---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

The first coronavirus plan for most federal employees, announced at the end of July, required employees to “attest” to their status and threatened discipline only if someone was discovered to have lied about their vaccination status. But little was done to push that plan along before Thursday’s was announced.

“The attestation [phase] failed,” said Jason Briefel, partner at Shaw Bransford & Roth, who represents several federal employee associations, including the Senior Executives Association, which represents about 1,700 career senior leaders in government. “There were templates, there was guidance, but it appears there’s a major disconnect between the center of government and [agencies’] ability to navigate this change on the ground.”

“We did not feel the ‘throw it over the fence to the agencies’ strategy was the right one,” Briefel said.

The Treasury Department, for example, planned to start testing only in mid-October, Hooper said. The White House budget office had promised agencies that it would provide access to a contractor, but not until late fall.

Most officials agree that a mandate will be more simple to implement than the earlier policy. But if the traditional system for punishing employees is used for those refusing vaccines, as Psaki suggested, another raft of complications would come into play.

The administration, in guidance to agencies sent in August after the first vaccine plan was announced, recommended that employees who refuse to get shots be placed on administrative leave, a form of paid time off used widely for short-term absences. It is also used when a manager proposed removing an employee, with final action within 30 days.

But in recent years, the policy was widely considered to have been abused by managers who wanted to sideline troublesome workers while misconduct or poor performance reports were adjudicated. Managers were often slow to respond to employees’ responses to proposed removals and to issue final removal notices, so the process dragged out.

Congress, intending to curb abuses, passed a law in late 2016 that severely restricted the use of paid leave. But the Office of Personnel Management did not issue regulations to implement it, so managers still have wide latitude to use paid leave for long periods.

The OPM rule book lists dozens of reasons for allowing paid leave, such as donating an organ, house-hunting before a job transfer and attending the funeral of a relative in the military. Some employees remain on paid leave while they challenge demotions and other punishments.

“What’s the incentive for someone to get vaccinated, who doesn’t want to do it, when they could get a paid vacation?” asked Todd Wells, executive director of the Federal Managers Association, which represents 200,000 managers and senior executives across the government, many in national security roles. He cited naval shipyards that rely on thousands of employees to maintain vessels round-the-clock.” We’re trying to literally keep the ships running and you’re saying, go home for a few months and take a vacation.”

Cathie McQuisten, deputy general counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union with 700,000 members, said that employees were entitled to due process. She said she expects that any move to discipline or fire employees who do not comply with the mandate would not start until “day 76” of the grace period to get shots.

“My understanding is that before that, you’re not in violation,” she said

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---