Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4182. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.…
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4182.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, highly skilled Federal employees are essential to a government that serves its citizens. Skilled Federal workers ensure that functions of government, from delivering mail to protecting the homeland, are carried out successfully.
Federal jobs and the skills required to perform them vary significantly across government. Some employees review patents, some work in human resources, and others work in law enforcement.
While the jobs, skills, and training required may be different from job to job, the expectation that the Federal Government hires qualified candidates is universal.
One tool agencies and managers have to ensure a qualified workforce is the probationary period--a period of time used to evaluate whether a new hire
can effectively perform the duties of the position.
Under current law, most new hires are required to complete a probationary period of 1 year before receiving full employment status. Most new employees complete the probationary period and are hired as permanent employees.
New employees who fail to demonstrate that they are a good fit for the position, however, are transitioned out of government during the probationary period, but the current 1-year trial period is not sufficient for complex Federal occupations. Potential employees deserve ample time to learn about the job and demonstrate they are able to perform all critical aspects of a Federal position, and supervisors deserve ample time to evaluate new hires.
What is a manager supposed to do in this case? Does the supervisor take a gamble and offer permanent status to an untested employee or risk missing out on a potentially skilled employee? This is a real dilemma. Supervisors throughout the Federal workforce have described this exact scenario in their advocacy for this bill.
According to the Government Managers Coalition, managers tend to err on the side of releasing borderline employees in cases like this, and it can be a very frustrating decision for them to make. They have already devoted a significant amount of time and resources into training the new hire.
However, managers would rather not risk hiring an employee who is on the fence at the end of a probationary period. This is because a manager is pretty much stuck with an employee after the probationary period. It is difficult to remove a permanent employee for poor performance or misconduct.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the procedural hurdles to removing a permanent employee can take from 6 months to 1 year. The evidence is clear, the probationary period needs to be extended.
In 2015, the GAO reported that chief human capital officers throughout the Federal Government would benefit from an extension of the probationary period, especially in occupations which are complex or difficult to assess. Federal manager groups have been asking for a longer probationary period for years.
In congressional testimony earlier this year, the national president of the Federal Managers Association, Renee Johnson said: ``FMA advocates extending the probationary period. This would benefit both the government and employees by allowing supervisors to make decisions based on the employees' performance as fully trained employees--not just guessing at how they will perform after the training is completed.''
The Government Managers Coalition, a group of five organizations that represent the interests of over 200,000 supervisors, managers, and executives serving throughout the Federal Government, supports an extension of the probationary period.
I include in the Record a letter of support from the Government Managers Coalition signed by the heads of the FAA Managers Association, Federal Managers Association, Professional Managers Association, National Council of Social Security Management Associations, and Senior Executives Association; and a letter from the Professional Managers Association.
Government Managers Coalition,
November 29, 2017.
United States Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Government
Managers Coalition (GMC), which is comprised of five major
federal sector professional associations collectively
representing the interests of over 200,000 supervisors,
managers, and executives serving throughout the federal
government.
Our coalition is supportive of H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a
Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017 (the EQUALS Act),
introduced by Representative James Comer. We appreciate Rep.
Comer's efforts to take the lead on this important
legislation and the consideration earlier this month by the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The GMC has
advocated for an extended probationary period for over a
decade. We encourage you to support the measure when it comes
to the floor later this week.
The EQUALS Act would grant agencies the authority to extend
the probationary period for competitive service appointments
and supervisors. In addition, this legislation would align
appointments under competitive and senior executive service
with the two-year trial period served under excepted service
appointments, bringing consistency to hiring throughout
government.
Extension of the probationary period is supported by a 2015
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, GAO-15-191.
Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) commented to GAO that
often supervisors within federal departments and agencies are
not given sufficient time to accurately review performance
before the probationary period is complete. The CHCO
recommended an extension of the probationary period to the
GAO in order to accurately assess an employee's abilities in
the federal workforce. In addition, Congress has already
approved a two-year probationary period for employees at the
Department of Defense, as part of the Fiscal Year 2016
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), P.L. 114-92.
The GMC's mission is to promote good government initiatives
that foster effectiveness and efficiency throughout the
federal government. We believe that this legislation will
allow employees sufficient time on the job to demonstrate
their abilities as well as allow for proper assessment. The
measure will also ensure that supervisors have the
opportunity and authority to fulfill their performance
management responsibilities that may not be feasible under
the current one-year probationary period.
The current one-year probationary period is often
insufficient to assess an employee's performance in more
technical and complex jobs, of which there are many in the
federal government, and may in fact place an employee at risk
of termination before having had the opportunity to
effectively demonstrate their abilities. The reality is that
many technical jobs require agency classroom training,
mentoring and on-the-job training for employees to become
proficient. Often, the supervisor does not see the employee
during those times, and is unable to observe the employee's
performance. In front-line public service roles, such as with
the Social Security Administration (SSA) or the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), employees must not only learn
material, but also need to be able to effectively interact
with citizens. The EQUALS Act would ensure that employees are
provided with the opportunity to not only receive training,
but also to effectively demonstrate their abilities.
Extending the probationary period will in no way penalize an
employee who is performing well and progressing in their
training and responsibilities.
The GMC would appreciate your support of this legislation.
In light of ongoing agency reorganization efforts, it is now
more important than ever to ensure federal managers making
personnel decisions have a comprehensive toolset available
that represents both flexibility for agencies and fairness
for affected federal employees. We look forward to passage of
this legislation, as well as other commonsense federal
workforce reform bills resulting in an improved federal
government that can better serve the American public. Should
you require additional information or want to discuss this
issue further, please contact Rachel A. Emmons with the
National Council of Social Security Management Associations
(NCSSMA).
