1. Appeals Process in Federal Employment

Extremely low dismissal rate in the federal workforce (<1%), with far more job security than the private sector.

Complex, overlapping appeal systems (MSPB, EEOC, FLRA, OSC) discourage managers from firing underperformers due to time-consuming legal hurdles.

Forum shopping is common, allowing employees to bring cases to multiple agencies with little consequence for frivolous claims.

Backlogs are substantial: MSPB had ~3,000 cases (some dating back to 2013); EEOC had 42,000 cases as of January 2023.Proposed reform: Consolidate appeals processes under MSPB, limit union powers, and reassign responsibilities (e.g., EEOC federal employee claims to MSPB, OSC investigations to OPM).

2. Federal Pay and Benefits

Official data understate the true cost of federal employment by excluding contractor spending and underreporting liabilities.

While some reports claim federal workers are underpaid, independent studies show they earn 14%–22% more in wages and 30%–61% more in total compensation than their private-sector peers.

Generous benefits include high locality pay, cost-of-living raises, more vacation and sick days, and superior health coverage.

Suggested reform: Shift toward a market-based compensation model, with OPM overseeing pay scales, based on occupation, region, turnover rates, and applicant supply.

3. Retirement Reform

Federal employees retire earlier with better benefits than private workers, often receiving fully inflation-indexed pensions.

The shift from CSRS to FERS in the Reagan era helped cut retirement costs from 44.3% to 28.5% of payroll, saving billions.

Even under FERS, federal retirement is still more generous than private-sector equivalents.

Further alignment with private-sector retirement norms is encouraged.

4. GSA’s Role

The General Services Administration (GSA) is not only a real estate manager but also plays a role in personnel and contractor management.

Regular coordination between GSA and OPM is recommended for better alignment on contractor and civil service staffing and transitions (like during presidential transitions).

5. Reductions-in-Force (RIFs)

Past efforts (Clinton, Obama, Reagan, Trump) to reduce the federal workforce through hiring freezes yielded limited and temporary effects.

Real personnel costs lie in contractor growth (20 million contractors vs. 2 million federal employees) and federal grant-funded state workers, which are harder to reduce.

Buyout programs (e.g., early retirement incentives) are costly and can be counterproductive if replacements are hired soon after.

More impactful than cutting headcount is cutting unnecessary functions, programs, and grant expenditures.