Promoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures Consistent With Merit System Principles

Background

Before it was revoked by President Biden, Executive Order 13839 had a significant impact on the federal workforce management landscape, primarily aiming to streamline the removal process of federal employees deemed as underperformers. The order emphasized minimizing supervisor's burdens by simplifying procedures for discharging employees with inadequate performance. This directive was executed without enacting new rules through formal rule-making processes. Agencies across the federal government, in accordance with this order, adapted to operational guidelines that reduced the complexity historically encountered in removal actions, which in practice translated to shorter time frames for assessing employee improvements and less prolonged disciplinary processes.

The order further mandated federal agencies to refrain from implementing progressive disciplinary measures in a set sequence, which historically required lesser penalties to be tried before imposing severe actions like removal. Instead, agencies were authorized to react more directly to performance issues based on situational appropriateness, which provided supervisors with increased discretion over disciplinary actions, thus potentially leading to more frequent and swifter employee dismissals. The directive fundamentally altered labor-management relations by endeavoring to exclude matters related to removal decisions from negotiated grievance procedures, which shifted the balance of power in federal employment disputes.

The policy shift under the executive order facilitated a cultural change within federal agencies, rendering them more focused on immediate performance metrics rather than the traditionally balanced approach between employee rights and agency efficiency. The focus on immediate performance accountability and reduction in procedural barriers for removal actions resonated with a broader administrative philosophy of government efficiency. However, the measures led to concerns among federal employee unions and advocacy groups, as they potentially weakened job security and reduced protections against arbitrary or retaliatory actions by supervisors.

Reason for Revocation

President Biden's revocation of the order proceeded from a broader ideological and policy shift toward restoring traditional labor-management relations and reinforcing worker protections in the federal sector. The Biden administration swiftly acted to undo several Trump-era policies that were perceived as undermining collective bargaining rights and diminishing worker protections. This decision aligned with Biden's campaign promises to promote fairness and equity within the federal workforce by strengthening avenues for employee grievances and reinforcing due process protections.

The decision to rescind the order was heavily influenced by the conviction that a workforce empowered by robust procedural protections is more likely to yield a motivated and effective public service. The administration viewed the order as undermining the merit system principles enshrined in federal employment, particularly those pertaining to fair treatment, due process, and bargaining rights. By revoking the order, President Biden emphasized a return to a more balanced approach where employee protections are harmonized with performance accountability.

As part of a broader ideological shift, the revocation was aligned with initiatives to empower unions and ensure employee voices in workplace issues are sufficiently heard, thereby fostering transparency and collaboration between management and workforce. This move was part of concerted efforts to restore trust in federal institutions by ensuring that employees are judged fairly based on comprehensive evaluations rather than expedient processes vulnerable to misuse.

In essence, revoking the order was emblematic of a commitment to rebuild trust in the civil service system, counteract prior trends that arguably destabilized labor relations, and emphasize long-term workforce stability over short-term efficiency—values central to the administration's ethos of governance.

Winners

Federal employee unions emerged as significant beneficiaries from the revocation of the order. With the reinstatement of more robust grievance rights, unions regained their footing in advocating for workforce protections, ensuring that labor-management relations regained a constructive, dialogue-oriented approach. Their strengthened position enables them to better negotiate fair treatment, due process regulations, and protections against arbitrary discharge or disciplinary actions.

Government employees as a collective are also likely to see positive outcomes following the revocation. With reestablished procedural protections, federal employees enjoy enhanced job security and a greater capacity to challenge adverse personnel actions. This change potentially fosters an environment where employees feel more secure and supported, arguably leading to improved job satisfaction and productivity in the federal workforce.

The public sector broadly benefits from the restoration of civil service principles that prioritize fair treatment and due process over expedient, discretionary removals. The sense of stability and fairness injected into the employment framework can result in more effective public service delivery in the long term, as employees are incentivized to contribute positively and stay engaged with their roles under enhanced fair treatment guarantees.

Losers

The direct impact of the revocation falls unfavorably on administrative bodies within federal agencies that had adjusted operational processes to align with streamlined removal procedures. Supervisors and agency heads faced increased burdens of proving just cause in disciplinary actions, thus reverting to more comprehensive documentation and evaluation processes for managing performance issues.

Agency leaders with mandates for operational efficiency and performance accountability initiatives may face challenges as the adjustments necessitated by the revocation could slow decision-making processes. The emphasis on due process and procedural rigor may prolong employment decisions, potentially delaying agencies' adaptation to achieve enhanced performance standards that were rapidly pursued under the executive order.

The private sector entities seeking government contracts that are affected by the efficiency and responsiveness of federal agencies may also experience adverse effects. Delays in employee removals and the additional procedural necessities could translate to slower government functions, impacting timelines and efficiency in public-private collaborations.