GovernmentExecutive.com

The Senate passed an appropriations bill Thursday night that includes a 4.1 percent pay raise in 2004 for federal civilian employees.

The $90 billion Transportation and Treasury budget bill includes language mandating pay parity in 2004 between civilian employees and uniformed service members. House legislators approved a similar measure in September.

The Bush administration wants to hold white-collar civil service raises at 2 percent next year and create a $500 million Human Capital Performance Fund from which managers could withdraw extra money to raise the salaries of their best performers. House leaders approved an amendment, offered by House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., creating the fund in the fiscal 2004 Defense authorization bill.

"We were very pleased with the Senate action, which was a confirmation of the bipartisan support that this issue has had throughout the year," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. "I hope that this will be finalized, the president . . . is on record as opposing the 4.1 percent, but I am cautiously optimistic that this will be finalized shortly and that this year's debate will be over and federal employees will get the raise they deserve."

The appropriations bill also included a measure added by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, blocking a regulation proposed by the Office of Personnel Management, which would give that agency more control over the current system of assigning federal employees to serve in temporary assignments in congressional offices.

"The regulation proposed by the Office of Personnel Management will inevitably ruin the benefits of this long-term practice," Grassley said on the Senate floor Thursday. "Moreover, this regulation attempts to limit the activities in which executive branch employees can engage while under the direct supervision of a congressional office in an effort to micromanage from afar. This is unacceptable."

Under the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on Sept. 9, OPM would approve all requests to detail federal employees to Capitol Hill and most assignments would be limited to six months. The Grassley amendment would prevent the use of federal funds to implement the regulation.

On Wednesday, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., announced plans to introduce similar legislation.

COMMENTS

• I would hate to see this implemented. I've already seen my share of workplaces where selections and promotions are based on who the supervisor spends social time with. We already have GS-12s who sit in jobs with nothing to do 75% of the time, while the GS-9s in the back never see the bottom of their inbox. The 12s are shopping at the PX in the middle of the afternoon, get their tuition paid for, and get sent to "conferences" all over the country, but never bring back any training for the rest of us. We have to endure seeing these people get awards every year, sometimes twice a year with a nice fat bonus check, and it is hard to take. But since we are not going out at night with the supervisor and her friends to stuff dollar bills in male dancer's g-strings (I swear I am not making that up), then we are not in the right group to get the bennies. Pay for performance will be based, in this office, on who is best at stuffing those dollar bills and for those who join the politically correct orgainzations the supervisor belongs to. It will absolutely kill what morale is left here. GovExec.com reader Posted November 5, 2003 8:15 AM
• This pay-for-performance might be a good idea for one, maybe two organizations that doesn't have anything to do with the military, but what about Department of the Army organizations where Green Suiters (military) are the ones rating you? I have a friend who works her fingers to the bone for a Colonel, and this Colonel isn't fair. Thank god I am rated by someone other than this Colonel. The pay-for-performance idea might just not be fair to some. LWP Posted November 2, 2003 4:03 PM
• Woohoo! This pay increase will offset the 13% increase in my health insurance premium next year. It's the same old story year after year. Nothing ever changes. GovExec.com reader Posted October 31, 2003 12:49 PM