GovernmentExecutive.com

The Office of Personnel Management kicked off its 2004 Federal Workforce Conference in Baltimore Wednesday with a spirited defense of civil service personnel reforms that will soon shift more than 750,000 civilian employees out of the General Schedule and into pay-for-performance systems.

In the conference's opening address, Ronald Sanders, OPM's associate director for human resources management, said the changes were spurred by Sept. 11 and the realization that government must have personnel systems that are tailored to individual agency needs and that maximize flexibility to manage employees. At the same time, he said, they must preserve merit system principles.

The approach that the Homeland Security Department took, which involved a year's worth of discussions with employee union leaders, "is a perfect case study in preserving those ideals on the one hand and maximizing flexibility on the other," Sanders said. DHS, along with the Defense Department, received congressional approval to design new personnel systems in 2002, and 2003, respectively.

In an afternoon session at the Baltimore Convention Center, officials from the two departments fended off charges from Brian DeWyngaert, executive assistant to the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, that the new systems are "anti-employee" and will send the departments into turmoil at a time when they are more vital than ever to fight terrorism.

DeWyngaert argued that federal employees understand and trust the General Schedule system. By contrast, he said, pay-for-performance systems provide no guarantee that any employee would ever receive a pay raise. "Why do we want to go to a pay system where everything is secretive?" he asked.

After opening its proposal to public comment in February, DeWyngaert said Homeland Security officials ignored the fact that a majority of respondents criticized its plan. Further, DeWyngaert said, the proposal would "take away what little means employees have of providing input" because it would limit the scope of union-management bargaining. Under its pay-for-performance plan, DHS will no longer negotiate with its unions on issues deemed to be "core management rights," such as the deployment of personnel, work assignments and the use of new technology. At the same time, he said, Defense has refused to share with employee unions any details of its plans.

But Mary Lacey, the program executive officer charged with overseeing the development of Defense's National Security Personnel System, and Melissa Allen, senior adviser for human resources at Homeland Security, painted a picture of intensive employee-management collaboration and thoughtful management deliberation based on the new systems' designs.

Lacey said initially Defense officials "went blindly down the path of writing regulations" before consulting employees and Congress. But after an "uproar" of disapproval, Defense pulled back, and has since set up a more thoughtful process. In recent weeks, the Pentagon has held focus groups and town hall meetings at installations worldwide to gather input on the new system. At the same time, about 120 employees have been assigned to working groups to develop options for the different parts of the new system, from pay and labor relations to employee discipline. "We are conducting the process in a significantly more open way than when we started," she said.

Still, Lacey explained, "We feel strongly that today's system is inadequate," noting that hiring takes too long, outstanding performers are paid the same as average workers and managers are often forced to assign tasks to uniformed military personnel because civilian personnel rules are so difficult to navigate.

She acknowledged that Defense doesn't see its union-management meetings as "bargaining sessions," but said that union concerns, along with those of nonunionized employees, are being considered.

Defense plans to introduce the proposed regulations this winter and launch the pay-for-performance system for an initial group of 10,000 to 50,000 employees representing a broad cross section of the department's workforce next summer. Additional employees will be rolled into the system each year until all Defense workers fall under the new rules.

Allen explained the widely praised design process that Homeland Security underwent last year, noting that the department had consulted thousands of private and public sector stakeholders. The comments on the proposed regulations, she agreed, were overwhelmingly negative and are being evaluated as DHS Secretary Tom Ridge and Office of Personnel Management Director Kay Coles James prepare to announce final rules later this year. Still, she acknowledged, "to say we are in agreement [with DHS unions] would be a stretch of the imagination."

COMMENTS

• In the last 18 years I have worked for many supervisors, some thought I was the best employee they ever had and some thought I was the worst. It's all about image not performance. The pets, drinking buddies, the toothless brother in law or some cute woman (for the one in a million chance of getting lucky) get the assignments that would win them an excellent rating. You will have to join the bosses lodge, church or political party. How would NSPS change that? It won’t! It is not designed to. It is made to fail to bring in contractors. Civil service combat vet Posted January 18, 2006 7:18 AM
• Hi Everyone, well reading your comments, unless you have been on the floor and in the shoes of the federal worker, you have no idea, I am a WG-12 it took me 20 yrs to be promoted, I trained other artisans NEW hires to do some of the work I perform and they got promoted over me. We have an award board I call the male board, my command has never made a woman artisan of the year, and in the news is Kristie, and if you saw it you would be disgusted. In a 4 month period I produced over 200 units the males produced 33-35, they got awarded I did not, I was pulled off my shift to help a male get his work done, he was awarded I was not even though I made schedule. I haven't even got to the time my supervisor stuck his finger in my face and told me "you're going out with me", then threatened to write me up for various baloney issues after I wouldn't go out with him. Or when he assigned a big bully to work with me and the bully keep screaming at me and sticking his hands in my back pants pocket, and following me home, then let me know he wore nothing under his coveralls, I represented myself at a hearing and the AJ said I don't believe your boss but you can just appeal. And another supervisor telling me she didn't what to talk to her "GUYS" cause they produce (the 35 units) when they started sabotaging my work putting the junk they couldn't fix in my incoming work. So what has this got me? Work induced anxiety, light duty, and I was a top or the the top performer but it did not matter, so the fellow that said good work is rewarded is wrong, he can not speak for everyone, and it is human nature to be vindictive regardless of how you work. Kristie, the whistleblower in the news works here and she is suffering, even though the faulty repair the managers would not fix, caused a sailor to lose his legs. And you think this new pay system is fair...the manager's main job is to protect the managers' interests...they band together and lie, cheat, steal and are corrupt, and it is blatant. Wake UP deborah Posted May 11, 2005 6:17 PM
• US Navy is correct. Life isn't fair. If only this were about the occasional inequities in life! What these new personel systems are about is management demanding the authority to institutionalize unfairness as they see fit. That is a whole different game from life's occasional unfairness and a dangerous, dangerous idea. Finally I am sick of hearing about the service records of both candidates. It is ultimately ancient history and the individuals involved, young Mr. Bush and young Mr. Kerry, no longer exist. Let's talk about real issues---the godawful mess in Iraq, the failure to finish what we started in Afghanistan, the economy, and health care. GovExec.com reader Posted September 21, 2004 1:28 PM