The Office of Personnel Management is withdrawing its plan to abolish the one-year time-in-grade requirement for federal employee promotions. OPM announced in the Federal Register on Tuesday that it would withdraw proposed regulations to abolish the time-in-grade rule after the agency determined that it would be more productive to consider the merits of the time-in-grade issue as part of a more comprehensive review of pay, performance and staffing issues. Abolishing the restriction was originally proposed by the Bush administration on Nov. 7.
Under current rules, employees in competitive service General Schedule positions at grade levels 5 and above must serve 52 weeks in grade before becoming eligible for promotion. The rules would have eliminated the 52-week condition, provided employees meet occupational and job-related qualification requirements.
OPM originally proposed abolishing the time-in-grade requirements to allow agencies more leeway in recruiting and retaining highly qualified employees in tight labor markets. It's safe to assume that recruiting and retaining federal IT workers would have been widely impacted by the new rules. The issue appears to still be on the table as part of a more comprehensive review, so what are your thoughts? Is eliminating the 52-week condition critical to recruiting and retaining IT workers, especially younger workers who want to climb the career ladder faster? Or would abolishing this time-in-grade requirement open up the potential for abuse or misuse by federal managers?
COMMENTS
The civilian personnel system is getting stinker and stinker every day. I am in the same boat. I have been a GS-5 employee for a decade; first I worked as an Acctg Tech for 5 years and ended up in secretarial (due to relocation as a military spouse) wish I hate with a passion. Not that I am better than to do it, but I HATE reviewing memos, scheduling meetings, taking minutes, etc. DO NOT like none of it. It is a boring dead end job. I have applied for plenty of jobs in Acctg and Budget and was told I do not have "Time in Grade" or "Never worked at the next lower level." WHAT? I have been an Actg Tech for 5 years, what did we miss here? Last accounting job I applied for (GS-7) I was offered the job, but was later told because I never held a GS-6 I could not get it. Are you kidding me? You can count on one hand how many GS-6 jobs are ever posted in any series. So should'nt a GS-5 be the next lower level. And when you do see one in another field civilian personnel gladly tell you "Not Qualified." So what should one do? When I challenged it I was told certain occupations can jump two steps but some cannot. Sounds like a good case of occupation discrimination to me. Needless to say every day I would see others jumping from GS-5 to GS-7 etc., with no problem whatsoever. They hired a guy as a GS-12 from the outside not too long ago, even though they were supposedly to be hiring only from within civil service, the job announcement distinctly read that way, but they didn't recall his hiring. He is now happily working as a GS-12 and looking to get a GS-13. Said it was their mistake. You recalled mine. Why not his? Should I say more?
The civilian personnel system needs to be cleansed with the most abrasive cleaning product there is. They do not promote from within, and if they do, it’s a friend; they would rather take a buddy off the street, no experience, and make them a GS-11 or above. Sometimes I wonder what am I doing here? There is no promotion potential for folks in the lower series. NONE! It use to be a big deal working for the federal govt, but now it is better to run a lemonade stand. My directorate is so top heavy, almost everyone there is a GS-11 and above, and whenever they have a friend who needs a job they just create one for them. What about the small people?
The big brasses that wrote the regulations knows exactly why they write it that way. Just a way to keep the lower employees stagnant. It is just a vicious cycle.
Whatever or whoever the hiring supervisors want they seem to get, even if civilian personnel has to bend the rules. It is amazing how blatant and untouchable they all think they are. Hope I live to see the day when someone with a conscience see the civilian personnel system for what it is and gives it a good overhaul. They would be surprise to see what they find. Don’t even get EEO involved they are useless. They side with the hiring authorities. They should be the first to go.
Gale 09/19/09 01:56 pm ET
I have been looking for something that talks about Time in Grade. I am a GS-07 working for an MTF. I have been doing the job of two GS-09's for more than 2 years. The management in my office has been supposedly trying to upgrade some of the positions including mine to GS-09. This has been going on for four years and something always goes wrong. I was about to get hired for the GS-09 job in my area finally and a spouse preference gets it instead. I've applied for GS-11 jobs opening up in my area but I am told that I do not meet the Time In Grade. Instead people get considered and hired for this job who are eligible but not as qualified as I am since I have been doing job. I would think that the federal government would want to consider employees based on qualifications instead of eligibility. The whole system is jacked up.
