Postal Employee Appeal Rights Amendment Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1559
Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

ID: C001078

Follow the money

The bill

Postal Employee Appeal Rights Amendment Act of 2025

HR. 1559, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$69,150 raised

22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy" section, p. 106-108 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1559, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.

November 19, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another thrilling episode of "Congressional Theater" brought to you by the esteemed members of the 119th Congress. Today's feature presentation is HR 1559, the Postal Employee Appeal Rights Amendment Act of 2025. *yawn*

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to extend the right of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to certain employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS). Wow, how noble. I'm sure it has nothing to do with currying favor with postal unions or padding the resumes of its sponsors, Mr. Connolly and Mr. Garbarino.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I) of title 39, United States Code, to include certain USPS employees in supervisory, professional, technical, clerical, administrative, or managerial positions covered by the Executive and Administrative Schedule. Oh, what a mouthful. In simpler terms, it's a minor tweak to an existing law that will likely have negligible impact on the lives of most Americans.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include USPS employees who aren't represented by a bargaining representative recognized under section 1203 and are in certain positions covered by the Executive and Administrative Schedule. I'm sure these individuals are just thrilled to be the beneficiaries of this monumental legislation. The real stakeholders, however, are likely the postal unions and special interest groups that will use this bill as leverage for future negotiations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is minimal, but the implications are rich in comedic value. This bill is a classic example of "legislative theater," where lawmakers pretend to address a pressing issue while actually doing nothing substantial. It's a clever way to waste taxpayer time and money on a non-problem. The real disease here is the chronic condition of "Congressional Inertia," where our esteemed representatives prioritize self-serving grandstanding over meaningful policy changes.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Symbolic Legislation Syndrome" (SLS), characterized by a propensity for empty gestures, vague language, and an overall lack of substance. Treatment involves a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic nonsense, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies and posturing.

Prognosis: This bill will likely pass with minimal fanfare, only to be forgotten in the annals of legislative history. Meanwhile, the real issues plaguing our postal system – inefficiency, mismanagement, and declining services – will continue to fester, ignored by our courageous lawmakers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$69,150
18 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$2,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
1 transaction
$2,900

No committee contributions found

1
PUNARO, ARNOLD
2 transactions
$6,600
2
PUNARO, JULIA
2 transactions
$6,600
3
HALE, KAREN
2 transactions
$6,600
4
PHILLIPS, STERLING
2 transactions
$6,600
5
HERSHMAN, MICHAEL J.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
TRONE, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MISENER, PAUL E
1 transaction
$3,300
8
RABAUT, TOM W
1 transaction
$3,300
9
WALKER, KENT
1 transaction
$3,300
10
CARLSON, TERESA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
GURU, RAM
1 transaction
$3,300
12
HALL SR, DON
1 transaction
$3,300
13
HALL, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
14
ABOD, CARAH
1 transaction
$3,300
15
ABOD, KIM
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BERBERIAN, ANNETTE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2]

ID: G000597

Top Contributors

10

1
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationPEARL, MS
$1,000
Nov 5, 2024
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$1,000
Jun 20, 2023
3
DUIT, JAMES
CONCEPTION LLC • PARTNER
IndividualEDMOND, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
4
DUIT, PAMELA
CONCEPTION LLC • PARTNER
IndividualEDMOND, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
5
ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE
WINROCK ENT • PRESIDENT
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
6
RICKETTS, MARLENE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOMAHA, NE
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
7
LEACH, HOWARD
SELF EMPLOYED • PRIVATE INVESTOR
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
FEINSTEIN, LEONARD
BED BATH AND BEYOND • CHAIRMAN
IndividualJERICHO, NY
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
9
BANKE, BARBARA R.
JACKSON FAMILY WINES • OWNER
IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA
$3,300
Nov 15, 2023
10
SMITH, HOLLY
SHOOK HARDY BACON LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023

Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]

ID: K000385

Top Contributors

10

1
CROKE FOR ILLINOIS
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$1,000
Feb 28, 2024
2
COMMITTEE TO ELECT JUSTICE COBBS
OrganizationMATTESON, IL
$500
Feb 28, 2024
3
KELLY, MELINDA
IndividualOAK LAWN, IL
$4,400
Oct 23, 2024
4
AUSTRIACO, AURORA
VALENTINE AUSTRIACO AND BUESCHEL • ATTORNEY
IndividualPARK RIDGE, IL
$4,000
Dec 4, 2023
5
AUSTRIACO, AURORA
IndividualPARK RIDGE, IL
$4,000
Dec 5, 2023
6
ROGERS, LARRY R
POWER ROGERS, L.L.P. • ATTORNEY
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,407
Oct 21, 2024
7
ANTUNOVICH, JOSEPH
ANTUNOVICH ASSOCIATES • ARCHITECT
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,407
Sep 28, 2023
8
BONGARD, BETH A.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualOLYMPIA FIELDS, IL
$3,300
Mar 18, 2024
9
LEWIS, KATRICE
SELF EMPLOYED • MANAGER
IndividualSOUTH HOLLAND, IL
$3,300
Mar 18, 2024
10
MARQUIS, D.L
MARQUIS ENERGY • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualPEORIA, IL
$3,300
Mar 4, 2024

Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6]

ID: M001232

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

10

1
MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP
OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY
$1,000
Feb 24, 2024
2
BATMASIAN, JAMES
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 27, 2023
3
BATMASIAN, JAMES
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
4
AUSTIN, ROBERT
UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 15, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 22, 2024
7
SCALA, MARY ELLEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY
$5,300
Aug 27, 2023
8
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
SELF • PRESIDENT
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 24, 2024
9
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 25, 2024
10
PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL
GOLDEN TASTE • CEO
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,400
Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1]

ID: S001218

Top Contributors

10

1
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,700
Jun 10, 2024
2
PUEBLO OF ISLETA
OrganizationISLETA, NM
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
3
PUEBLO OF SANDIA
OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
4
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
5
PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA
OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023
6
PUEBLO OF SANDIA
OrganizationBERNALILLO, NM
$3,300
Nov 27, 2023
7
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
8
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
9
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
10
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRANTON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 25, 2024

Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1]

ID: D000617

Top Contributors

10

1
JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE
OrganizationSEQUIM, WA
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023
2
LUMMI INDIAN NATION
OrganizationBELLINGHAM, WA
$5,000
Jul 17, 2024
3
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,700
Jun 28, 2024
4
SNOQUALMIE TRIBE
OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA
$3,300
Nov 2, 2023
5
JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE
OrganizationSEQUIM, WA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
6
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
Jun 1, 2023
7
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
OrganizationTULALIP, WA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
8
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
9
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
OrganizationTULALIP, WA
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
10
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
Aug 13, 2024

Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

ID: C001068

Top Contributors

10

1
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,000
Nov 5, 2024
2
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$2,000
Nov 5, 2024
3
KEENEY, MIKE
LEWIS THOMASON • LEWIS THOMASON
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Feb 6, 2024
4
RITCHEY, JANICE C
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
RITCHEY, KENT
WOLFCHASE TOYOTA • AUTOMOBILE DEALER
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
6
WALTON, CHRISTY
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
7
KEENEY, MICHAEL
LEWIS THOMASON • ATTORNEY
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
May 25, 2023
8
SEGAL, GORDON
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Apr 10, 2023
9
SMITH, FREDERICK
FEDEX • CEO
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jul 31, 2024
10
BEKTAS, MELIH
SELF EMPLOYED • ENGINEER
IndividualNORTH PROVIDENCE, RI
$3,000
Oct 19, 2023

Rep. Golden, Jared F. [D-ME-2]

ID: G000592

Top Contributors

10

1
PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION
OrganizationINDIAN ISLAND, ME
$3,300
Oct 19, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Feb 8, 2024
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 13, 2024
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
5
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$2,000
Oct 15, 2024
6
PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE AT INDIAN TOWNSHIP
OrganizationPERRY, ME
$1,000
Oct 28, 2024
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Oct 31, 2024
8
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Jun 27, 2024
9
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Sep 26, 2024
10
KIRK, GARRETT JR
SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Nov 2, 2024

Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]

ID: S001201

Top Contributors

10

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Aug 3, 2024
2
SCOTTO LLC
OrganizationWOODBURY, NY
$1,650
Aug 30, 2024
3
PATROON OPERATING CO. LLC
OrganizationNEW YORK, NY
$1,000
May 13, 2024
4
THE KLAR ORGANIZATION
OrganizationEAST MEADOW, NY
$1,000
Aug 8, 2024
5
TERIAN, OLIVIA
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$9,400
May 2, 2024
6
TERIAN, OLIVIA
OLIVIA TERIAN ART & DESIGN • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024
7
MORAN, MARY
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024
8
MORAN, MARY
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
May 2, 2024
9
FAIVUS, HARRY E.
MOUNT SINAI • PHYSICIAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 31, 2024
10
SOSNICK, AARON
IndividualRENO, NV
$3,392
Jun 25, 2024

Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30]

