Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

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.

···
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
    One year is plenty of time to assess an employee. Most companies don't even have 1 year to decide
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    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
    One year should be plenty to determine whether a person is capable of doing the job.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    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
    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
    You should be able to adequately gauge competency within a year.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    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
    One year is enough for the employer to decide to keep, or discharge someone.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    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
    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
    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
    As a retired federal employee, I am for extended probationary periods.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Maybe 6 months
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    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
    I’m sure this is yet another attack on the rights of workers.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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