Staff at the FCC Hazelton correctional facility oppose the proposed rule, arguing that it reduces procedural protections and job security for correctional officers. They contend that the rule would lead to arbitrary discipline, worsen recruitment and retention issues, and compromise safety within the facility.

Staff at FCC Hazelton oppose the proposed representative-restriction language in 5 CFR Part 432, § 432.105(d)(3). They argue that the rule would limit employees' ability to choose advocates who understand the unique operational pressures and risks of a correctional environment, potentially harming morale and safety.

The commenter, a federal employee in labor and employee relations, supports the proposed rule to reform the Douglas factors. They argue that the current factors make it too difficult to remove detrimental employees and advocate for a system that better promotes the efficiency of the federal service.

The commenter, a prospective federal employee with a disability, opposes the proposed rule because it may force employees to undergo improvement periods without resolved accommodations or independent reviews. They argue for specific safeguards, including a 90-day opportunity period and independent review, to protect disabled and probationary employees from erroneous separation.

The commenter suggests that the proposed rules should be expanded to include supervisors and managers, who are often responsible for fraud, waste, and abuse. They also express concern regarding the potential impact on whistleblowers and the need to address retaliation.

A Bureau of Prisons employee opposes the proposed changes, arguing that eliminating the Douglas factors removes necessary safeguards for consistent discipline. The commenter also expresses concern that the 30-day limit on Performance Improvement Plans is unrealistic and that the "voluntary abandonment" standard is concerning.

The commenter opposes the proposed actions, arguing that the provisions regarding PIPs, settlements, and voluntary abandonment are arbitrary and could lead to discrimination. They advocate for a transparent, fair process for civil servants that includes union representation and adequate response time.

The commenter opposes the proposed framework that emphasizes removal following a 30-day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), arguing it limits agency flexibility. They recommend that the final rule allow agencies to consider alternative corrective actions, such as retraining or reassignment, to promote retention and efficiency.