This isn’t exactly a great ratings move, but President Barack Obama doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected.
On April 23, 2015, a bill entitled the Veterans Affairs Accountability Act was introduced in both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate (H.R. 1994, S. 1082). This bill was just (July 29th) passed by the House, and it is now before the Senate (remember that each has to pass an identical version for it to make its way to our President for signature). As such, it now looks like it might be presented to President Obama very soon.
Unfortunately, however, in a press statement released by President Obama this week, it looks like the bill might stop with him…literally.
The President called the bill “counterproductive” and said it would create “a disparity in the treatment of one group of career civil servants.” President Obama’s statement also said the bill would “have a significant impact on VA’s ability to retain and recruit qualified professionals and may result in a loss of qualified and capable staff to other government agencies or the private sector.”
“These provisions remove important rights, protections, and incentives which are available to the vast majority of federal employees in other agencies across the government and are essential to ensure that federal employees are afforded due process,” the statement said.
The bill, which is a follow-up to the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act, would expand the VA’s ability to fire incompetent or corrupt employees, going beyond executives to also encompass lower level employees.
Not only that, but the bill would provide that an individual may be demoted for performance or conduct reasons, and therefore subject to a lesser grade of pay. That individual also may not be placed on paid administrative leave while they appeal the demotion.
In addition, the bill would extend the probationary period of new employees to 540 days (currently one year). Only after 540 days does that individual become a “covered” employee, which means it is therefore much more difficult for that individual to get fired (i.e., by extending the probationary period, it gives the VA a longer period of time to weed out incompetent employees).
As one might expect, the bill is supported by many veteran organizations, but opposed by government unions. According to govtrack.us, it also only has a projected 25% chance of passing in the Senate. (However, the same source says it has only a 15% chance of wriggling through the House, but it did get through with a vote of 256-170). So perhaps President Obama won’t get the chance to stamp “veto” across it anyway.
What do you think? Is the bill an extreme measure that risks infringement of VA employee due process rights? Or is it a necessary and permissible procedure to clean house? Please use the comments section below to weigh in.*
*For an extremely eye-opening weigh-in by a VA employee, see the comment I have posted below. I’ve had the pleasure of working with this individual professionally over the last several years, and I can say that she represents the exact type of caring, exemplary employee the VA should be fighting to keep within its ranks.
**Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for Sarah Schauerte’s weekly legal blog on veteran legal issues at: legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click the link to activate your subscription!
President Obama, needs to quit micromanaging everything. He is the worst we have ever had for that. Three branches of government, meant to work independently, with different powers. He should not try to craft the legislation, review his own handicraft, and then still have the veto power. He gets only one, the veto. The founding fathers knew about separation of powers, but Obama does not have a clue.
I agree that the VA has an internal problem, and needs to be held accountable for the damage done to vets and poor results. But I unddestand what the president is saying about treating VA employees dufferently than all other civilan federal employees. However, the VA problems are at the top leadership and decision making level, not the journeyman employee level. I also suspect that there are already adequate dusciplinary tools available but are never used above the GS 13 level. The class of employees GS 14 and above treat themselves and each other as exclusive and untouchable, regardless of how poor their performance or decision making. It is unbelievable how protective VA leadership is of each other, when they are the most obvious problem at the VA.
Seems like a grandstand play to get veterans’ support for people who know it has no chance of passing. Can’t separate civil employees into different classes, but might be good idea for all federal employees.
This comment was emailed to me by a VA employee who reads the blog. I’ve worked with this individual in the past, and she is outstanding and truly passionate about the VA’s mission. This information is well-taken and extremely relevant to forming an educated opinion. As such, I find it important to share it:
“During my 9 years in VA management, there were quite a few times when I wished it wasn’t such a damn production to fire bad employees. There were people who were definitely not helping anyone (veterans or coworkers), but managed to stay JUUUSSSSTTTT within the limits (in terms of conduct and performance standards), so there was nothing we could do. Some of them did eventually screw up badly enough that we could terminate them; others didn’t, and we’re still stuck with them. Some also finally got fed up and left
“On the flip side, I have personally seen managers who have unfairly targeted specific employees, just because they don’t like them, or they have a “gut feeling” (his actual words) that they can’t do the job. A lot of these employees weren’t our star employees, but they certainly weren’t among the worst ones. Because of the protections that federal employees currently have, they weren’t fired without cause, and many of them were able to improve their performance. One in particular took the “gut feeling” BS as a personal challenge, and she DID become my star employee. If this bill gets passed, employees who are targeted by their supervisors will be completely unprotected. And those who just need a little more time to get up to speed will never get the chance. Even if they win on appeal, the non-pay status during the due process period will force some people to find other employment, and we could lose them.
