Federal Employee Issues

[SPN Lifer]

Note that term positions are not necessarily the same as temporary jobs.

This issue is inapplicable to term employees for whom FERS deductions and contributions are being made, such as all the SSA Decision Writer positions recently posted on the USAjobs.gov website.

aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/4776/ssa-hiring-announcements

[Deleted]

Under-Staffing Leads to Under-Performance, Report Says

The inspector general at the SSA has fingered understaffing as the primary reason behind under-performance of hearing offices in two regions, although various concerns about management also were cited.

The IG examined two regions with low rankings in terms of average processing times–Atlanta, which supports 37 hearing offices, and New York, which supports 16. It found that both “had below-average staffing levels, low morale, and issues with telework, claimant representatives, and the quality of the support staff’s work.”

“The top factor cited for increased processing time was insufficient support staff, with 64 of 96 hearing office interviewees identifying it as a negative factor. They stated insufficient support staff led to increased workloads, increased pressure on existing support staff, lower quality of work and neglect of some duties, low morale, and high staff turnover,” the report said.

In addition, in the Atlanta region, “an insufficient number of decision writers and information technology problems were negative factors,” while those in the New York region blamed “micromanagement, excessive time and oversight devoted to minor issues, goals not agreeing with real capabilities, negative messaging/tone, and frequent changes implemented with little notice or input.”

“The New York regional office generally agreed with our findings but explained that a few offices require closer regional level oversight for a variety of reasons, including inexperienced or under-performing managers, failure to follow established policy and procedures, and employee conduct or performance matters. Some interviewees in the Atlanta region cited similar issues with their regional office, though the feedback was more mixed,” the IG said.

The IG said it did not make recommendations because the SSA is still addressing issues including staffing and telework raised in prior reports.

www.fedweek.com/federal-managers-daily-report/under-staffing-leads-to-under-performance-report-says/

Edit to add: This would explain all of the Attorney Advisor hiring (estimated at 400 positions) in Region 4 recently, but it still does not fully explain why the announcements were only for a term and not permanent.

oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/full/pdf/A-12-18-50285.pdf 

[ike82]

This is the May 2018 IG report regarding Atlanta and New York: oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/full/pdf/A-12-18-50285.pdf

[lurkerbelow]

Nevermind, the report above explained it.

[arkstfan]

There are also proposals pending in Congress to legalize marijuana. There are proposals to increase pay.

When things start getting reported out of committee that's when you get nervous.

You do this long enough these "proposals" tend to be background noise.

About 6-8 years ago came home and got the mail and had a nice franked mailer from my US Representative explaining he was going to balance the budget by making Federal employee pay line up with private sector pay (not especially disturbing when you hold a position requiring a minimum of 7 years experience as a lawyer) and would cut the retirement pay while increasing my contribution.

Few years later that particular politician fled the field because he was going to get a primary challenge and probably lose despite his popular ideas on Federal pay.

Few years after that proposal much was made of a crackdown to make it harder to obtain disability. Haven't seen that one make it to law either, even with AALJ cooperating to pitch changes that would have been consistent with that idea.

It takes a lot of effort to get a filed bill reported out of committee and to the floor, then to the other chamber, get out of committee and to the floor and more often than not reconciled.

These get tough on the gubmint worker deals tend to not deliver enough bang for the buck to get pushed along. It's not an impossibility, but it tend to not be highly probable.

[Deleted]

House Panel Approves Measure to Slash Some Pentagon Offices, Make Workforce Reforms

“Civilian employees also dodged a potentially significant hit to their compensation. The Trump administration this week put forward a legislative proposal to slash the retirement benefits of federal workers by $143.5 billion over 10 years. According to multiple individuals familiar with committee activity, the administration pushed to have those proposals included as an amendment to the NDAA. Democrats and some Republicans opposed the changes, and such an amendment was never considered.  

The Defense bill, which the committee approved with bipartisan support, would authorize $639.1 billion in funding for the department. The bill will now go to the House floor for a vote before moving to the Senate.”

www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2018/05/house-panel-approves-measure-slash-some-pentagon-offices-make-workforce-reforms/148099/

[magisterludi]

May 8, 2018 17:29:56 GMT -5 ike82 said:

This is the May 2018 IG report regarding Atlanta and New York: oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/full/pdf/A-12-18-50285.pdf

This report may highlight the SSA position on Telework in the contract negotiations - scary, almost Count Floyd scary

The ALJs who talked about being less productive when staff Telework and when a computer person is unavailable may not have been thinking this will be used to limit everyone's work schedule flexibility - including ALJs - the SSA mantra at the table sounds like uniform policies for everyone.  This could get ugly - in the name of reducing the backlogs

[phoenixrisingALJ]

IMHO - we will see some type of hit to retirement benefits - I am not sure what the hit will be - but am hopeful that they will limit the impact on current employees as often when they make changes to benefits the prevailing thought is usually that it is not fair to make the current employees pay for these changes as that would basically alter their employment terms that existed when they joined federal service.

