Image: Ivan Cholakov/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffA provision in the DoD authorization bill (S-1790) expected to be enacted into law soon will put renewed focus on issues surrounding the probationary periods for federal employees, including how long they should last and whether they are being used properly.
The original House version of the measure would have immediately returned the standard period at DoD for competitive service employees from the two years that have been in effect there for the last three years to the one year that is the standard elsewhere. However, as a compromise with the Senate, which had no such language, the final version orders a year-long study by DoD.
That study is to cover issues including the demographics of employees who were removed or subject to other personnel actions during their probationary periods and whether they filed discrimination or other complaints; comparisons of removal actions during and after probationary periods; an analysis of the “best practices and abuses of discretion by supervisors and managers”; an assessment of the impact on recruitment and retention of the longer period; and more. It is to be done in consultation with employees, managers, unions and agencies including the EEOC and OSC.
The change at DoD—which is generally seen as setting a potential precedent for lengthening the period elsewhere—followed several reports from the MSPB stating that agencies are not making the fullest use of the period to assess employees and take action up to removal before they gain full appeal rights.
The Professional Managers Association said it has “ long advocated for more effective use of probationary periods and longer probationary periods for positions which require more than a year of training to demonstrate excellence . . . Understanding how longer probationary periods impacting the Department of Defense will provide necessary information on potential solutions to this problem.”
Similarly, the Senior Executives Association said the study will produce “insight into how an extended probationary period impacts employee onboarding and supervision. This information will greatly improve our ability to lead and manage the federal workforce.”
Unions argue, though that the longer period leaves employees more vulnerable for a longer time to abusive practices such as favoritism and discrimination, and that any inability to assess employees after a year on the job should be addressed as a failure of management.
