Elimination of Time-in-Grade

IFPTE Local 777, a union representing federal employees, opposes the proposal to eliminate Time-in-Grade requirements because it replaces an objective standard with increased management discretion. They argue that removing this standard could undermine trust in the merit system and advocate for clear written promotion criteria and transparency if the change proceeds.

An examiner at the USPTO supports the elimination of the Time-in-Grade requirement, arguing that it prevents high performers from being properly rewarded and may lead to turnover. The commenter suggests that removing these requirements will provide agencies with more flexibility to reward performance while cautioning that safeguards against sabotage should remain.

The commenter expresses a neutral/mixed stance, acknowledging the logic of the proposal but requesting more data, clearer safeguards, and consideration of middle-ground alternatives like graduated TIG relief before a full repeal. They also request better transparency regarding the public visibility of comments during the rulemaking process.

Adam L. Lewis, a Chief in the Air Force Global Strike Command, supports the proposed rule to eliminate Time-in-Grade restrictions for General Schedule positions. He argues that removing the 52-week waiting period will modernize the federal workforce by focusing on merit and capability, improving employee retention, and creating equity across different pay systems.

A federal HR Specialist with 30 years of experience opposes the elimination of Time-in-Grade (TIG) standards. The commenter argues that without significant overhauls to how qualifications are measured and oversight is managed, removing TIG will lead to favoritism and the degradation of federal government operations.

The commenter opposes the elimination of the Time-in-Grade safeguard, arguing that it serves as a necessary quality control measure. They contend that removing it without first establishing a robust, merit-based promotion system will lead to systemic underperformance and organizational failure.

The commenter argues against the elimination of Time-in-Grade (TIG) by highlighting potential risks such as increased favoritism, insufficient experience for promoted employees, and increased payroll costs. They also express concern regarding the loss of institutional knowledge and increased competition for promotions.

The commenter opposes the elimination of time-in-grade requirements, arguing that they ensure fairness and merit-based progression while preventing favoritism. They suggest providing flexibility for high performers instead of removing the objective standards entirely.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule to eliminate the time-in-grade requirement for advancement to competitive service positions in the General Schedule. They argue that the current 52-week requirement ensures fairness, workforce readiness, and consistent promotion standards across agencies, and they suggest a more measured approach with narrowly tailored exceptions instead of full elimination.