are lumping layoffs and discharges together, most likely because the line between those is often blurred. Companies often characterize removals as layoffs, while the government does not.
It is important to note that firing people is not the only measure of how agencies and companies deal with poor performance and misconduct. For more, click here.
Do you agree with Jeff Neal’s core principles for a governmentwide disciplinary/adverse action process? Why or why not? What would you add or subtract from the process?
I agree with the authors core principals for a governmentwide disciplinary/adverse action process.
As we often hear as Federal employees, “it takes an act of God to have someone removed”. I agree that MSPB or arbitrators should mitigate penalties. If an agency decides on a penalty and shows a preponderance of proof, then it should be upheld when a determination is made on the case.
By allowing the other staff in the unit to pick up the slack for the employee that is not performing, you are creating a whole new set of disgruntled employees and consequently run the risk of your good employees looking to leave your agency. Morale really takes a dive when the employee that is not performing is promoted or moved to a different area. It makes the other employees feel less valued and like their contribution to the unit doesn’t matter.
I agree that the typical 40 hour supervisory training is inadequate and would add additional training for new managers, and refreshers for current managers. Classes specifically designed to teach how to deal with problem employees as well as how to have uncomfortable discussions.