Tag Archives: federal HR

Hiring Freezes Have Consequences – And So Do Budgets

President Trump’s hiring freeze has been in place since January 23, 2017. Judging by the emails, comments, calls and questions I am receiving, there are still agencies that have questions about what they can and cannot do during the freeze.

Add to that the uncertainty about the FY 2018 (and beyond) budget, and it is understandable that many federal employees worry that winter is coming for the federal workforce. President Trump’s Executive Order today directing OMB to come up with a plan for reorganizing the Executive Branch adds even more urgency to the discussion regarding the size of the workforce. After watching the goings on for the last 2 months, I am not ready to pronounce gloom and doom for the workforce, but I do believe federal agencies and the workforce are in for more change than they have experienced in the past several decades.

Let’s take a look at a few examples. The Department of Defense is on the list of favored agencies that are likely to receive a plus up from the budget process. In a typical year, Defense hired just over 90,000 people last year. With the freeze in place, they are continuing to hire in a lot of positions, but they are also building up a backlog of unfilled jobs. Other Departments are in the same position. Homeland Security has exempted many of its jobs because they are engaged in border security, immigration enforcement, and other national security related jobs. But what about the rest? Last year DHS hired almost 21,000 people. Other agencies that have few jobs that are tied directly to national security or public safety are continuing to amass a large backlog of unfilled jobs.

Trying to catch up after the freeze is lifted would be a big problem if the intent is to do some trimming of agency payrolls. In this case, it appears that the intent is to do more than trim. Rather than modest cuts that rein in the federal payroll, it appears the administration is interested in far more significant cuts. Recent reporting in the Washington Post, Fox News and other outlets is pointing to much larger cuts, with some agencies seeing double-digit reductions in their labor budgets.

So why am I not taking the gloom and doom view? Presidential budget requests are not enacted by the Congress with no changes. In fact, the reception the President’s budget gets from the House and Senate is typically rejection. The likelihood of the Congress enacting all of the cuts the President is suggesting and doing them all at once in 2018 is remote. Many of the agencies are very popular with the American people. Many of the programs they run are popular. Decimating popular programs and/or agencies can have electoral consequences that members of Congress do not want. That said, republican budget proposals in recent years have called for some significant cuts in non-Defense programs. I expect to see budget cuts in many agencies, but I expect them to be tempered by Congress.

So – does that mean agencies have no worries and do not need to prepare for the worst? Absolutely not. In fact, any responsible agency that is in the budget crosshairs should begin planning TODAY for a significant reduction in Fiscal 2018. Even agencies that may be safe from a mission perspective will have to look at the cost of mission support services. That means not adding new staff (even if the freeze is lifted) unless not hiring them risks mission failure. It means preparing a plan to do downsizing in an orderly way. Agencies should be running the numbers to see what kind of attrition they can expect. What would early retirement produce? Would buyouts help? If so, how much? Does the agency have the money in FY 2017 to incentivize turnover now, to lessen the burden on the 2018 budget?

Downsizing effectively is far more than just letting people go out the door and not replacing them, Agencies must rethink their work, their missions, and how they get things done. An agency with 10,000 employees cannot operate in exactly the same way if it has to make do with 9,000 employees. That means new organizations, new job descriptions, new performance objectives, better work processes, and more. All of that takes time.

Agencies should also begin planning for reduction in force. No one wants to hear that, but the truth is that few agencies are prepared to run a RIF. Getting ready takes months. Running the RIF takes months. Doing the right thing and trying to minimize the number of people who are involuntarily separated takes months. If agencies wait until a budget is passed, or at least until the numbers are more certain, they will box themselves into a corner that is almost impossible to get out of. As I said in a post on March 3, RIF is expensive and the aftermath of RIF is more expensive.

If agencies do decide to begin planning now for what might happen with the Fiscal 2018 budget, they are not selling out their workforce. They are doing the right thing and trying to be prepared for what might happen. That is what leaders do. Because it is so important, agency leaders should be upfront with their workforce about what they are doing. Do not plan behind closed doors, hoping the workforce will not find out about it and get scared. They will find out about it. And they are already scared. Federal employee should be treated like the adults they are. Planning for downsizing without telling the employees builds more fear and it builds mistrust. When an agency is facing tremendous change, more communication is not only better, it is absolutely essential.

 

 

 

my-affiliations-2

icf_logo_color        napa-logo      pps-logo

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The R Word

Most people do not like to think or talk about RIF and they certainly do not want to do a RIF. But – think and talk about it we must. And in some agencies, leaders may have to more than that.

Most people would rather talk about the “A word”  – attrition. For many years that has been the preferred way to shrink the workforce. Attrition is less harsh, it does not force people out of their jobs, and presents fewer opportunities for favoritism or other bad things. So why would we ever consider RIF when we have the allegedly painless magic of attrition? There are at least three reasons.