ID: C001130

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 2, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 9, 2023
3
ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Oct 25, 2024
4
SMITH, TODD
SMITH LACIEN LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
5
MATTHEWS, JOHN
MATTHEWS SOUTHWEST • DEVELOPER
IndividualARGYLE, TX
$6,600
May 9, 2023
6
MATTHEWS, LAURA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualARGYLE, TX
$6,600
Jun 28, 2023
7
MONTGOMERY, SADAT
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualFRISCO, TX
$6,600
Jun 12, 2023
8
SMITH, TODD
SMITH LACIEN LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,200
Feb 28, 2024
9
BRYANT, KARIM
SELF EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualIRVING, TX
$5,000
Jan 11, 2024
10
OLESKY, DAVID
MILLER WEISBROD OLESKY • ATTORNEY
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$4,600
Feb 15, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 53 nodes and 34 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $104,850

Top Donors - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org1 Committee16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.80

    Section 2 extends the right of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board to certain employees of the United States Postal Service, which may be seen as a benefit to labor unions representing these employees.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Moderate
Vector: 60%
Pages: 106-108AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1559 extends MSPB appeal rights to certain USPS employees, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on performance accountability and merit-based systems by supporting fair personnel processes, though it does not directly address performance appraisal reform or merit pay."

Key themes:performance accountabilitymerit systemspersonnel appealsfederal workforce management

— 73 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy that would change regularly to depress cheating. President Donald Trump’s OPM planned to implement such changes but was delayed because of legal concerns over possible disparate impact. Courts have agreed to review the consent decree if the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures setting the technical requirements for sound exams are reformed. A government that is unable to select employees based on KSA-like test qualifications cannot work, and the OPM must move forward on this very basic personnel management obligation. The Centrality of Performance Appraisal. In the meantime, the OPM must manage the workforce it has. Before they can reward or discipline federal employees, managers must first identify who their top performers are and who is performing less than adequately. In fact, as Ludwig von Mises proved in his classic Bureaucracy,14 unlike the profit-and-loss evaluation tool used in the private sector, government performance measurement depends totally on a functioning appraisal system. If they cannot be identified in the first place within a functioning appraisal system, it is impossible to reward good performance or correct poor performance. The problem is that the collegial atmosphere of a bureaucracy in a multifaceted appraisal system that is open to appeals makes this a very challenging ideal to implement successfully. The GAO reported more recently that overly high and widely spread perfor- mance ratings were again plaguing the government, with more than 99 percent of employees rated fully successful or above by their managers, a mere 0.3 percent rated as minimally successful, and 0.1 percent actually rated unacceptable.15 Why? It is human nature that no one appreciates being told that he or she is less than outstanding in every way. Informing subordinates in a closely knit bureaucracy that they are not performing well is difficult. Rating compatriots is even consid- ered rude and unprofessional. Moreover, managers can be and often are accused of racial or sexual discrimination for a poor rating, and this discourages honesty. In 2018, President Trump issued Executive Order 1383916 requiring agen- cies to reduce the time for employees to improve performance before corrective action could be taken; to initiate disciplinary actions against poorly performing employees more expeditiously; to reiterate that agencies are obligated to make employees improve; to reduce the time for employees to respond to allegations of poor performance; to mandate that agencies remind supervisors of expiring employee probationary periods; to prohibit agencies from entering into settlement agreements that modify an employee’s personnel record; and to reevaluate proce- dures for agencies to discipline supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers. Unfortunately, the order was overturned by the Biden Administration,17 so it will need to be reintroduced in 2025. The fact remains that meaningfully evaluating employees’ performance is a critical part of a manager’s job. In the Reagan appraisal process, managers were evaluated on how they themselves rated their subordinates. This is critical to — 74 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise responsibility and improved management. It is essential that political executives build policy goals directly into employee appraisals both for mission success and for employees to know what is expected. Indistinguishable from their coworkers on paper, hard-working federal employees often go unrewarded for their efforts and are often the system’s greatest critics. Federal workers who are performing inadequately get neither the benefit of an honest appraisal nor clear guidance on how to improve. Political executives should take an active role in supervising per- formance appraisals of career staff, not unduly delegate this responsibility to senior career managers, and be willing to reward and support good performers. Merit Pay. Performance appraisal means little to daily operations if it is not tied directly to real consequences for success as well as failure. According to a survey of major U.S. private companies—which, unlike the federal government, also have a profit-and-loss evaluation—90 percent use a system of merit pay for performance based on some type of appraisal system. Despite early efforts to institute merit pay throughout the federal government, however, compensation is still based primarily on seniority rather than merit. Merit pay for executives and managers was part of the Carter reforms and was implemented early in the Reagan presidency. Beginning in the summer of 1982, the Reagan OPM entered 18 months of negotiations with House and Senate staff on extending merit pay to the entire workforce. Long and detailed talks between the OPM and both Democrats and Republicans in Congress ensued, and a final agreement was reached in 1983 that supposedly ensured the passage of legislation creating a new Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) for all, (not just management) GS-13 through GS-15 employees. Meanwhile, the OPM issued regulations to expand the role of performance related to pay throughout the entire workforce, but congressional allies of the employee unions, led by Representative Steny Hoyer (D) of government employee– rich Maryland, stoutly resisted this extension of pay-for-performance and, with strong union support, used the congressional appropriations process to block OPM administrative pay reforms. Bonuses for SES career employees survived, but per- formance appraisals became so high and widely distributed that there was little relationship between performance and remuneration. Ever since the original merit pay system for federal managers (GM-13 through GM-15 grade levels, just below the SES) was allowed to expire in September 1993, little to nothing has been done either to reinstate the federal merit pay program for managers or to distribute performance rating evaluations for the SES, much less to extend the program to the remainder of the workforce. A reform-friendly President and Congress might just provide the opportunity to create a more comprehensive performance plan; in the meantime, however, political executives should use exist- ing pay and especially fiscal awards strategically to reward good performance to the degree allowed by law.

