Photo credit: www.govexec.com
Senate Hearing Highlights Trump Administration’s Approach to Federal Workforce
During a recent Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, two of President Trump’s nominees faced scrutiny regarding the administration’s plans for the federal workforce. Scott Kupor, designated to lead the Office of Personnel Management, and Eric Ueland, nominated for the deputy director of management at the Office of Management and Budget, both avoided addressing specifics about efforts to downsize the federal workforce. Instead, they emphasized the merits of at-will employment.
Kupor, a venture capital executive from Andreesen Horowitz, acknowledged the necessity for the federal government to eliminate its budget deficit. He stressed that achieving this objective would require making “tough choices” in determining which services agencies continue to provide. Nevertheless, he assured senators that any workforce reductions must be approached with respect for the dignity and humanity of federal employees.
However, when pressed about the Trump administration’s current strategies to decrease the federal workforce—including measures such as the deferred resignation program and widespread firings of employees during their probationary periods—Kupor appeared hesitant to provide a definitive response.
Senator Gary Peters, the committee’s leading Democrat, inquired, “Does it make sense to start a restructuring by firing folks who have just been promoted because of their outstanding performance?” Kupor’s response was vague, indicating the complexities involved in commenting on such a decision.
In an attempt to clarify his stance, Peters further questioned Kupor, asking if he found the practice troubling. Kupor reiterated the importance of ensuring transparency and communication regarding workforce management without clearly addressing the underlying concerns raised by Peters.
Senator Peters also raised the issue of a recent executive order issued by President Trump aimed at revoking collective bargaining rights for up to 1.5 million federal employees, purportedly in the name of national security. Peters queried whether this order might hinder labor-management relations. Kupor responded that the order acknowledges the president’s authority to designate national security areas where traditional labor practices may not apply, though he admitted he needed more time to analyze its implications fully.
Ueland, serving as the acting chief of staff at OMB while awaiting confirmation, expressed enthusiasm about the executive order’s potential to better align federal responsibilities with mission objectives. He declared that the federal workforce needed to adapt to the demands of the 21st century, asserting his commitment to rejuvenating the workforce’s structure and operational efficiency.
Furthermore, Ueland characterized at-will employment as a beneficial aspect of federal service, alluding to the accountability that comes with serving “at the pleasure of the president.” He portrayed this arrangement as invigorating and an opportunity for rapid personal and organizational development.
In defense of the administration’s position, Committee Chairman Rand Paul countered the narrative suggesting Republicans are antagonistic towards federal employees. He argued that in a business experiencing significant losses, such as the federal government with its extensive budget deficits, sometimes difficult personnel decisions must be made, including letting go of well-performing individuals if it may ultimately benefit the organization. He suggested that over-promotion could be a tactic used to shield employees from layoffs and emphasized that not all federal employees should be seen as opposed to the Trump administration’s objectives.
Source
www.govexec.com