Job security for political figures is never longer than six years and sometimes it's as short as two. As taxpayers and voters, you and I decide whether or not our elected officials remain employed.
Should other government employees on the public roll have a similar period of performance review?
The model has been applied recently to the private sector workforce. For instance, an Atlantic City casino has set terms for employees lasting four to six years. After that short period, they must go through the hiring process all over again.
On GovLoop, there's been some debate on whether or not this approach should be applied to public sector jobs.
Tricia Garland, a state-level human resources manager, asked whether the practice in the public sector would create a situation where the best employees stick around, or if it would drive employees away by limiting job security. She noted that there is already limited job security, saying:
"From a human resources perspective, it is easy to see both sides of the coin here. My one exception however, is the argument that the policy does away with job security for these employees. I would like to ask these folks where is their job security on the job these days? Is one's job really secure any longer? Many workers are employed at-will these days, not to mention all of the reductions-in-force we have all seen in the past few years."
Rebecca Mann, a grants management specialist for the Administration on Aging, finds it difficult to imagine how a restructuring of the hiring process would encourage workers in the federal government.
"If I had to do this [every four to six years], I'd likely be applying for a better job instead."
Gregory Butera, a consultant with a federal contractor, feels strongly that term limits are a bad practice. They may seem like a good idea to root out poor performers, but there are unintended consequences.
"Term limits mean that you can weed out the bad, but you also weed out good," said Butera. "Term limits make it near to impossible for people to develop the specialization, networks, clout and expertise needed to solve real problems. Term limits select for behaviors that are moderate and compliant, but companies and governments also need people with edge and sharpness for innovation and success."
Others thought this model could only work if managers, including executives, had the same rehiring requirements as their employees. Deena Larsen, a technical writer for the Bureau of Reclamation, agreed that excluding management would only lead to resentment. She offered an alternative: "A better idea would be for everyone in the organization to have documented reviews and to make it much easier than it currently is to fire those not performing satisfactorily."
The idea of renewable contracts for employees was also offered in contrast to having to be 'rehired' or having to conduct documented reviews.
Keena Cauthen, supervisory veterans service representative for the Veterans Administration, cautiously noted that contracts would add more stability than rehiring, and offer some sense of job security.
"If you want to go this route, in any way... it would be contracts instead of terms. That way when your contract is coming to an end, you negotiate to re-sign it and not so much completely compete for the job again."
It's unlikely that public sector workers will ever have much to worry about regarding terms, but if they did, it would be sure to stir up controversy. Any changes in the hiring and retention process should be done only to ensure the continued high quality of public sector employees.