GovernmentExecutive.com

An advocacy group for women in the federal workplace this week offered measured support for governmentwide personnel reform.

Federally Employed Women, a private nonprofit lobbying organization, released a position paper on the Bush administration's draft Working for America Act Wednesday. The act, if introduced and passed by Congress, would institute pay-for-performance and market-driven raises, and would limit union influence.

At this point, it is still a working document, and no lawmakers from either chamber have said they would introduce it.

In its paper, FEW expressed support for the underlying notion of pay for performance, but pushed for slow implementation, separation of labor relations from human resources reform and preservation of workplace diversity.

"We support, in concept, a pay-for-performance proposal," FEW Vice President Rhonda Trent said. But, she added, "certain parameters must be met and included before any agency should move forward in implementation."

FEW's paper advocated putting governmentwide reforms on hold until similar personnel changes are implemented at the Homeland Security and Defense departments. Both departments have been stymied by union lawsuits and difficulties in designing a workable pay-for-performance program.

The organization also echoed a proposal made by the Government Accountability Office in October to split the bill into two parts, divorcing the labor relations elements from human resources.

"The federal government has acquired much more experience and knowledge about how pay-for-performance systems should be set up, and what works and what does not work," the paper said.

FEW said its constituents have "expressed concern" about workplace diversity under the proposal, and said the group's first priority is to ensure that a new system "include the spirit and intentions of the Equal Employment Opportunity laws."

To that end, the organization proposed adding a requirement to gather and analyze data on workplace diversity and its correlation with raises, bonuses and higher-paying positions.

"It is essential that we closely monitor whether compensation is becoming biased against women or minorities as the new pay system is implemented," FEW said.

In addition, FEW echoed the concerns of some other nonunion employee groups that its voice be heard in the development and implementation of any personnel reforms.

Office of Personnel Management Director Linda Springer said she welcomes FEW's input.

"I am glad Federally Employed Women is interested and took time to review the Working For America Act," Springer said. "I'm particularly pleased they are supportive of pay-for-performance systems."

While FEW does support pay for performance, the group expressed concern that performance-based increases will replace both across-the-board raises and performance bonuses. FEW is advocating a separate fund to keep bonuses intact.

COMMENTS

• The last post was the master of the deflected response -- typical of what I've seen from DoD management. We were not talking about the military, but the military civilian world, where the good ole boy network isn't being groomed to kill the enemy either. This is where women often are not treated as equals, in spite of going after the same training and being available to perform the same jobs as their male counterparts. For this, I am saying that FEW is not only not performing the mission intended by the charter, but doing a disservice to women by not focusing on the real issues of being a woman working in the civil service. For the record, I am dis-gruntled. GovExec.com reader Posted February 2, 2006 8:59 AM
• Many, many years ago I spent three years on a U.S. Navy destroyer, and learned one basic lesson. The U.S. military is committed to defending and protecting the interests of the United States by all means available, including lethal force. The military is not a social experiment, nor is it empowerment for women, gays, liberals, or vegans. Every support element of the military merely exists to help the combat elements achieve this goal, period. Women who get pregnant are not the equal of men in frontline positions, in any theater; land-based Army, sea-duty, submarines. Everyone knows that within minutes of a woman learning that she is pregnant the helicopter will move her safely out of the combat zone. Fine, as women perform as well as men in most of non-combat M.O.S.'s (military occupational specialties). But an Army/Navy base isn't combat. Even the vaunted Israelis don't expect women to serve on the frontlines anymore. So let's stop the hypocrisy, no draft for women, no combat duties. How can we justify training women to kill enemy soldiers and then let them off the hook because they decide to procreate? GovExec.com reader Posted January 31, 2006 8:42 PM
• Unfortunately, there is too much anger generated for some to manage. It’s better to leave than to deal with all these games. In the Good Ole boys' club (Navy) where I worked, there were two types of women workers: those that were going nowhere and were off of everyone's radar screen and those that made up the "good ole gals" club. The good ole gals consisted of females that were "bought off" with much better jobs (and wages) that they could get in the real world, in order to do the ole boys' bidding. Their job was to protect the status quo for the good ole boys and ensure that no real progress was made. They consisted of over-promoted and overpaid personnelists who bent the rules to keep other women that management didn't like down and favor the in crowd. They also consisted of women toadies who helped the command put on a show to make the CO look good, such as the ones who belonged to the federal women's program and organizations like FEW. Not much accomplished, but the tea parties were nice. (And, they were held on company time). It doesn't surprise me that FEW is officially putting in a pitch for NSPS. GovExec.com reader Posted January 27, 2006 1:11 PM