Sincerely,
Andy Taylor,
President, FAA Managers Association.
Renee M. Johnson,
President, Federal Managers Association.
Thomas R. Burger,
Executive Director, Professional Managers Association.
Christopher Detzler,
President, National Council of Social Security, Management
Association.
Bill Valdez,
President, Senior Executives Association.
In the letter, the coalition members write that they have ``advocated for an extended probationary period for over a decade,'' and that this legislation will allow employees sufficient time on the job to demonstrate their abilities as well as allow for proper assessment.
The individuals they represent see the difficulties associated with the current system in their day-to-day lives. They understand the problems associated with the arbitrary nature of the current 1-year probationary period.
The EQUALS Act addresses these problems and moves toward a system better suited for the modern workforce. The bill will extend the probationary period for new hires in the competitive service and initial appointments for managers to 2 years after the completion of formal training or licensure.
The concept of a 2-year probationary period is not new. Congress extended the probationary period for new hires at the Department of Defense to 2 years in 2015. This bill brings the rest of the government in line with the Department of Defense standards. The EQUALS Act also recognizes the variety of positions and training requirements throughout the Federal Government. The EQUALS Act requires the 2-year period to begin upon the conclusion of the formal training or licensure process.
This is important, because under current law, time spent in training counts against the probationary period. This means that a Federal job with long training, by the time a probationary employee completes the training, the supervisor often has little or no time to evaluate the employee's performance.
For example, training for new hires at the Internal Revenue Service takes 1 year. By the time a new IRS employee completes training, the manager has to make a decision whether to keep the employee without having seen the employee do the job.
As Ms. Johnson testified before Congress: ``New employees must often master broad and complex policies and procedures to meet their agencies' missions, necessitating several months of formal training followed by long periods of on-the-job instruction. In occupations where training takes substantial time, supervisors may only have a few months of work to judge employees' performance.''
According to data from the Office of Personnel Management, most formal training programs last less than 1 month. For those positions, the inclusion of formal training in the probationary period does not do any harm.
However, for those positions that have long training periods, the EQUALS Act will make a big difference. The EQUALS Act also helps ensure managers are doing their jobs. Under the bill, agencies must notify supervisors prior to the completion of a probationary period so that the supervisor is reminded to make a decision about a probationary employee.
The bill also requires agencies to certify that an employee has successfully completed a probationary period and to provide justification for that decision.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to make sure we are clear about what the EQUALS Act does and does not do. The EQUALS Act does not remove or change any due process rights for probationary period employees. Probationary employees will still have due process protections. Probationary employees have access to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Office of Special Counsel. Each of those offices are empowered to hear appeals from probationary employees, and that will not change when H.R. 4182 becomes law.
This bill is a much-needed fix to the Federal hiring process. It will allow the Federal Government to select the best and brightest civil servants to serve the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I think it is important to define what the probationary period is and what it is not.
According to the MSPB, the probationary period is the final step in the employee screening process when an individual must demonstrate ``why it is
in the public interest for the government to finalize an appointment to the civil service.''
This is not a punitive measure. It is an opportunity for a prospective employee to prove they are qualified to serve the American people through a position in the civil service. These are critically important jobs and we need the best and brightest to fill them. A longer probationary period gives all new hires time to complete their training, learn on the job, and demonstrate that they can perform the role they were hired to do. This is good for our government, good for Federal employees, and good for the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not create an exception for alumni of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national service programs. It puts them at a disadvantage.
They would have less time than other new hires to prove themselves before managers make a decision whether to keep them or let them go. This could mean fewer Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national service alumni are retained at the end of the probationary period.
Under the current 1-year system, supervisors often do not have enough time to determine whether a potential employee is a good fit for the job. Managers tend to err on the side of releasing an employee who is on the fence at the end of a probationary period.
New hires to the Federal Government deserve ample time to demonstrate they are able to perform all critical aspects of the job. H.R. 4182 gives them more time.
This amendment would actually put certain groups at a disadvantage in comparison to the rest of the Federal workforce. Alumni of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other programs would have 1 year to demonstrate the skills and core competencies required for the
Federal job they are seeking. Their colleagues would have 2 years.
The spirit of this amendment is admirable, but the unintended consequence of adopting it will be that the very people the amendment is meant to benefit would be at a disadvantage.
The probationary period is not a punishment. It is an extension of the hiring process and a tool to help ensure a qualified civil service. This amendment would create additional classes of Federal employees and unnecessarily add complexity to an already complex system.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, extending the probationary period is not a new idea. Federal manager groups have advocated for an extended probationary period for more than a decade.
The Government Accountability Office completed a study on the probationary period in February of 2015. In that study, chief human capital officers told GAO a longer probationary period could help supervisors make a performance assessment for those occupations that are particularly complex or difficult to assess. GAO also recommended considering, ``extending the supervisory probationary period beyond 1 year to include at least 1 full employee appraisal cycle.''
As far back as 2005, the Merit Systems Protection Board completed a study and recommended longer probationary periods when an agency deems it necessary to fully evaluate a probationer. It is not necessary to wait for more studies on this issue.
This amendment strikes the entire bill, meaning the current probationary period would remain the same and the problems that GAO and others have identified would persist. This amendment undermines the entire purpose of the bill, which is to allow managers' employees more time to conduct a fair and complete assessment of probationary Federal employees.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.