Comment from Anonymous

I agree with the proposed amendments in its entirety. I am a 33-year Federal employee, having served in the Department of Defense (now War) and Department of Energy. I served as a first-line supervisor (GS-13) all the way to a Senior Executive (SES). I have dealt with a number of poor performing employees and administered discipline multiple times. The current system is stacked against the supervisor and manager and most will choose to ignore a poor performing employee rather than go through the extremely burdensome process. Human Resource (HR) personnel and Department attorneys also contribute to the burdensome process by attempting to eliminate any risk that the employee may file a grievance or take legal action. Union representatives also contribute to the burdensome process. All in all, a supervisor or manager choosing to take on a poor performing employee and/or disciplinary action, incurs considerable extra hours answering numerous questions from HR, attorneys, and the union, all while trying to deal with the poor performing employee as well as executing the mission. In my experience, dealing with a poor performing employee took at least half of my day for months on end. I have successfully removed employees for poor performance and disciplinary actions. I did not lose a single legal action. I appreciate that OPM has decided to support supervisors and managers in their efforts to deal with poor performing employees. I agree with retiring the Douglas Factors. The Douglas Factors have become a checklist, completed in a mechanical fashion rather a thoughtful assessment. Often HR and Department attorneys use it as a way to avoid disciplinary action. It has become a crutch to dismiss proposed discipline by HR and Federal attorneys. In one instance, one of my employees used the Government travel card while on travel for the purchase of gift cards at CVS, items from the Cracker Barrel gift shop, and nearly every meal was over $200. HR blamed me for not informing the employee that she could not buy gift cards, etc., while on travel and therefore, I could not discipline the employee. Fortunately, the travel office was involved and insisted disciplinary action be taken. This case should have been easy, rather HR used the race card and stated that African American women have it tougher in life and should be granted more leniency. In the end, the employee was disciplined and filed an EEO action. The Agency prevailed as it was determined that no discrimination took place. Section 412.202 I recommend training be expanded to include HR personnel and attorneys. In my experience, each proposed disciplinary action required review and approval by HR and attorneys. These individuals are usually the final say and often want to avoid disciplinary action to avoid any risk of the employee filing a grievance or filing legal action. Rather than assisting the supervisor and manager, HR and attorneys often work against the supervisor and manager to avoid any adverse actions by the employee. Without HR and attorneys on-board with the final rule, successful execution will be nearly impossible. Section 432.104 I agree with the revisions for addressing unacceptable performance. The "improvement period" is at times six months or more with HR granting the employee multiple extensions. No supervisor or manager wants to deal with an unacceptable performing employee for months or years. It has a significant effect on execution of the Department/Agency mission. I experienced a poor performing employee where I had to wait nearly a year before I could rate the employee "unacceptable" and then take another nine months for an improvement period with HR granting extension after extension to the employee. Finally, I was able to remove the employee after an extensive three-month review by the Agency attorneys. Nearly two years passed from the time I determined the employee's performance was unacceptable before I could actually remove the employee. In those two years, none of the employee's work was acceptable and the mission suffered. Section 431.105 I agree with the proposed revisions especially the use of Agency time for union representation. Taxpayers should not pay for an employee providing union representation. Some union representatives work full-time on union activities and will seek any situation to initiate union activity, most of which are unwarranted, just to avoid having to complete real mission work. Treat union representation the same as an external attorney representing the employee. External attorney fees are not paid by the Government unless part of a final decision in favor of the employee (and then sometimes only part of the external fees are paid by the Government). Treat union representation the same. Official time may only be granted in times that the employee prevails; otherwise, union representation takes place after hours or the employee is charged annual leave.