April 1, 2002
Letters
Binding Arbiters
To successfully provide the government with new recruitment tools, technology vendors will need to tackle the basic flaw in the classification system—the fact that classification specialists are the final arbiters in the process, not management (“Hire Power,” February). I would give a lot to be able to complete discussions with classifiers about job descriptions and grade levels even in the five months cited in your story as a worst-case scenario. For more than four years as the Border Patrol’s director of aircraft maintenance, I was unable to recruit and retain aircraft maintenance technicians. Despite the input of top managers, classifiers could not comprehend the difference between an “aircraft mechanic” (a laborer at a military aircraft overhaul facility) and a technician (someone who inspects and returns Federal Aviation Administration-certified aircraft to service).
All federal agencies operating FAA-certified aircraft have the same trouble hiring and keeping highly skilled aviation maintenance personnel. Each technician must have an FAA Mechanics Certificate as a condition of employment. Classifiers understand that lawyers, doctors, pilots and air traffic controllers must have specific credentials to work for Uncle Sam, but they seem to view these certificates as trade school diplomas and, consequently, misclassify these positions.
Can vendors develop software to replace classifiers who impose specious reasoning to a critical position? Classifiers ignored the certification requirements of technicians at my facility, thus forcing the hiring of employees with no formal training, experience or qualifications. The reasoning was, “They can learn this stuff on the job.” As a result, civil service technicians had to be replaced by certified military technicians.
My personal and all-time favorite: Civilian Air Force directors of aircraft maintenance, who manage all maintenance and aviation logistical requirements for hundreds of aircraft, are classified under “General Facilities and Equipment,” a distinctly civil engineering category. From what source do I recruit directors of aircraft maintenance? Based on what our classifiers have said and OPM’s ruling on an appeal that took a year, these people should be chosen from the ranks of cemetery administrators and dry cleaning and laundry plant managers.
I can only hope that the technology vendors cited in your article can hurry their products to the government.
Mark A. Hewitt
Deputy Director of Maintenance
Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas
One of the primary problems at OPM is “thinking the old way.” The comment in “Hire Power”(February) that “the merit system is not designed to be fast, expedient and easy” clearly indicates the mentality of OPM’s leaders. They are still operating in the Stone Age.
As a former federal personnel officer, I know things can be done better and more quickly. It takes motivated leaders and new thinking. But, as the saying goes, “If you continue doing it the same old way, you will get the same old results.”
Hickory Starr
Tahlequa, Okla.
Brian Friel’s “Hire Power”(February) provides an accurate picture of the challenges and changes facing the civil service. He got it right, without bashing personnel workers, hiring officials, vendors or OPM and the merit system. I have been in the personnel business more than 30 years and have been reading trade publications nearly that long. Friel wins top honors for understanding and communicating differing points of view fairly and objectively. Upgrade him from associate editor to principal assistant deputy editor for human capital analysis.
Bill Larson
Personnel Officer
Randolph Air Force Base, Texas
State Of The Union
“Stand and Deliver” (February) seemed to be about how quickly the Postal Service could gain flexibility in pricing. The real issues, however, are how to get the Postal Service to control runaway labor costs and how to remove bad or ineffective managers. If the Postal Service were a business, it would cut costs by shutting down poor-performing post offices and reducing personnel. Since the Postal Service is a quasi-public organization with strong union control, this isn’t about to happen. Rank-and-file postal employees do an outstanding job of moving millions of pieces of mail each day. But the Postal Service hasn’t exercised its authority to rein in the labor unions. If you look at American Postal Workers Union chief William Burrus and his attitude toward labor relations, as well as Postal Service executives’ unwillingness to tackle controversial issues, the taxpayers shouldn’t expect any great changes. Why should anyone rock the boat? The Postal Service pretends to engage in collective bargaining with its unions but gives in to most of their demands, knowing that increased costs can be passed on to the customers. To remove the stranglehold unions have on the Postal Service and improve its management structure, Congress should end its First Class monopoly, enjoyed at the expense of the country. By giving the Postal Service some incentive to change, improvements and cost control will come.
Joseph Gardner
Friendswood, Texas
Clarification
The Managing Technology column “Trade Secrets” (January) reported that B. E. Meyers & Co. sued the U.S. government in 1997. That suit charged the government with patent infringement. Allegations that the government improperly shared secret information were not made by the company in the lawsuit. The company made those allegations separately. We regret any confusion on this point.
