The very foundation of federal employment, designed for stability and merit-based service, now faces a transformative challenge that could reshape the relationship between government workers and political leadership. This debate centers on two fundamentally different employment philosophies: the long-standing civil service system, which provides federal workers with significant job protections, and the at-will model, which offers employers far greater flexibility in hiring and firing. A renewed push for a policy known as “Schedule F” aims to shift tens of thousands of federal employees into the latter category, prompting a critical examination of which model truly serves the public interest best.
Understanding the Employment Models: Federal Protections and Proposed Changes
The established civil service system is characterized by robust protections designed to shield federal employees from arbitrary dismissal and political pressure. This framework ensures that hiring and promotion are based on merit rather than political affiliation, fostering a professional, nonpartisan workforce dedicated to the continuity of government operations. In stark contrast, the at-will employment model, common in the private sector, allows an employer to terminate an employee for any reason that is not illegal, such as discrimination, without needing to establish “just cause.”
This long-standing structure is now being challenged by “Schedule F,” a policy proposal that would reclassify federal workers in policy-related roles, stripping them of their civil service protections and making them at-will employees. A critical report from the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization, has scrutinized this proposal, questioning its purported benefits. Proponents of Schedule F often point to states like Florida, Texas, and Missouri as successful case studies of at-will employment in the public sector, framing them as models for federal reform.
A Head-to-Head Comparison: Performance, Cost, and Stability
Impact on Government Performance and Employee Productivity
Advocates for at-will employment frequently argue that it enhances government effectiveness by streamlining the process of removing underperforming employees. The theory is that this flexibility empowers managers to build more efficient and responsive teams. However, evidence from states that have adopted this model suggests a different reality. The data does not support the claim that at-will status leads to a more productive workforce.
In fact, surveys of human resources professionals in these jurisdictions reveal significant skepticism and unintended consequences. A 2014 academic survey found that only 20% of HR officials in at-will states believed the policy actually made employees more productive. An earlier 2010 survey uncovered a more troubling trend: over 30% of respondents felt that the system was more often used to remove competent workers due to personality conflicts rather than to address genuine poor performance, undermining the policy’s primary justification.
Employee Turnover and Direct Financial Costs
One of the most significant distinctions between the two models lies in employee attrition and its subsequent financial burden. States with widespread at-will employment systems experience dramatically higher turnover rates. For instance, Texas reports an annual turnover rate of over 16%, while Missouri’s rate soared to an astonishing 29% in 2022. These figures stand in stark contrast to the federal government’s civil service system, which maintains a stable turnover rate of just 5.9%.
This high attrition carries a substantial price tag. Drawing on private-sector data where the cost of replacing an employee ranges from 50% to as high as 400% of their annual salary, the Partnership for Public Service projects a dire financial outcome for the federal government. The report estimates that implementing Schedule F could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year in recruitment, hiring, and training expenses needed to fill the newly vacant positions.
Job Security and the Risk of Politicization
At its core, the civil service model was conceived to insulate the federal workforce from the shifting winds of politics, ensuring that government functions remain stable and nonpartisan across different administrations. This job security allows employees to provide candid, expert advice without fear of political retribution. Conversely, at-will employment exposes public servants to the risk of politically motivated terminations, potentially transforming their roles into instruments of political loyalty.
This concern is not merely theoretical. The 2010 survey of HR officials in at-will states revealed that approximately 30% believed the system led to firings for political reasons. Specific examples from Georgia and Florida during Governor Jeb Bush’s tenure have highlighted how at-will status can be wielded as a tool for political control, prioritizing allegiance over competence and managerial improvement.
Challenges and Misinterpretations in the Debate
A central issue in the debate over Schedule F is the flawed interpretation of state-level reforms. The report from the Partnership for Public Service argues that proponents incorrectly credit any perceived successes in states like Florida, Texas, and Missouri solely to the adoption of at-will employment. In reality, these states implemented at-will policies not as a standalone fix but as one piece of a much larger, comprehensive package of civil service reforms. This makes it impossible to isolate the specific impact of at-will status from the other concurrent changes.
Moreover, the political context of these states differs fundamentally from that of the federal government. As University of Maryland expert Don Kettl points out, these states often feature long-term, single-party political dominance. This environment reduces the fear among the ruling party that the policy could be used against them in a future transfer of power. The federal government, with its frequently shifting political landscape, lacks this stability, making the adoption of such a system far more disruptive and perilous.
Summary and Recommendations: Choosing the Right Model for Federal Governance
The comparative analysis revealed that the arguments for transitioning the federal workforce to an at-will model under Schedule F were not substantiated by the evidence from the very states held up as examples. While the civil service system provides stability, institutional knowledge, and low turnover, the at-will systems in Texas, Missouri, and Florida were associated with high attrition, significant financial costs, and an increased risk of politicization, all without clear data demonstrating improved government performance.
The investigation by the Partnership for Public Service concluded that Schedule F is a flawed policy rooted in a misreading of state-level data. For the federal government, maintaining the civil service system is better suited to fostering the stable, effective, and nonpartisan workforce necessary for good governance. Adopting an at-will model, in contrast, risks introducing profound instability and systemic disruption, ultimately prioritizing political loyalty over the merit-based principles that have long been the bedrock of public service.
