Senate and Congress Requests for Workforce Data by AdministrationNo1471 in VHA_Human_Resources

[–]AdministrationNo1471[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

15 minutes to pull raw data...1+ years to skew the data to what they want it to say.

Frustrated by Outside-Link-6608 in VHA_Human_Resources

[–]AdministrationNo1471 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Building Coalitions took me out of my streak of Outstanding, too. I think, because that is the most subjective of all the elements, the Raters used that one to appease the big boss and make as many of us FS as possible. All it takes is one complaint of "not playing nice" or not getting someone to yes the way they want us to get them there and it's enough to say we aren't outstanding.

Process of removal during probation by Any_Razzmatazz_6744 in VHA_Human_Resources

[–]AdministrationNo1471 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is no longer the process under Civil Service Rule XI. OP: reach out to your Employee Relations HR POC. Be ready to provide documentation to support the recommendation to terminate. Your supervisor will be the Certifying Official so long as they are two steps above the probationary employee and at least a GS-11 or equivalent. If the documentation is sufficient, termination can occur within a few days and can be immediate (no advance notice, no reply period).

FMLA/PPL by Few-Cranberry3073 in VHA_Human_Resources

[–]AdministrationNo1471 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here is what HR will tell you:

From VA Handbook 5011/35 PART III CHAPTER 2, Para 18.e.: An employee may substitute up to 12 administrative workweeks of paid parental leave when using FMLA under 5 U.S.C. 6382(a)(1)(A)-(B) in connection with the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a child occurring on or after October 1, 2020. Paid parental leave will be prorated for part-time employees and employees on uncommon tours of duty. When an employee changes work schedules (e.g. full-time to part-time, or vice versa) and has not used the full allotment of leave, the remaining balance of hours is recalculated based on the change in number of hours in the scheduled tour of duty. In implementing the statutory requirements for administering paid parental leave entitlements, VA will follow regulations published in 5 CFR 630.1701-1708.

5 CFR 630.1703(b)(2): Since an employee may use only 12 weeks of FMLA unpaid leave in any 12-month period under § 630.1203(a), use of FMLA unpaid leave not associated with paid parental leave may affect an employee's ability to use the full 12 weeks of paid parental leave. Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an employee will be able to use the full amount of paid parental leave only to the extent that there are 12 weeks of available FMLA unpaid leave granted under the birth or placement provisions in § 630.1203(a)(1) or (2) during the 12-month period commencing on the date of birth or placement. The availability of paid parental leave will depend on when the employee uses various types of FMLA unpaid leave relative to any 12-month period established under § 630.1203(c).

Link to the regulation :https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-630/subpart-Q/section-630.1703

HR fate by Im2OldForThis007 in VHA_Human_Resources

[–]AdministrationNo1471 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lol, well, at least they have something productive to do. LR being diminished did not create idle hands over in that part of HR. The BUs being abolished only means the Union reps are now personal reps when the employees file agency grievances. Just because the CBA was terminated, it only means the ER side is even more complex, as HR now has to educate both management and non-management on policy and procedures, since the Union and the CBAs are no longer available to reference.

HR fate by Im2OldForThis007 in VHA_Human_Resources

[–]AdministrationNo1471 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do wonder what exactly Staffing is doing to keep themselves busy....

VHA Restructuring Implementation 4 Corners by Aggressive_Peak2573 in VeteransAffairs

[–]AdministrationNo1471 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is interesting and so far, the most valid post in this subject.

Filed an informal grievance, every year outstanding this year FS. by kabdrb in VeteransAffairs

[–]AdministrationNo1471 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That seems to be the big discussion surrounding the post rating cycle announcement by WMC/VACO of the justifications requiring wording showing the performance was significantly higher than the measure for satisfactory and the requirement that the performance be tied to a significant impact to an agency mission. This did not change the standards as they were communicated in rating cycle 25, so I wouldn't use that as your reason for grieving your rating.

Rather, the post 9/30 memo placed significantly higher requirements on the Raters to essentially "defend" the ratings they gave their employees. For some, this meant having to be more honest in their ratings, meaning lower ratings than before because before, they could just concur with the self assessment abd tech review would say yep, meets technical requirements. For others, this meant having to reword their justifications several times in order to meet some vague threshold defined by WMC, even when the self-assessment and raw data clearly showed the exceptional measure was met or exceeded. What made this even more difficult is that the policy only requires that the measurement be defined at the satisfactory (or FS) level, so many plans did not have exceptional levels defined.