Regardless of changes - the benefits still are better that what most get in the private sector.

[Pixie]

May 10, 2018 21:59:18 GMT -5 phoenixrisingALJ said:

IMHO - we will see some type of hit to retirement benefits - I am not sure what the hit will be - but am hopeful that they will limit the impact on current employees as often when they make changes to benefits the prevailing thought is usually that it is not fair to make the current employees pay for these changes as that would basically alter their employment terms that existed when they joined federal service.

Regardless of changes - the benefits still are better that what most get in the private sector.

We really don't need another hit to retirement benefits. Even after a full 30 years, a FERS employee only receives 1/3 of her yearly salary (average of high 3) from the government. I just don't see how that is an amount that ought to be reduced. Feds took a big hit in, I think, 1987 when FERS went into effect. After that, the burden was placed on the employee to make up any shortfall in FERS through the social security program and through the 401(k) plan. While SS is mandatory, the 401(k) is not, and many employees don't participate to the maximum extent allowed. If they do participate many go with the government securities fund (G Fund) which means they might not even keep up with inflation over their years of participation. Won't lose any of the principal, but they sure won't have any growth either.

And for those feds who don't stay the full 30 years, their retirement benefits are even less. For instance, an employee who doesn't come aboard until age 40 and retires after 20 years, only receives 20% of her high three in retirement benefits. If she stayed an additional 2 years until age 62, the percentage would increase to 24%. Still not much.

So, while feds do have a defined benefit retirement program, it is a paltry one. Just my opinion, YMMV. Pixie

[redryder]

Pixie: Before you bemoan the FERS percentages, think about what you would have to save in the private sector to afford you that same income stream. I have been a faithful contributor to my 401(k) with a mix of stocks and T bills. And it has grown substantially. However, it would not give me what I will receive from FERS. With my high 3, I am looking at a FERS pension around $55K. To realize that requires one million or more put into assets that produce income like dividend paying stocks, bonds and T bills. And you could never touch that corpus is you want to maintain that income stream.

Now I get the FERS plus the income from my 401K. I actually have the potential to have more income than I do now.

[Pixie]

I was looking at it in terms of an older person coming to fed service, such as an ALJ, in her late 40s/early 50s, put in 20 years and retire in late 60s/early 70s. Her gov. retirement would only be $38,500, based on today's numbers. That ain't much. Fortunately, over the years I have followed my own advice and have invested in growth funds. They have done what growth funds do . . . they grew. So my paltry retirement income, about $38, 500 in today's dollars will be dwarfed by what I will receive from my 401(k) income when I am required to take the RMD at about age 70 1/2 (that sure sounds old!). I had contributed heavily to another 401(k) before my federal service began; many coming in from the outside as ALJs did not.

Obviously someone with 30 years service will fare better, but the burden is still on the worker to invest in the 401(k). If she does so, and makes the right choices, she will have a good retirement. If not, it is just a so so retirement (based on 20 years of service). Pixie

[phoenixrisingALJ]

Pixie 

I agree with everything you said - however, I feel like feds need to realize something will be adjusted regardless of how fair or unfair the change will be. Anyone with commonsense knows that the federal budget will not be balanced on the back of federal employees - but we are always the scapegoats and the first thing that folks in power seek to attack.

[lurkerbelow]

May 11, 2018 13:37:07 GMT -5 phoenixrisingALJ said:

Pixie 

I agree with everything you said - however, I feel like feds need to realize something will be adjusted regardless of how fair or unfair the change will be. Anyone with commonsense knows that the federal budget will not be balanced on the back of federal employees - but we are always the scapegoats and the first thing that folks in power seek to attack.

Then they can be the ones to shoulder the consequences of their choices. At the end of the day, most people want the city to take out the garbage and operate the sewer. Failure in these areas is....problematic for politics. It’ll be fixed. One way or the other.