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 106-108AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1559 expands MSPB appeal rights to more USPS employees, which increases the appeals workload, whereas Project 2025’s Central Personnel Agencies section seeks to streamline the appeals process to reduce backlog and enable managers to address poor performance more effectively. The bill’s focus on procedural fairness overlaps only tangentially with the policy’s goal of managing bureaucracy through efficient merit‑based oversight."

Key themes:Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)appeals processfederal employee rightsperformance managementbureaucracy management

— 74 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise responsibility and improved management. It is essential that political executives build policy goals directly into employee appraisals both for mission success and for employees to know what is expected. Indistinguishable from their coworkers on paper, hard-working federal employees often go unrewarded for their efforts and are often the system’s greatest critics. Federal workers who are performing inadequately get neither the benefit of an honest appraisal nor clear guidance on how to improve. Political executives should take an active role in supervising per- formance appraisals of career staff, not unduly delegate this responsibility to senior career managers, and be willing to reward and support good performers. Merit Pay. Performance appraisal means little to daily operations if it is not tied directly to real consequences for success as well as failure. According to a survey of major U.S. private companies—which, unlike the federal government, also have a profit-and-loss evaluation—90 percent use a system of merit pay for performance based on some type of appraisal system. Despite early efforts to institute merit pay throughout the federal government, however, compensation is still based primarily on seniority rather than merit. Merit pay for executives and managers was part of the Carter reforms and was implemented early in the Reagan presidency. Beginning in the summer of 1982, the Reagan OPM entered 18 months of negotiations with House and Senate staff on extending merit pay to the entire workforce. Long and detailed talks between the OPM and both Democrats and Republicans in Congress ensued, and a final agreement was reached in 1983 that supposedly ensured the passage of legislation creating a new Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) for all, (not just management) GS-13 through GS-15 employees. Meanwhile, the OPM issued regulations to expand the role of performance related to pay throughout the entire workforce, but congressional allies of the employee unions, led by Representative Steny Hoyer (D) of government employee– rich Maryland, stoutly resisted this extension of pay-for-performance and, with strong union support, used the congressional appropriations process to block OPM administrative pay reforms. Bonuses for SES career employees survived, but per- formance appraisals became so high and widely distributed that there was little relationship between performance and remuneration. Ever since the original merit pay system for federal managers (GM-13 through GM-15 grade levels, just below the SES) was allowed to expire in September 1993, little to nothing has been done either to reinstate the federal merit pay program for managers or to distribute performance rating evaluations for the SES, much less to extend the program to the remainder of the workforce. A reform-friendly President and Congress might just provide the opportunity to create a more comprehensive performance plan; in the meantime, however, political executives should use exist- ing pay and especially fiscal awards strategically to reward good performance to the degree allowed by law. — 75 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy Making the Appeals Process Work. The nonmilitary government dismissal rate is well below 1 percent, and no private-sector industry employee enjoys the job security that a federal employee enjoys. Both safety and justice demand that managers learn to act strategically to hire good and fire poor performers legally. The initial paperwork required to separate poor or abusive performers (when they are infrequently identified) is not overwhelming, and managers might be motivated to act if it were not for the appeals and enforcement processes. Formal appeal in the private sector is mostly a rather simple two-step process, but government unions and associations have been able to convince politicians to support a multiple and extensive appeals and enforcement process. As noted, there are multiple administrative appeals bodies. The FLRA, OSC, and EEOC have relatively narrow jurisdictions. Claims that an employee’s removal or disciplinary actions violate the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between an agency and a union are handled by the FLRA, employees who claim their removal was the result of discrimination can appeal to the EEOC, and employ- ees who believe their firing was retribution for being a whistleblower can go to the OSC. While the MSPB specializes in abuses of direct merit system issues, it can and does hear and review almost any of the matters heard by the other agencies. Cases involving race, gender, religion, age, pregnancy, disability, or national origin can be appealed to the EEOC or the MSPB—and in some cases to both—and to the OSC. This gives employees multiple opportunities to prove their cases, and while the EEOC, MSPB, FLRA, and OSC may all apply essentially the same burden of proof, the odds of success may be substantially different in each forum. In fact, forum shopping among them for a friendlier venue is a common practice, but fre- quent filers face no consequences for frivolous complaints. As a result, meritorious cases are frequently delayed, denying relief and justice to truly aggrieved individuals. The MSPB can and does handle all such matters, but it faces a backlog of an estimated 3,000 cases of people who were potentially wrongfully terminated or disciplined as far back as 2013. From 2017–2022 the MSPB lacked the quorum required to decide appeals. On the other hand, as of January 2023, the EEOC had a backlog of 42,000 cases. While federal employees win appeals relatively infrequently—MSPB adminis- trative judges have upheld agency decisions as much as 80 percent of the time—the real problem is the time and paperwork involved in the elaborate process that managers must undergo during appeals. This keeps even the best managers from bringing cases in all but the most egregious cases of poor performance or mis- conduct. As a result, the MSPB, EEOC, FLRA, and OSC likely see very few cases compared to the number of occurrences, and nonperformers continue to be paid and often are placed in nonwork positions. Having a choice of appeals is especially unique to the government. If lower-pri- ority issues were addressed in-house, serious adverse actions would be less subject

