You're Fired. No I'm Not.

Rhee Seeks Authority to Terminate Employees: Planned Legislation Is Aimed at Reorganizing the D.C. School System's Central Command By David Nakamura Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, August 29, 2007; Page A01 D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee is preparing plans to fire up to several hundred employees over the coming year, part of a major restructuring of the school system's central office aimed at streamlining operations, District government sources said. (WashingtonPost)

This is only the latest in articles about the power of unions, the screwy rules related to hiring and firing in the government, both at the District level as well as the Federal level and the realities of the commercial world.

First, let me start by saying that, in general, I feel unions have long outlived their usefulness and it is articles like this that really drive that point home. Further, let me say that I understand why the federal regulations about hiring, firing and promotion exist, but that they too are archaic and can only lead to more and more federal bloat, wastefulness and eventually the disillusionment most people feel when dealing with federal agencies. Finally, I am and have been a government contractor and while I am not always happy with the way things work, there is also not a whole lot I can do and I do get a paycheque for doing my job. So, with all that up front, let us look at this from the article:

...Rhee has begun drafting legislation that would ask the D.C. Council to suspend personnel laws so that the chancellor would have the authority to terminate employees without having to reassign them to other jobs...she wants to bring in new upper-level managers and downsize the central administration by as much as 30 to 40 percent.

Typically, central office employees who are removed from a position have the contractual right to be placed in a lower-ranking position in the system while maintaining their salary. These rights have hampered superintendents who have sought in the past to downsize the school administration and remove poorly performing employees.

This is not the first time someone has attempted to clean house, either at the DC School Board or in the Federal Government. The Department of Homeland (In)security, when it was formed, tried to get Congress to allow it to move to a pay for performance basis system. This move was blocked at every turn by the various labor unions that represent hundreds of thousands of workers. One worker was quoted as saying something to the effect of "what would I do if every day I went to work not knowing if it was my last?"

Right about now, your blood should be boiling, especially if you are, or have been the victim of a reduction in forces, or laid-off or had your job outsourced. For the majority of workers in the United States today, going to work and no knowing that you will have a job the following day is the status quo. It is normal, and expected and if you are not in that category, you are living on a cloud. Further, we know that we have to perform to a certain level or we will not be paid or receive and increase in our pay. That is what pay for performance is all about and why it is so critical that the government be able to do it. How many federal employees would not have a job today if they had to justify their existence? As any contractor will tell you there are some good people working in federal service today, but there are also a lot of people that would not have a job otherwise and are incapable of doing the job they have now. In the private sector, these "poor performers" would be show the door. In the federal sector, they are promoted, traded, pawned off, but still draw a paycheque from our tax dollars.

There are those that wonder why the federal government is so big and spends so much money. One is because it has so many people on its payroll that if it were a business would not be there. Two, it has to hire contractors and pay street wages, instead of the grossly deflated GS wages to get projects done that its own people are incapable of. Three, it is very hard to get most agencies to make logical business decisions about equipment, staffing and budgets. The reasons are varied, but come down to the underlying fundamental issues related to the federal employment methodology that "anyone who is a manager can manage any department and does not need specialized knowledge in that group." As a result, the people making technical decisions may not have the first clue about what needs to go into a good technical decision. Similarly, the people making HR decisions may not have any idea about how Human Resources really should work. This is a sad way to run a nation.

Ms. Rhee is doing what any manager, hired to turn an organization around, would be expected to do. Come in, get rid of the dead wood and move the organization forward and she should be given the power and authority to do so. Now if only we could do the same thing at the federal level.