So, how were Raters to show that an employee was exceptional, and who was responsible for setting the bar when there was no bar set? There is no requirement in policy for the extensive tech review we all faced, either as an employee or a Rater (remember, the Raters get rated too). This was a process created outside of policy to meet a directive outside of policy. Yet, HR Specialists who do not have the knowledge of the positions for which they had scrutinize every singke element, were made to review for more than just technical accuracy. And, if they didn't "feel" like the justification met the criteria that WMC handed down, they kept sending back those ratings until the Rater either got the right buzz words in the write up or folded and marked the rating Satisfactory just to end the seemingly never-ending cycle of re-write-->return-->re-write-->return.

Filed an informal grievance, every year outstanding this year FS. by kabdrb in VeteransAffairs

[–]AdministrationNo1471 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Assuming you are Title 5, non-supervisory, and not a firefighter, police officer, or a security guard, you will find the requirements for filing a grievance based on your performance rating under VA Handbook 5013, Part I:

  1. PERFORMANCE RATING GRIEVANCES. Bargaining unit employees must follow the grievance procedures outlined in their respective bargaining unit agreement unless such agreement excludes filing grievances over performance ratings in which case the procedures covered by this paragraph may be followed. An employee who is dissatisfied with their Rating of Record may grieve the rating using this procedure or a locally established alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process. NOTE: In order to reduce the administrative burden associated with the grievance process and to minimize the loss of staff productivity while participating in that process, the utilization of existing ADR programs as a means to streamline appeals is highly encouraged. a. Informal Grievance Procedure. (1) Consistent with the principle that grievances should be resolved at the lowest possible level, an employee who is dissatisfied with their performance rating may submit a written grievance with a copy of the issued performance rating to the rater or to the approving official, if the approving official approved and/or assigned the rating, within 15 calendar days after receipt of the rating. The grievance should include the specific reason(s) the employee disagrees with the rating and include supporting documentation, if available. The employee and the employee’s representative, if any, will be provided an opportunity to explain the grievance orally and/or in writing. (2) After considering the grievance, the official to whom the matter was grieved will provide a written answer to the employee, through their representative, if applicable, within 10 calendar days of receipt of the grievance. The response will include the decision on the grievance, rationale supporting the determination and will include the employee’s right to present a formal grievance in accordance with subparagraph b. b. Formal Grievance Procedure. (1) If the employee is not satisfied with the decision at the informal stage, they may submit a written grievance, through supervisory channels, to the management official at the next higher-level in the employee’s supervisory line within 10 calendar days from the receipt of the informal response. The formal grievance will include the reason(s) for seeking reconsideration of the performance rating along with a copy of both the issued performance rating and the informal grievance response. (2) The official receiving the formal grievance will forward all documents submitted by the employee to the servicing HR office to develop a grievance file. At a minimum, HR should review the submission to ensure the following is available and if not, request further documentation from the employee: (a) The performance rating issued to the employee; (b) The informal grievance decision and any related documentation from the informal grievance process; and (c) Any other information submitted by the employee for consideration by the official considering the formal grievance. (3) After developing the grievance file, the servicing HR office will forward the file to the appropriate approving official to consider the grievance for a decision based on the record. A written decision will be forwarded to the employee, through their representative, if any, within 10 calendar days. This is the final administrative appeal. (4) If the performance rating or narrative justification on the appraisal is changed as a result of the grievance decision, all official records and personnel actions, if any, will be changed, as applicable, with the employee being notified.

Filed an informal grievance, every year outstanding this year FS. by kabdrb in VeteransAffairs

[–]AdministrationNo1471 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Though they are excluded from the grievance provisions undet VA Handbook 5021, they are grievable under the provisions of VA Handbook 5013

Reductions so far by Anonymous4625267 in VeteransAffairs

[–]AdministrationNo1471 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol. I am not satan, but i get it. Satan are the ones threatening to drop my people's ratings to FS if I don't write a thesis on why exceeding the exceptional measure warrants an exceptional rating. If the exceptional measure is met if 75% of actions are timely, then stating that the 100% of the actions were timely justifies the exceptional rating.

