Now I'm feeling really stupid for not seeing this before:
Do these morons firing people thinking that "probationary" means "on probation as a disciplinary/merit action?"
Because in USA fedgov, a ton of jobs typically have a one-year "probationary period."
It has nothing to do with your ability nor does it suggest you are below par in any way.
It just means that for the first year, the government has flexibility to remove and/or move you to another position IF you DO struggle to do the work.
It's simply meant to give the government flexibility in case someone has issues or they need someone elsewhere.
it's one of the safeguards for government, to remove low achievers, and then once you prove yourself, you gain additional protections.
But it certainly doesn't mean you ARE LACKING MERIT, because everyone has the year to learn the job and prove they can do it.
The probationary term applies to people new to fedgov (so, their first job in fedgov, in any agency).
It also applies to people who have transferred from another job.
It also applies to people who have been promoted (DUE TO MERIT!) from another position to the new one.
Note that ALL THREE of these categories, all these people just beat ALL THE OTHER APPLICANTS to get the position and enter the probationary period.
So they are the top of the pool, not the bottom.
When I started fedgov as an analyst, I had a one-year probationary period.
When I got promoted (due to MERIT) six years ago, I also had to redo a one-year-probationary period.
I exceled at my work and thus my probation period became full vestment in the role.
If I was in a probationary period today, though, apparently I could be at risk of firing?
I'm really starting to think these morons are firing all these probationary workers now because they think they are subpar yet being retained.
Are they really this stupid and/or too ignorant to ask a simple definition that would take 30-60 seconds to understand, before proceeding with all these firings?