A proposed rule published in the Federal Register would change veterans’ job protections during a large-scale federal job layoff, known as a reduction in force. (Eric Kayne/Stars and Stripes)
WASHINGTON — Disabled American Veterans is condemning a plan by the Office of Personnel Management to change long-held protections for veterans from federal job layoffs.
The plan, published as a proposed rule on the Federal Register, could potentially affect tens of thousands of veterans who are federal workers. Titled “Reduction in Force,” the proposed rule would prioritize performance reviews over a veteran’s status and years of service.
“At a time when hundreds of thousands of veterans serve in the federal workforce, these changes would disproportionately harm those who have already sacrificed for our nation,” said Coleman Nee, DAV’s national commander.
He lambasted the proposed rule as an attempt by the Trump administration to “remove veterans’ preference protections,” which extend back for decades, and to “undermine the balanced framework established by Congress.”
Preference protections traditionally have provided eligible veterans and their family members certain advantages in federal hiring and job retention, according to OPM.
But OPM said it is seeking to revise its reduction-in-force rules to make them more “streamlined, efficient and merit-based,” according to the proposed rule.
More than 600,000 veterans work at federal agencies, making the U.S. government a top employer for former military members, according to the Partnership for Public Service.
Veterans represent a quarter of the overall federal workforce, according to OPM.
More than 385 public comments have been posted since the Federal Register published the proposed rule on March 5, according to the Federal Register. The 60-day public comment period runs through May 4.
The proposed rule describes the regulatory framework as cumbersome and inefficient.
Veterans’ preference policies began after the Civil War, but the modern-day framework was established by the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, according to OPM.
“OPM has seen how the current regulatory framework has not always supported agency downsizing efforts in an efficient manner,” according to the proposed rule.
Tenure is prioritized over job performance, which may cause “high-performing employees” to be terminated during a reduction in force, while “lower-performing, more senior employees” keep their jobs, according to the 31-page proposed rule.
The proposed rule would continue to give “substantial weight to veterans’ preference in determining retention order during a reduction in force, while making performance the primary factor in retention decisions,” OPM said Monday.
The proposal also has no impact on how the federal government hires veterans, and veterans’ preference in hiring remains unchanged, OPM said.
Josh Chappell was among dozens of individuals posting comments on the Federal Register without disclosing affiliation with an organization or if they were a veteran who could be affected by the proposed rule.
Chappell said he was concerned that the rule would not be applied impartially.
“Prioritizing performance over tenure introduces subjectivity into a process that has historically relied on objective criteria. Performance ratings vary widely across supervisors and agencies, while tenure provides a consistent measure of experience and institutional knowledge,” Chappell wrote.
The Office of Special Counsel also submitted a four-page public comment supporting the rule change, titled: “The Office of Special Counsel’s Comments on Office of Personnel Management Proposed Rule on Reduction in Force.”
The office works to ensure that the government workforce is built on competence rather than cronyism or outdated rules, wrote Charles Baldis, senior counsel and designee of acting special counsel Jamieson Greer, of the Office of the Special Counsel.
Baldis described the proposed rule as a “long overdue” corrective action.
“Consider a dedicated employee who consistently exceeds expectations, innovates to improve processes, uncovers operational inefficiencies, or reports misconduct through proper channels,” Baldis wrote.
“That employee could lose their position in a RIF simply because a less effective colleague has accumulated more years of service.”