Comet_104 09/15/09 11:02 pm ET
I'm not sure what many of these comments are referring to, but if I'm not mistaken, the question was basically, "Is eliminating the 52-week condition critical to recruiting and retaining IT workers", and my response is "NO", it would have no bearing on retention of IT workers or any other Federal worker. People (young and experienced) are clambering to gain Federal employment. This is an extremely important topic, and if you are not sure what you are talking about, please do not respond. This subject was probably introduced by someone with a very big and influential voice, who is looking out for a friend or family member. GET OVER IT!!!. I am so tired of seeing people (many times, without a day of formal education) being groomed and moved up in the Federal Government. Keep things as they are - FAIR!!!! We folks who have paid big $$ for our education are constantly being passed by due to favoritism or nepotism. This is becoming way too blatant and common and it needs to be stopped and put to rest. I am the first to admit that many things need to be changed in regards to Federal employment – but this isn’t one of them. Instead of OPM looking into if in fact this is a good idea to peruse - I would recommend they find ways to prevent these overt actions for continuing. I have been a Federal manager and feel everyone should get a fair shot at promotion (based on the present process)!!!
BGordon 08/20/09 12:59 pm ET
The system can be, and has been manipulated for years. I for one thought the elimination of the 52 week wait was a good idea. As a manager, if you effectively supervise your area, you can tell when you have a qualified competent worker. Maybe that worker should have been hired at a higher grade, without the old rule, managers may have been more willing to promote them ahead of time to their full potention level ahead of schedule if they proved themselves worthy.
K. A. T. 08/19/09 11:43 pm ET
Employees are hired not meeting the minimum qualification of the position title. For instance, if hired as a Administrative Assistant and the person is simply unable to accomplish assignments utilizing microsoft to create spreadsheets, excel, cut and paste, or write a corrective note, but hired as a GS-7. An employee hired that uses all leave accurred per pay period and some, placed on leave restriction, while serving a probation period, hasn't been employed for even 30 days, takes off sick for a week, and returns to duty without a doctor's note. There needs to be more implemented monitoring of the administrative staff allowing this type of employee to remain employed, which this employee never qualified for the position and abuses other regulations. Besides earning CompTime or OverTime and has not completed 40 regular hours in a week or 80 hours in a pay period. And this employee feels they deserve a promotion.
L. C. 08/19/09 07:00 pm ET
Removing the 52 week waiting period would surely open up room for abuse and misuse by federal managers. The rules were made for a reason, let's keep them!
Sun 08/19/09 08:14 am ET
Good, this will prevent one hit wonders from getting promoted too fast. OPM needs to take a serious look at the hiring practices. Too many friends and relatives are getting hired and promoted. The hiring of an educated, experienced, professional has become an idealistic dream. The reality is, it is more about who you know.
AMS 08/13/09 11:56 am ET
I like the 26 week idea. Just like the probationary period for a new employee, there's a reason for the wait time. Let's say an employer hires someone thinking, "Wow, this guy is awesome!" based on the person's resume. Only to find out later that the guy is an oaf and over estimated his skills. At least this way, they can see if the person is deserving of the grade he is in. And yes, there surely is plenty of this type of abuse happening but nothing can be done about it until HR people step up and expose it. (Many of them absolutely know what's happening and often help the manager get his way.)
Cindy Baker 08/12/09 10:58 am ET
If an employee meets occupational and job-related quals, I see no reason why a person should have to serve 52 weeks in a lower grade. I think that eliminating or at least modifying ( 26 weeks as opposed to 52 weeks time in grade) this rule would foster a higher quality and competitive workforce...
Lavon Hopkins 08/12/09 09:46 am ET
I feel that it would open up the potential for abuse and misuse by federal managers as if that is not already happening. People have a way of getting around the system and doing illegal things legally. The unions and EEO don't have any power anymore. There are people in the government workforce who have experience, degrees and just plain know how and they are going to hire who they want ie relatives and friends so they can have a job. It happens all the time. If this situation was taken seriously and looked into seriously you will see what is really happening in the world of Government employment.
Bernadette Kemp 08/12/09 09:12 am ET