[Deleted]

May 11, 2018 13:30:52 GMT -5 Pixie said:

I was looking at it in terms of an older person coming to fed service, such as an ALJ, in her late 40s/early 50s, put in 20 years and retire in late 60s/early 70s. Her gov. retirement would only be $38,500, based on today's numbers. That ain't much. Fortunately, over the years I have followed my own advice and have invested in growth funds. They have done what growth funds do . . . they grew. So my paltry retirement income, about $38, 500 in today's dollars will be dwarfed by what I will receive from my 401(k) income when I am required to take the RMD at about age 70 1/2 (that sure sounds old!). I had contributed heavily to another 401(k) before my federal service began; many coming in from the outside as ALJs did not.

Obviously someone with 30 years service will fare better, but the burden is still on the worker to invest in the 401(k). If she does so, and makes the right choices, she will have a good retirement. If not, it is just a so so retirement (based on 20 years of service). Pixie

“A FERS employee with 20 or more years service can retire any time after his 60th birthday. Let’s say he retires at 61, with 21 years service. Twenty one years would provide 1.0% of his high-three for each year, or using a high-three of $80,000, an annuity of $16,800 annually, $1,400 monthly.  He also qualifies for the annuity supplement, based on a hypothetical, age-reduced Social Security benefit. With a high-three of $80,000 and FERS years of 21, his career FERS earnings (deemed and earned), indexed for inflation, would be on the order of $2.7 million. This would generate a supplement of approximately $935 per month, for the months till he becomes 62.

So, to ensure an annuity supplement of about $935, he would need to retire before his 62nd birthday. For a full year at this $935 rate, ending at age 62, he would get $11,220, in addition to his annuity. Sounds good. However…

If the employee waits to retire until age 62, he will not receive the supplement, but his annuity will be calculated 10% higher; that is, he will get 1.1% of high-three for each full year of service, instead of 1.0%.

How much will the gain of the higher annuity at 62 offset the loss of the annuity supplement at 61?

Twenty two years at 1.1 percent provides 24.2% rather than the 21.0% for age 61 retirement with 21 years. Applying this to the $80,000 high-three yields an annuity of $19,360 yearly, or $1,613 monthly, in lieu of the $1,400 annuity he would get for age 61 retirement. (Annual difference = 213 * 12, or $2,556.)

If he lives 19 more years, retiring at 62 will generate (19 * 19,360), or $367,840, while 19 years at the lower annuity will be (19 * 16,800), or $319,200.  This is a gross difference of (367,840 – 319,200), or $48,640. Subtract the $11,220 sacrificed supplement and the net gain from waiting to retire at 62 is still on the order of $37,420

Long term, for a 61-year-old, the net gain from waiting to retire at age 62 will more than offset the short term, one year “loss” of the annuity supplement.  Older FERS employees might want to take a close look at this before making a decision.“

www.fedsmith.com/2018/05/14/retire-age-61/

[Deleted]

When EEO Isn’t About Discrimination

www.fedsmith.com/2018/06/13/eeo-isnt-discrimination/

[Deleted]

U.S. Plans ‘Continuous Evaluation’ of New and Existing Security Clearances

When the Pentagon starts handling all federal security clearances this fall, it will usher in a brand-new approach to figuring out who can be trusted with dangerous secrets.

Whereas the Office of Personnel Management performed an initial background check on individuals who requested clearances, then reviewed its findings every five or ten years, the Defense Department will move toward a more automated “continuous evaluation,” after the initial check, beginning in October, a DoD official told reporters Thursday.

After an applicant passes their initial screening, they’ll be incorporated into a system in which software continuously scours open-source information — court proceedings, financial data, and more — looking for signs that the person might be turning into a security risk.

The Defense Department and the intelligence community are shifting to what is called continuous evaluation, using software that continuously scans arrest records, court filings, major purchase records, etc. If something consequential turns up, the software tips off an adjudicator — basically a human in charge of figuring out what to do next. The adjudicator can then send an email, make a phone call, conduct an in-person visit, or take some other step, depending on what the evaluation turned up.

But there’s also a question of what sort of data should make its way into the new automated evaluation system. It may include information related to what a subject does on a government computer network. Large file uploads and downloads at odd times are often a sign of anomalous behavior, which could be a threat indicator.

m.govexec.com/defense/2018/07/us-plans-continuous-evaluation-new-and-existing-security-clearances/149702/?oref=m-ge-river

www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/nittf/NITTF_InsiderThreatGuide2017_022818.pdf

[JudgeKnot]

Continuous monitoring makes a lot of sense, especially when data is so easy to access. Let's hope it doesn't lead to a "social credit score" like they have in China.

