Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The Oregon state employee. (Salem, Oregon.) 1944-195? | View Entire Issue (Jan. 1, 1951)
30 Removals in Civil Service (Continued from Page 28) agency, this danger is minimized as far as is humanly possible. Studies of the number of removals made in various jurisdictions where civil service laws are in operation does not bear out the contention that there are many or that they I are based, on insufficient grounds. A study made by the Civil Service Assembly of remov als made in 1946 in 111 typical juris dictions showed that the I dismissal rate was 1.3 percent of total employ ees, slightly lower than in private in dustry. A study of dismissals in the New York City service made just be fore World War II by the New York Civil Service R e f o r m Association showed that the average for the years 1912-1939 was less than 1 percent. Far more frequent than the I em ployee’s charge that it is too easy to remove civil service employees is the charge of the administrator and bus inessman that it is too difficult. This is particularly the ^complaint where review of dismissals" ■ by an K%t|me agency is permitted; Investigation does not corroborate it. The Assem bly’s study, for example, showed that in over 95 percent of the removal cases open to appeal, either no appeals were taken or the appellant agency*, sustained "‘the action of the adminis trative officer. It is undoubtedly and unfortunately true, however, that public administrators*' are more re luctant to remove the incompetent than are those in private industry, in part because of the lack of a profit motive. If the administrator, instead of the taxpayers, had to pay the salar ies of the incompetent or misfit em ployees under him, it is^beriaiwthat many would be separated from the payroll who now are tolerated, given a minor assignment, or “kicked up stairs.” No employer, public or priv ate, enjoys telling his subordinate (who presumably needs his job) that he is no longer required. Still less does he relish the task when he is^apt to be visited in the employee’s |behalf by the latter’s Congressman or district leader, his organization representa tive, his pastor and some of his friends. To many public officials, who owe their eminencbfto political train ing and achievements, and who are apt to think in terms of personal pop ularity and vote-catching, the import ance of satisfying these intermediaries •oiitweighs the good of an impersonal public service. Therefore, when cor nered, they fallb a ck upon the excuse that “ civil service’ keeps the incom petent on the payroll. Anyone who has ever tried to get rid of an unsam g M E^ PubW^^em^?' ployee in a position outside the civil servicd|W&em but within the realm of political protection knows that it is much moreMimcult, than « r e m J | | m employee under any type of merith system. TlS B s ime power that oper ated to get the employee ap p o in B l|n the first place will swing into actiop immediately to keep him there.;?' No civil service law can be drawn so as to provide offgH & 'having,,dis^ ciplinary authority with the backbone to use it. When natural reluctance to make a removal is bolstered by a law which contains the “ closed back door” permitting an o u t ^ S ^ B H to over- rule the admipistrator’s decision in disciplinary cases, the usual result is that no action will be'takewinwie most flagrant cases? Although statist ics prove that the reviewing agency is far more apt to sustain the removal than to reverse it, most administrators fear being placed on trial themselves before the review board. It is an open secret that the greatest value of the closed back door to the employee is Q a deterrent to any removals g tK ffl Knowing that he will have to go through the red tape, delhy and cross questioning of a public hearing, the average administrator will conclude that the result is not worth the trouble involved. It is such provisions of law which have led to criticism of civil; service systems as productive of stag nation of the service. Prevention of the Need for Removal The remedy for unjustifiable re movals is not to be found in the arbi trary action of an independent agency which can fix penalties and require reinstatements, but in preventing the need tor removaffl| This can be done by ffiB usjjB )f intelligBt employment
