GovernmentExecutive.com

Eight months isn't a lot of time, and Office of Personnel Management Director Linda Springer and Defense Department Chief Human Capital Officer David S.C. Chu seemed well aware of that when they shared a stage at Government Executive's Excellence in Government conference on Monday. Both Springer and Chu have faced tremendous challenges, such as the impact of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan on military recruiting and the anticipated retirement wave. They also have much to be proud of -- rebranding the armed forces and modernizing the federal retirement system.

But with only eight months left in the Bush administration, both Springer and Chu acknowledged that one goal they share -- overhauling the federal government's civilian pay and performance management system -- will not be completed on their watch.

"What we have is antiquated and we are ill-served," said Springer. The pay-for-performance effort, she noted, began even before the Bush administration took up the issue. "Will the effort to continue this reform go on? In my judgment it will, because if it doesn't, we will lose the battle of recruiting talent on this issue. You can have all the tradition of public service and pins and plaques and awards you want, but if you go to the grocery store and put your pins on the [check-out] belt, they'll probably call security."

Chu said the federal government has to learn how to balance its pitch to new employees, being careful not to overemphasize benefits that may no longer be a major draw.

"The Great Depression is a long time in the past," he said. "This generation has seen almost unbroken prosperity. They aren't afraid of changing jobs. They want to be fulfilled. Ironically, the most important job benefit the federal government offers is that you can come here and truly be fulfilled. But a corollary is we can't insult you when you apply by offering you a salary and compensation package that is unattractive."

So what is to be done? Neither Springer nor Chu offered a blanket prescription for the federal government's pay woes, but they agreed on two things: the changes that are under way are irreversible and reform should be governmentwide.

"The biggest problem that we will have going forward is a patchwork system," Springer said. "If we end up with a patchwork of different systems, that will create an inequity that will be another hiring challenge."

Chu insisted that despite the raft of objections to the Defense Department's new National Security Personnel System, it would remain in place in the next administration.

"I think the most important signal was given by [the newly Democratic] Congress last year," he said. "It could have decided to reverse NSPS. It did not. It did change the union bargaining system. That was a contentious point. But it did not change the underlying nature of the system itself."

Springer and Chu could have mentioned the need to find a way to get federal employee unions and advocacy groups on board with broad pay reforms, or the need to approach pay parity with the private sector in a serious and considered way. But that's a slippery slope: There are many, many challenges to identify and rectify in the federal pay system. Springer and Chu simply don't have enough time left to take on all of them. But they do have a message, and they broadcast it loud and clear on Monday: Pay reform needs to come just as soon as the government can muster the political will, do the necessary research and find common ground with employee representatives.

COMMENTS

• The HR office went through a change to NSPS - this system is just another good ol'boy avenue. The people who aren't a supervisors "favorite" are left with nothing. Not only is the government far behind the private sector in paying their employees, now they are shoving a broken system down their throats. Government employees wages don't keep up with inflation, however, we are supposed to keep doing more, more, more with less. Take a look at the salaries of contractor employees who have taken over previous government jobs. It is unreal what these people are making compared to a government employee who is supposed to monitor their contract. People need to take a look at who they are voting for and stand up to make some changes in the Government. Dawn Posted May 20, 2008 11:31 AM
• Lets talk of "pay for performance"...what garbage...what they mean is cap the little guys pay so it doesn't go up any longer and add to your retirement benefits. This accomplished by making your annual cola adjustment (if you get one) in a lump sum "bonus" so it does not increase any benefits...what a country! Ok..then riddle me this...why in a world of "pay for performance" do these grossly over paid CEOs get paid millions when they loose money hand over fist in the markets right now?...We in the FAA had a "contract" shoved up our collective rear ends by the Bush administration and not even opposed by congress that did just that to us...bottom line our pay has effectively frozen for two years when the price of everything is going thru the roof...wake up people don't let big business and gov't get away with it...the ball is rolling and they want to make everyone in this country who is not a GW supporter live in a dirt hut by eroding your benefits and pay schemes like this "bonus" instead of a cola pay raise that goes into your base pay thereby increasing your retirement benefits or just your ability to live day by day. G Mackey Posted May 19, 2008 2:53 PM
• Without question, the "Long-time Air Force employee" has hit the nail right on the head. This current administration has and continues to do everything possible to impact our retirement packages in a very negative way. Sorry Air Force employee DOD and OPM will never look into what the actual costs are for implementing NSPS, it is too embarrassing. Only if 60 minutes gets involved will something happen. Very sad thing to say about our government. Agree with long-time Air Force Employee Posted May 19, 2008 12:58 PM