  1. Attrition is random. It does not always happen where you need it. If we have an organization where we want to reduce the number of people in position A, but keep all that we have in position B, we have to pray that the people who leave are in position A. If not, we may find ourselves being unable to hire for the jobs we need and still having too many people in the positions we do not need. Multiply that by a few dozen types of jobs and it is easy to see how an agency could get itself into a bind.
  2. Prolonged pain. Attrition takes a downsizing process and drags it out for months or even years. The organization is constantly under stress, leaders may not see the need for rapid rethinking of processes and structures, and the workforce is asked to do more with less until they break.  It is not good the agency, its mission, or its workforce.
  3. Timing. This one is most important for our situation today. Attrition depends on people leaving. If they are leaving in large numbers (and from the right jobs), attrition can work well. But most agencies do not have high turnover rates. If an agency has a turnover rate of 5% and is told to take a 10% cut (the size of the reductions we are hearing about in the President’s budget plan) on October 1st, they have a problem. Turnover takes time, and in that agency with 5% turnover, it would take 2 years of hiring no one to meet the goal. That is 2 years too late. Agencies can increase turnover by offering buyouts and early retirement, but that takes time, and they either need more money to pay for the buyouts or they have to do them early in the fiscal year. Attrition is great for small reductions that do not have a budget deadline. For big reductions, the timing simply does not work.

So – if attrition can be bad, why not just go ahead and do a RIF right away? What could go wrong? In a word, everything. Here are just a few examples:

RIFs are disruptive. They follow a byzantine set of rules and scare the living daylights out of people. They sometimes scare away the best and most marketable members of the workforce, leaving the agency with the folks who cannot get a job elsewhere. They take time, and during that time the workforce may be consumed with talk of the RIF, rumors, suspicion, and fear. You can imagine what that does to morale and productivity.

Few federal agencies are prepared to run a RIF. My experience running too many large and small RIFs taught me many things, chief among them being that informed, thoughtful and thorough preparation is absolutely essential. There are so many ways that RIFs can blow up on agencies that failure to prepare almost guarantees a RIF will be a mess. And that’s just running the RIF itself. Absent the right preparation, the aftermath of the RIF will also be a mess, with RIF actions overturned on appeal and projected savings not materializing for years.

A clean RIF starts with clean records – something few agencies have. Most agencies have not looked at things like RIF competitive levels for many years. They have moved from very specific job descriptions to generic versions without considering what that will do to them in a RIF (hint – it isn’t good). They have not verified service computation dates. And they do not have processes in place to do those things.

Who knows how to run a RIF? RIF is a logical process, but most federal HR folks have never had to run a RIF. From one perspective that is great – they have avoided laying off their employees. From another perspective it is a big problem. If the first RIF you run affects a large portion of the workforce, and budget pressures mean it has to be right the first time, you are in trouble before you start.

The workforce does not understand the RIF rules. Why should they? The federal government has separated only a few hundred employees via RIF in recent years. Federal employees had no reason to try to learn how RIFs work. Now that RIFs are far more likely, that lack of knowledge is going to generate fear and stress.

The finances of RIF are another problem that most people have not thought about. RIF is expensive and it may not generate immediate savings. That means an agency may have to overshoot its reduction target to keep from busting the budget. Buyouts are a great tool that have proven their effectiveness. In fact, Congress should give every federal agency the increased ($40K) buyout cap that Defense got in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. But – buyouts cost up to $25K per employee. Severance pay is another RIF cost. An employee who is separated by RIF and who is not eligible to retire immediately gets severance pay. Severance can go as high as 52 weeks of pay. Another cost is lump sum annual leave. An employee who is separated or leaves voluntarily gets paid for accrued annual leave. That can easily add  10% of annual salary. So – if you separate a GS-12 who makes $90K per year and give that person 6 months of severance pay and their annual leave, that would cost $54K. If you do not make the RIF effective until mid-year, there is no dollar saving at all that year.

Lump sum leave, buyouts and severance pay do not take into account the biggest cost of RIF – grade and pay retention. Let’s say you abolish a GS-12 position where the employee makes that same $90K per year. The employee has enough seniority to bump or retreat into a GS-9 job. The GS-9 has enough seniority to bump or retreat to a GS-5. Both employees have been in the job long enough to qualify for grade retention. That means for the next 2 years, the former GS-12 and GS-9 will not lose a penny. The person who goes out the door is a GS-5 making $40K per year.  The job you abolished with the intent of saving $90K per year produces only $40K of savings. Once you add in the cost of severance pay and leave payout for the GS-5, the first year savings may drop to only $20K. Once the grade retention expires, the employees will receive pay retention. In most cases, they will never see an actual reduction in pay. They will simply get half of annual pay increases until their pay catches up. That will take years.

It is easy to see why a clean RIF is hard to come by. It can be done well, and it can be done in a way that does save money, but it takes time, careful analysis and planning, and a long-range view of consequences. I ran a RIF that affected more than 1500 people and we had no reversals on appeals, arbitrations or complaints. That took a lot of work and it was painful. Jump into it without the right preparation, and the consequences will be ugly.

The truth is that there is no painless way to dramatically shrink an organization. Agencies faced with that daunting task will need to make decisions that best serve the mission, while doing everything they reasonably can do to prepare and to look out for the interests of the workforce. It is not going to be easy, painless or without risk, but it can be done.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,