China is rolling out a high-tech plan to give all of its 1.4 billion citizens a personal score, based on how they behave.

When Liu Hu recently tried to book a flight, he was told he was banned from flying because he was on the list of untrustworthy people. Liu is a journalist who was ordered by a court to apologize for a series of tweets he wrote and was then told his apology was insincere.

“I can’t buy property. My child can’t go to a private school,” he said. “You feel you’re being controlled by the list all the time.”

And the list is now getting longer as every Chinese citizen is being assigned a social credit score — a fluctuating rating based on a range of behaviors. It’s believed that community service and buying Chinese-made products can raise your score. Fraud, tax evasion and smoking in non-smoking areas can drop it.

newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/04/24/china-assigns-every-citizen-a-social-credit-score-to-identify-who-is-and-isnt-trustworthy/

[Deleted]

Panel Backs Faster Discipline, Weaker Appeal Rights for Federal Employees

Among other provisions, HR-559 would shorten the notice, response, final agency decision and appeal timeframes, allow performance-based discipline without a performance improvement period, exclude from negotiated grievance-arbitration procedures cases involving discipline or RIFs, and allow an agency to claw back a bonus already paid after learning later of performance or misconduct problems during the time the bonus covers.

Also, at MSPB an agency would have to show only that “substantial” evidence supports its decision in either conduct or performance cases; currently in performance cases management must show that the higher “preponderance” of the evidence supports it. MSPB would have only 30 days to issue a decision or else the agency would prevail by default.

It also would require that probationary periods for all competitive service positions last two years, rather than one, and not start until after the newly hired employee has completed any required training.

A second bill, HR-6391, would require that the MSPB charge a fee when employees file an appeal and also would allow so-called “summary judgment” decisions without a full hearing.

www.fedweek.com/fedweek/panel-backs-faster-discipline-weaker-appeal-rights-for-federal-employees/

[orchid]

Jul 18, 2018 20:30:24 GMT -5 @usij said:

Panel Backs Faster Discipline, Weaker Appeal Rights for Federal Employees

Among other provisions, HR-559 would shorten the notice, response, final agency decision and appeal timeframes, allow performance-based discipline without a performance improvement period, exclude from negotiated grievance-arbitration procedures cases involving discipline or RIFs, and allow an agency to claw back a bonus already paid after learning later of performance or misconduct problems during the time the bonus covers.

Also, at MSPB an agency would have to show only that “substantial” evidence supports its decision in either conduct or performance cases; currently in performance cases management must show that the higher “preponderance” of the evidence supports it. MSPB would have only 30 days to issue a decision or else the agency would prevail by default.

It also would require that probationary periods for all competitive service positions last two years, rather than one, and not start until after the newly hired employee has completed any required training.

A second bill, HR-6391, would require that the MSPB charge a fee when employees file an appeal and also would allow so-called “summary judgment” decisions without a full hearing.

www.fedweek.com/fedweek/panel-backs-faster-discipline-weaker-appeal-rights-for-federal-employees/

Here are the 2 bills:
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/559/text
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6391/text

[Pixie]

Jul 18, 2018 21:46:01 GMT -5 orchid said:

Jul 18, 2018 20:30:24 GMT -5 @usij said:

Panel Backs Faster Discipline, Weaker Appeal Rights for Federal Employees

Among other provisions, HR-559 would shorten the notice, response, final agency decision and appeal timeframes, allow performance-based discipline without a performance improvement period, exclude from negotiated grievance-arbitration procedures cases involving discipline or RIFs, and allow an agency to claw back a bonus already paid after learning later of performance or misconduct problems during the time the bonus covers.

Also, at MSPB an agency would have to show only that “substantial” evidence supports its decision in either conduct or performance cases; currently in performance cases management must show that the higher “preponderance” of the evidence supports it. MSPB would have only 30 days to issue a decision or else the agency would prevail by default.

It also would require that probationary periods for all competitive service positions last two years, rather than one, and not start until after the newly hired employee has completed any required training.

A second bill, HR-6391, would require that the MSPB charge a fee when employees file an appeal and also would allow so-called “summary judgment” decisions without a full hearing.

www.fedweek.com/fedweek/panel-backs-faster-discipline-weaker-appeal-rights-for-federal-employees/

Here are the 2 bills:
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/559/text
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6391/text

It will be interesting to see how this progresses. Maybe @usij or orchid would be willing to follow this and occasionally report back on the progress, or lack thereof? Pixie