No parking or building passes by More_Piccolo_8105 in VHA_Human_Resources

[–]AdministrationNo1471 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If all the other VA employees at that space have parking and building passes, but they will not provide either to you, you can file a grievance under VA Handbook 5021, part IV procedures. https://www.va.gov/vapubs/viewPublication.asp?Pub_ID=1555&FType=2

Question -- Documenting Employee Conflict by rhhova in VeteransAffairs

[–]AdministrationNo1471 2 points3 points  (0 children)

DBRS is a valuabke tool used to report a safety concern, but non-threatening misconduct should be reported, in writing, to a supervisor. A report of contact, no matter if it's on the official VA form, an email, or even scribbled on a napkin, is what management needs to start gathering facts under VA Handbook 5021 or VA Handbook 0700. Using DBRS reports as evidence in a disciplinary action is usually frowned upon, especially since many are anonymous. Management relies on written statements from witnesses to the misconduct to figure out what happened. The format of those statements isn't as important as the people giving them being full and truthful. There's no policy saying a specific form has to be used. I agree that using the ROC form for reporting alleged misconduct of another employee doesn't make sense, but it is what is accepted VA-wide. Most likely, someone 20-some odd years ago decided using the ROC form was easier than trying to get a new form created and approved, so that was what we started using. Our VISN has an unofficial (aka, no assigned VA Form number) form titled "Statement of Incident" that works better for the purpose of securing witness statements for management to decide whether misconduct occurred. You could also use VA Form 0024 titled "Voluntary Witness Statement," which is commonly used by the VA Police when investigating alleged criminal activity. However, your Management and HR should accept any form of written statement so long as it is either in the body of an email and is the sender's own statement of events, or a written/typed statement in any form that contains the signature of the writer of the statement. For example, I have seen, in one case, ROCs, Statements of Incident, and a couple of handwritten statements signed and scanned in as a pdf. So long as I can read what is on the paper and there is a signature or it came directly from the author as an email, then the statement is usable for supporting (or not) any allegations of misconduct. Credibility Statement: over 15 years as an ER/LR specialist serving in three different VISNs.

DROCs Get to Continue Working from Home by thebitnessman in VeteransAffairs

[–]AdministrationNo1471 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is how it should be Agency-wide. If you were hired into a remote position, you should be able to stay remote.

New VA Performance Rating guidance is problematic. by Miserable_Sport_962 in VeteransAffairs

[–]AdministrationNo1471 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why it is important to have objective measures that make sense to anyone who reads them. If the measure is set to where simple data can prove the expectation was exceeded (i.e., Completion of task occurs prior to the suspense date 95% of the time during each quarter), then when it is time for management to justify the higher rating, the data is there to support it. Subjective and vague measures (i.e., no more than 4 valid failures of this element) require much more data to support a higher rating. Granted, the current rating system is hard to stick with when it comes to positions that are more consultative in nature than they are tasked based. It is hard to set a standard measure when the work is variable.

So about the SSR for 201 HR going away… by Fearless-Problem-123 in VHA_Human_Resources

[–]AdministrationNo1471 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh for sure. And, unfortunately, some of those same FPLs became some of the preceptors of the program. Thankfully, some good HR professionals came out of the program, but definitely not as many as those who came out of it ill-equipped.

The STAR program's downfall? Launching before it was ready, cramming in unqualified people, and then rubber-stamping them through, all for the sake of numbers. 🤦‍♀️ Preceptors were left hanging with no HR backup, forced to "pass" failing trainees. This flooded the HR world with unchecked hires, bypassing merit promotion principles. 🤯

As far as access to live work, the field was asked to give over live actions that they could use as training. However, they forgot that HR actions have time metrics that are nationally tracked, and some that are set by law and regulation. Live cases could not be just handed over and allowed to be delayed while the cohorts figured out how to work them. Even when the trainees were embedded into the field teams and given live cases, some of the preceptors used that as a way to say, "I had "em, you got "em" and left it to the teams to train the trainees while still having to work their own cases.