GovernmentExecutive.com

The past several weeks, like most of this year, have been a bumpy ride for federal employees when it comes to pay and benefits issues. President Bush's decision to give most employees a day off on Christmas Eve came on the heels of an announcement that the Pentagon was scrambling for money to pay civilian employees' salaries as a result of budget delays and might have to start issuing furlough notices.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have stepped in to suggest that the Defense Department find an alternative that would prevent furloughs. But the fact that the situation got to this point at all represents a fundamental problem with shaping federal employee pay and benefits policies.

Two weeks ago, I wrote that President Bush's approach to federal employee pay policy was similar to Lucy's approach to Charlie Brown's desire to kick the football. But President Bush isn't solely to blame.

Between gridlock in Congress, budgetary constraints and a hodgepodge of pay for performance pilot projects, it sometimes seems like Uncle Sam is running a dysfunctional family business. It's not an impossible leap from the Aoki family fighting over the Benihana fortune to the realization that money for federal salaries and benefits always will be in high demand from other quarters. And it's not a long way from the Trumps' frenzied product creation to the overload of suggestions for how to make the federal government an attractive, competitive employer. The maelstrom of competing interests, the enormity of issues such as the Iraq war and health care virtually guarantees that no single issue will get the attention it needs.

None of the benefits bills examined in this space in August, from a proposal from Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., to let federal retirees use pre-tax dollars to pay health care premiums to a bill backed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., that would increase the government's contribution to those same health care premiums by 8 percent, have moved beyond the committees to which they were assigned.

The lawmakers who introduced these bills and other legislation that would shape the federal workforce are hardly to blame for the failure of their proposals to advance. They should be commended for looking for thoughtful solutions to the many challenges the federal government will face in recruiting, retaining and maintaining the morale of its workforce.

And there are worse approaches out there. GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's suggestion that retiring federal employees simply not be replaced is a prime example of a vision that fails to meaningfully analyze what they do, much less how they ought to be rewarded.

There's been plenty of warning that the government has to seriously rethink itself as an employer. References to the coming "retirement tsunami" are frequent to the point of absurdity. Independent groups like the Partnership for Public Service are taking it on themselves to sell the federal government as an employer to a new generation of young people, and to retiring private sector workers who still have good years and good experience left to contribute. Unions and federal employee groups have hardly been silent about their dissatisfaction with various pay and benefits issues. And in an admittedly unscientific poll, huge majorities of Government Executive readers panned the President's Human Capital agenda.

So here's a possible New Year's resolution for everyone involved in shaping the conditions of employment in the government. After those two days off, make human capital issues a priority in 2008. Compared to finding a solution to the situation in Iraq, or health insurance for 47 million Americans, figuring out ways to motivate and reward several million federal employees doesn't seem that daunting.

COMMENTS

• One reason Rudi Giuliani is not the candidate is the fact that you have to replace most Government workers when they leave. Most of us do the work of 3 already that have not been replaced in the past. We work long hours for less pay than the civilian sector. The benefits and flex time is excellent but their is a need for compassion for your fellow civil servants and not refer to us as Human Capital. A better term would be Civil Soldiers. We are dedicated human beings trying to serve our country another way. We provide a great service to the country. A lot of us are veterans who served our country proudly and with dignity and are still during the same as public servants. Others are serving their country as public servants as a another way to serve other than the military. The Government has to start rethinking their priorities and think first of their dedicated civil servants instead of always over spending in these pork barrel worthless indeavors that serve no purpose for our country. Than there could be plenty of money for the military and civil servants and the deficit could vanish. Compassion for all of our dedicated Americans should be at the forefront. No matter who ends up as President their must be change all the way around the Government or we could see ourselves falling like the Roman Empire and other past world powers. Michael Horn Posted March 6, 2008 9:27 AM
• You might start by giving respect to the men and women who have spent their lifetime trying to do the legal, ethical, and right thing in carrying out the programs and actions enacted by Congress. Please refer to all of us as employess and not as "Human Capital." Then, it is time for Congress to quit slugging it out with the Administration in Power and try to find ways to share the promotion of positive actions to shape the workforce, see them as a beneficial resource, and encourage their loyalty and best performance. Fighting between the parties will only make the Federal Government more dysfunctional. R Clemons Turner Posted December 29, 2007 1:46 PM
• F.Bauer, the statistics say FERS takes 15% more sick leave that CSRS, yes. But then we do not have an incentive to use it any other way than for the purpose it was designed. Not to say that all CSRS use their leave total for retirement benefit, for my lovely spouse would surely hang me out to dry, but a number do conserve their leave for monetary purposes; when the organization would be better served if they stayed home and did not get their co-workes sick. If FERS employees had any/some incentive to conserve their sick leave, we would. The current regulations make that conservation a disincentive. If we could transfer it to needy co-workers (or spouses), that too would be a reason to conserve. The plan, like many others, showed a lack of fore thought and consideration. Tip off Posted December 28, 2007 2:29 PM