“Then there is the fact that this is ONLY for VA employees. There are minor differences among all the agencies, but all federal employees are supposed to have similar rights. This is a complete PR move – Congress just wants to look like they’re doing something for veterans, but really, they’re potentially causing MORE problems. Because of the thousands of VA regulations (set by Congress, I might add), our training process is lengthy; in getting rid of decent employees just because someone decides they might not be good, we’re setting ourselves back further and further.
“Ultimately, the biggest problems are in upper management, and in our hiring authorities. The majority of low-to-mid-level employees genuinely care about providing excellent service to veterans, and don’t deserve to become “throwaways.” I’m completely OK with senior management being more expendable, but not so for the general employees. There are too many variables here, not the least of which is that most people are now told exactly what to work, BY the senior management, and then blamed when it doesn’t produce the desired results.
“Making things worse, for the last 7-ish years, we have been hamstrung by the new hiring rules, especially in the big cities. We used to be able to hire under the “Outstanding Scholar” authority, meaning we could hire people with bachelor’s degrees who maintained a 3.5 or higher GPA. Most of the best employees today came from that hiring authority. Unfortunately, at some point, it was decided that agencies weren’t hiring enough veterans, so instead of just mandating a certain percentage (say, 50% of new hires must be veterans), the genius move was to do away with the Outstanding Scholar program. Basically now, we can only hire disabled veterans. This in itself is not bad, but in a big city with a huge job market, the better candidates will go for the higher paying jobs, and we’re left with those who couldn’t GET those jobs. If we could pick people from a variety of hiring authorities, we could get a MUCH better workforce, and actually improve our service again.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs reports up to the Executive Branch of the Government and the buck stops at the office of the President. What is the executive doing to resolve the issues of the Department that hamper performance in meeting the mission and objectives of the Department?
If the rules already exist, why can’t we start using them to drop the lemons?
This is a good discussion and one that needs to take place in the halls of congress. Federal employees are not treated the same as employees in the private sector, but one comment illustrated that it would be inappropriate to single out VA employees only for possible termination or a position downgrade when performance issues are raised.
the move to extend the possible early termination of an employee to 500 days is certainly a good start, but not the answer.
However, the feds could use the VA as an test case for how effective this strategy could be or not when evaluating when, where, and how to apply it government wide. If the strategy worked and VA wait times, record keeping, contract fairness all improved, then it would be a great example of government working for the people, and would deserve serious attention, public employees union or not.
During my 21 years of Federal Civil Service I witnessed numerous situations that literally begged for termination of an employee. Examples, I had an employee that refused to do any work unless the employee got a promotion. The position was correctly classified as a GS-3. I consulted my management who said (really) that if I took disciplinary action I was on my own, out on a limb. I did in fact write the employee a letter in accordance with OPM regulations outlining the behavior, the corrective action and that I would terminate the employee if the situation did not improve. I caught pure hell from the union, Human Resources and my management for issuing the letter. After legal review and the full support of government legal counsel the letter held up and the behavior improved. My point is why should I have had to go through all of that just because the people that should have been supporting me, distanced themselves from the issue?
One of my co-workers was caught stealing cash from an imprest fund over a one year period. i think the total amount was over $5,000. He was suspended without pay for six months, won an appeal and was reinstated with all back pay and leave time. Turns out a large minority rights organization intimidated management and he ended up with a minor reprimand. Another employee lied on her security clearance paperwork to get the job, got suspended and again management was intimidated into merely transferring her to an unclassified position. Last example; A long time employee sexually assaulted a 16 year old student aide. He was suspended and ended up winning an appeal with full reinstatement. All of these cases were valid and the behavior was not in doubt. Most Supervisors/Managers are afraid to take any adverse action for fear of damaging their career prospects. The answer is to encourage enforcement of existing regulations and support managers that are trying to correct unacceptable behavior.