Department of Justice

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 611-614AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1559 focuses on extending MSPB appeal rights to certain USPS employees, which relates to federal workforce fairness and due process. While Project 2025's Department of Labor section emphasizes worker dignity, family-supporting jobs, and agency roles in protecting workers, the bill does not directly address those broader themes, resulting in only weak thematic alignment."

Key themes:worker protectionsfederal employmentdue process

— 579 — Department of Justice 93. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, 107th Congress, November 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ296/PLAW-107publ296.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 94. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1103(a)(1) and 1103(g), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1103 (accessed February 3, 2023). 95. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1324–1326, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/ subchapter-II/part-VIII (accessed February 3, 2023). 96. Press release, “Justice, Labor Departments Reach Settlements with Facebook Resolving Claims of Discrimination Against U.S. Workers and Potential Regulatory Recruitment Violations,” U.S. Department of Justice, October 19, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-labor-departments-reach-settlements- facebook-resolving-claims-discrimination-against (accessed February 3, 2023). 97. “Every four years, just after the Presidential election, the ‘United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions,’ commonly known as the Plum Book, is published, alternately, by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.” Senate Committee Print No. 114-26, United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 114th Cong., 2nd Sess., December 1, 2016, p. iii, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016/pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016.pdf (accessed February 5, 2023). 98. Allen J. Beck, “Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistical Brief No. NCJ 255969, January 2021, https:// bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). — 581 — 18 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND RELATED AGENCIES Jonathan Berry MISSION STATEMENT At the heart of The Conservative Promise is the resolve to reclaim the role of each American worker as the protagonist in his or her own life and to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life. The role that labor policy plays in that promise is twofold: Give workers the support they need for rewarding, well-paying, and self-driven careers, and restore the family-supporting job as the centerpiece of the American economy. The Judeo-Christian tradition, stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor, and family. And Americans have long been known for their work ethic. While it is primarily the culture’s responsibility to affirm the dignity of work, our federal labor and employment agencies have an important role to play by protect- ing workers, setting boundaries for the healthy functioning of labor markets, and ultimately encouraging wages and conditions for jobs that can support a family. OVERVIEW The labor agencies covered in this chapter include the Department of Labor (DOL), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the National Mediation Board (NMB), the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Congress has provided these agencies with the authority to enforce a wide range of federal statutes regulating workplace conduct, workforce development, employee benefits, labor organization and bargaining, and interna- tional labor conditions.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills