Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 4182

Should Probationary Periods for Certain Federal Employees be Two Years Instead of One?

Argument in favor

Federal employees need to be qualified for the roles they were hired to fill. By making their probationary periods two years instead of one would help ensure that unqualified employees can be removed as quickly as possible.

Always-a-voter's Opinion
···
11/30/2017
Government employees should be treated fairly in all areas. But the government moves slowly, and taking longer to evaluate someone's competence makes sense here.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
SneakyPete's Opinion
···
11/30/2017
Passage of a bill to double the length of probationary periods for federal employees in the competitive and senior executive service to two years is a move in the right direction. It would provide a deeper evaluation of an individuals performance through multiple work cycles.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
Bill's Opinion
···
12/01/2017
As a retired federal employee, I am for extended probationary periods.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill would double the probationary period for all federal employees in the competitive or senior executive service, in which they’re essentially at-will employees, with no evidence there’s a need for it to be extended.

Peter's Opinion
···
11/30/2017
One year is plenty of time to assess an employee. Most companies don't even have 1 year to decide
Like (20)
Follow
Share
Mike's Opinion
···
11/30/2017
220 working days isn’t long enough to evaluate someone? In what world? Man it would be nice to have one decent advocate for workers. Agree to disagree again, Congressman.
Like (20)
Follow
Share
Mochsma's Opinion
···
11/30/2017
One year should be plenty to determine whether a person is capable of doing the job.
Like (8)
Follow
Share

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
  • The house Passed November 30th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 212 Yea / 204 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Oversight and Reform
    IntroducedOctober 31st, 2017
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 19 - 17.
  • action
    Reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 115-415.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 307.
  • action
    Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Oversight and Government, H. Rept. 115-415, Part II.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 635 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4182 and H.R. 1699. Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4182 under a structured rule, with one hour of general debate, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 1699 under a closed rule, with one hour of general debate, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 635.
  • action
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4182 and H.R. 1699. Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4182 under a structured rule, with one hour of general debate, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 1699 under a closed rule, with one hour of general debate, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  • action
    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 635 and Rule XVIII.
  • action
    The Speaker designated the Honorable Michael K. Simpson to act as Chairman of the Committee.
  • action
    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 4182.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 635, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Hastings amendment no. 1.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Hastings amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Comer demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 635, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Gianforte amendment no. 3, as modified.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 635, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Connolly amendment no. 4.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Connolly amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Connolly demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was on adoption of amendments, which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
  • action
    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 4182.
  • action
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • action
    The House adopted the amendment as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  • vote
    On passage Passed by recorded vote: 213 - 204 (Roll no. 648).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
  • The house Passed November 30th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 212 Yea / 204 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Oversight and Reform
    IntroducedOctober 31st, 2017
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    Peter's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/30/2017
    One year is plenty of time to assess an employee. Most companies don't even have 1 year to decide
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Mike's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/30/2017
    220 working days isn’t long enough to evaluate someone? In what world? Man it would be nice to have one decent advocate for workers. Agree to disagree again, Congressman.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Mochsma's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/30/2017
    One year should be plenty to determine whether a person is capable of doing the job.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    redreadinghood's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/29/2017
    A year should be enough. The powers that be need too do their job and terminate those that don't cut it.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Jana's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/27/2017
    This bill requires a minimum two-year probationary period for new hires starting after “formal training” programs or upon completion of a required professional license or certificate. In theory, agencies could keep new employees in probation limbo for many years by extending training programs. Training programs already differ greatly. Some are mandated annually, some are given periodically throughout a career, and are never-ending. One year of probation is enough for nearly all positions in government. If a manager cannot figure out in a year's time whether an employee is a good fit, then it is the manager that may need replacing.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    collins1129's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/29/2017
    You should be able to adequately gauge competency within a year.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Always-a-voter's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    11/30/2017
    Government employees should be treated fairly in all areas. But the government moves slowly, and taking longer to evaluate someone's competence makes sense here.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Ronald's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/29/2017
    One year is enough for the employer to decide to keep, or discharge someone.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    SneakyPete's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    11/30/2017
    Passage of a bill to double the length of probationary periods for federal employees in the competitive and senior executive service to two years is a move in the right direction. It would provide a deeper evaluation of an individuals performance through multiple work cycles.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Mary's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/29/2017
    My goodness, can't you determine if soneone is qualified in a 12 month period? IF you can't then you shouldn't be supervising.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Martha's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/27/2017
    Two years seems like an excessive time to be on probation. In state gov. the probationary period is usually six months. Extending it to one year ok, but two years is way too long. In addition, if you're going to have such a rule for civil servants, then why not have this same rule extend to elected officials-Congress, the President, and appointed officials? Under the current administration, Trump would not have passed his probationary period as he is clearly not qualified for the position.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Bill's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/01/2017
    As a retired federal employee, I am for extended probationary periods.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Phyllis's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/01/2017
    Maybe 6 months
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Andrea's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/30/2017
    30 - 90 days is standard in the Private sector. That is more than enough. Most managers make up their minds in the first 45 seconds of an interview.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Bob's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/30/2017
    I’m sure this is yet another attack on the rights of workers.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Merry458's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/28/2017
    You should be able to tell if someone is fit for the job within two months. After that, if you haven’t gotten rid of them it is due to poor management.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Susanne's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/29/2017
    One year should be plenty of time to make a determination, people need to know this is not temporary don't string them along any longer!
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    burrkitty's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/29/2017
    If management can't figure it out in a year, the incompetence is in management. Don't keep stringing people along as probationary employees. It's cruel and exploitive.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Alan's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/01/2017
    In the private sector, companies take far less than one year to evaluate employee performance. Extending this time for federal employees simply assures that incompetent personnel get to keep their jobs longer before they are ousted.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Frances's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/30/2017
    THIS BILL COULD MEAN THAT AN EMPLOYEE COULD BE HIRED BY ONE ADMINISTRATION AND FIRED BY THE NEXT. IT WOULD LEAVE THE EMPLOYEE AT THE MERCY OF POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION, AND I DO NOT LIKE THAT IDEA! THE VERY INFORMATION THAT THE REPUBLICANS LIKE IT AND DEMOCRATS DON'T MAKES ME SUSPICIOUS. I AM AN INDEPENDENT, BUT THE SLIMEY SWAMPINESS OF THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND THE DIRTY THINGS THAT THE REPUBLICANS IN IT HAVE DONE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE MADE ME HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS OF ANYTHING THAT THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS LIKES. DEMOCRATS ARE NO SAINTS, WHICH IS WHY IA AM AN INDEPENDENT, BUT THE REPUBLICANS IN THIS CONGRESS HAVE MADE ME FEAR THEM MUCH MORE THAN THE DEMOCRATS, AND SO I TRUST THESE REPUBLICANS FAR LESS THAN ANY I HAVE EXPERIENCED BEFORE, EXCEPT FOR THE GW BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE