Since the start of President Donald Trump's second term, a significant passage of time has been marked by aggressive moves to revamp the federal workforce. This encompasses dismantling certain entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and proposing mass deferred resignations, all through numerous executive orders and memos. The goal is to substantially resize the federal workforce and redefine where its employees are stationed. Let's delve into what these changes entail for the federal workforce, job security, and the intricate process of scaling down its size.
The civilian federal workforce, excluding military personnel and postal workers, consists of approximately 2.4 million individuals. While about 20% of these employees are based in Washington, D.C., and nearby Maryland and Virginia, a notable 80% contribute their services well beyond these regions. Civil servants, primarily recruited through a rigorous application procedure, form the backbone of federal employment and enjoy robust protective measures post-employment. In contrast, political appointees, numbering around 4,000, serve at presidential discretion and can be easily replaced.
Historically, civil servants have often dedicated much of their working lives to their roles, spanning decades on occasion. Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, recalls a similar situation during President Bill Clinton's administration, during which around 426,000 federal positions were cut over an extended span of more than eight years, as part of an initiative to reinvent government. Such roles offer notable job security, backed by a long-standing legal framework.
The protections for federal employees, particularly those who are not political appointees, have been bolstered over the years as a safeguard against politically motivated dismissals. These protections evolved under the leadership of both major political parties, aiming at maintaining the integrity of public service.
The president indeed faces a challenging task, noted Donald Kettl, an emeritus professor and former dean of the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Federal employees benefit from due process which entails the right to challenge disciplinary actions formally. They are entitled to notification of charges against them and the opportunity to defend themselves in such instances.
The history of federal worker protections traces back to the need for reform from the chaotic 19th-century spoils system, where federal roles were handed to loyal supporters of the president, leading to inefficiency and disruption with each electoral shift. This led to the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883, introducing merit-based hiring for federal jobs, followed by further solidification via the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, offering enforceable rights and strengthening job security.
According to David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law, ensuring job security encourages talented individuals to pursue careers in public service. Without such protections, there’s a risk of losing competent personnel with each political transition. No previous U.S. administration has undertaken workforce reductions as extensive as those proposed by Trump, states Max Stier, CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, an organization committed to enhancing government efficiency.
Federal employees are unionized, though their unions lack the strike capability present in many sectors and cannot negotiate salaries which are legislatively established. They can, however, negotiate over work conditions and basic rights — such as the current battles over remote work incentives, which Trump seeks to curtail considerably. Their bargaining power is somewhat constrained, adds Super, as they cannot dictate agency policies, but they can advocate for workplace conditions affecting their duties and welfare.
New federal employees typically undergo a probationary period, lasting one or two years, wherein their performance is closely monitored. If they meet the expected standards, they advance to full employment with stronger job protections.
