Employees: Your Term Is Up!
We all know about term limits for politicians, but on Wednesday, I learned about new term limits for workers. If you have not heard, Revel, Atlantic City’s Newest Casino is setting term limits for their front-line staff. When their term runs out (4-6 years), they will be required to go through the hiring process again. Yep, that means reapplying for one’s job and competing against other job candidates.
WHAT IS YOUR INITIAL THOUGHT?
Is it a good thing?
- By having such a policy an employer will “attract the most highly professional people who are inspired by a highly competitive work environment” – says Revel.
- Since Managers aren’t required to reapply, this “requirement” will motivate people to move up in the organization
- OR -
A dreadful employment practice?
- Such a policy may be an excuse to take advantage of desperate job seekers
- Simply a way to weed out older workers
From a Human Resources perspective, it is easy to see both sides of the coin here. My one exception however, is the argument that the policy does away with job security for these employees. I would like to ask these folks where is there job security on the job these days? Is one’s job really secure any longer? Many workers are employed At-will these days, not to mention all of the Reductions-in-force we have all seen in the past few years – and that’s in both the public and private sector. I think we are all aware of the economic climate as it relates to employment, which probably explains why such a policy that may be unpopular with some hasn’t stopped the hundreds of people who have already agreed to work under Revel’s term limits!
Comment
-
Comment by Jim Bunch on April 16, 2012 at 3:50pm
-
Jim: That is a pretty strong comment. I certainly haven't experienced the lazy and incompetent government worker in my interactions with Federal staff (mostly with the DOT), and in fact the higher up you go the more they seem to be overloaded and the more time and effort they seem to need to commit to, just to stay up with the job. If anything, many folks in key positions are being asked to do way more than anyone can competently handle or juggle. The result is triage and many projects being managed or overseen poorly.
Also, its been my experience that lower level staff often only see part of what the SES and senior staff must juggle and deal with in their daily activities.
What criteria would you suggest for assessing the competency of the GS-14 and above staff that you are talking about? Are these qualitative or quantitative?
JAB
-
Comment by James E Lytle on April 13, 2012 at 6:30pm -
All managers within the federal government should be required to re-compete for their jobs on a cycle of no longer than three years. Where I work, a smaller, supposedly self-supporting, government corporation, the benefit to the agency's mission would be enormous. Recently, the corporation has been under fire from Congress and its IG for some serious mistakes and horrendous business practices, yet not a single manager has been held accountable for the mess. We have a CFO and General Counsel who have no earthly idea how the core mission of the corporation is accomplished. They both recently proved that assertion, when they were surprised by our horrendous (and as of yet, unpublished) error rate for improper payements. If those two women had to recompete for their jobs, based on their past performance and on their understanding of the agencies business processes, they would not get the jobs they now enjoy.
I am not sure how useful recompetition for lower level jobs would be though, I do think everyone at GS-14 or above should be required to re-compete. Having worked at two federal agencies now, I can state that my experience is that there are very, very, very many people working in the federal government who have been promoted far beyond their abilities; and if those people actually had to compete for their jobs, with competent candidates, they would never win the positions. I have also identified large numbers of competent people in management positions in the government who are simply phoning it in. As a friend of mine, who is also a federal employee often says, "The first thing I think of when I hear the term 'federal employee' is LAZY!!!!" It's time we changed that reality.
-
Comment by Tricia on February 14, 2012 at 4:56pm
-
@Jim - Actually 1/2 of the responses offered up alternative methods to attract/retain workers, modification of the policy such as including Managers in the process, other problems in the workplace, etc. They didn't indicate they were opposed. Rather they brought up other workplace issues that we all face.
-
-
Hmmm. I didn't see much division at all. The overwhelming view of the responses was that it is a bad idea.
-
-
Thanks everyone for your responses! So interesting to see GovLoopers are divided on whether this is a useful tool or not when it comes to hiring/rehiring employees. Guess it's wait and see how it pans out!
-
-
This is a crazy stupid idea.
First, there is already an experience and brain drain that is taking place in many government agencies ue to the impending retirement of the baby boomers. I believe that experience and knowledge gained of what works and doesn't work DOES make a difference in helping to manage programs and research effectively.
Second, this would simply be an excuse to get rid of older (more expensive) employees, especially in areas where experience and organizational memory may not matter as much.
-
Comment by Joshua Foster on February 9, 2012 at 6:38pm
-
Wow.... rewarding good workers by allowing them to keep thioer jobs.... how generous of management.....
How about some other scheme to encourage excellence.... like preformance based pay, opportunities to work in lateral positions to keep the learning process going and the work varied....
Thing is, even highly qualified, experienced, hard working encumbents can have bad days. And if that bad day comes on the day of thier interview then thats a disaster for the company and the worker. Ibnterviews and recruitment processes are very stressful. In toher cases encumbents can be overly confidnet in retaining thier position and may not put in the required effort in the recruitment process again leading to problems.
Also these rules dont apply to management??? If anything the impact of a poorly performing manager is far greater than a poorly performing grunt. If anything these contract rules should apply to management as it would be far harder to pry a poorly performing manager out of a well paying management role then a grunt position.
Not a good idea at all.
-
Comment by Shelley McNellis on February 9, 2012 at 3:08pm -
I'd be curious to know what their turnover is. How many front-line staff are still there after 4-6 years? But really, two things come to mind. If I'm the employee, I'm going to leave for a permanent position at the first opportunity. That means more turnover and more money spent on hiring and training (in addition to the expense of having to re-hire the same people, potentially, very 4-6 years. If I'm the manager, I'm going to spend even more time hiring and training people, which doesn't exactly hold great appeal.
-
Comment by David K Martin on February 9, 2012 at 2:13pm
-
The most important thing that this will eliminate is employee loyality. Why would employees feel loyal to their agency or their other workers if they knew that in 4 years they would be in cutthroat competition for their jobs. As for whether it will work, it hasn't worked for Congress, why would it work for the rest of the workforce? I can see many employees figuring that they are only going to be there for 4 years, and spending most of that time sharpening their resumes instead of doing the gut work that actually keeps the gears turning. That or kissing up to the supervisor who is going to make the decision to rehire.
-
Comment by Janina Rey Echols Harrison on February 9, 2012 at 1:24pm
-
Oh, and one other item. That, management doesn't have to reapply, motivating people to move into management, statement. I would love to move into management but those positions seem to be going to relatives of management in many many cases, and also many positions being filled that I never saw the position flown. If you have someone move into management who turns out not to be well suited, they get to keep their jobs and not have to compete? Bad idea. Not everyone who moves into management positions are suited to managing other people.
Sponsor Spotlight
Tools & Resources
© 2012 Created by GovLoop.
You need to be a member of GovLoop - Social Network for Government to add comments!
Join GovLoop - Social Network for Government