GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Pentagon seeks to create new civilian personnel system

• 596
  

  I have been a public employee working for The Department of Defense for 26 years. During my career I have recognized the need to seek redress for those in management who seek to abuse their authority. It has been my experience that most people, when given a little authority, are tempted to use that authority to advance their own agenda in a way that is not to anyone's advantage but their own. Much has been written about this abuse of power. One of the reasons that our system of government has flourished is because it's system of checks and balances. Without these checks and balances the abuse of power is almost inevitable. Civil service employees have a means to check and balance power abuse in the binding arbitration system. There are hundreds of cases each year that prove the value of this means of checks and balances.

  Eric Thatcher Posted May 23, 2003 1:25 PM
• 409
  

  In reality, the federal civil service system probably could use a good overhaul - but to do so requires a scalpel, not a machete. Is it smart to let each agency design its own system? How could anyone track what was going on across the government in the chaos that would ensue? (And isn't that probably the DoD's point?)

  I am personaly working under a "pay for contribution" system called the Acquisition Demonstration Program, and found that after a few years most of us adjusted to it. There are still detractors, but most of us work hard and I know I have exceeded the pay I would have received in a similar length of time under the old GS schedule. Why aren't we establishing a Blue Ribbon panel to review the demonstration programs that popped all over government in the past few years? Why should we start all over with a new one?

  As most people will realize after considering for a moment, a personnel system is no better than the people who operate and supervise in it. What we need to focus on is returning to a professional federal civil service corps that is valued by the citizens and whose members are proud to work for the United States. As has been proven over and over again in many venues, most people (children and adults alike) live up to what's expected of them - and then think about the expectations that this administration publicly voices. Is it any wonder we can't get young people to consider federal employment? There is no silver bullet in any system, except to pay attention to and value the workers. Until that happens, this discussion will never bear fruit.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 28, 2003 9:42 PM
• 403
  

  I am really getting sick of hearing the whining about managers handing out the pay to their "favorites". As a manager I admit that I do hand out awards to my "favorites". But it just so happens that the "favorites" are just that because they are the ones putting in the extra effort; the ones that carry the individuals that choose to just do enough to get by. The people that are willing to perform do not see these changes as a threat, but welcome them. The current system does not allow to get rid of the poor performers in a timely manner and in fact provides more protection to the deadbeats than rewards to the truly dedicated hard working professionals.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 28, 2003 8:53 AM
• 367
  

  The demonstration pay program (and probably the regular civil service pay program) provide a process for removing poor performers. Contractors who work for us have to follow the same labor-intensive process when they find themselves with a bad apple. Our managers would be able to perform their jobs, including tracking personnel performance and possibly even tackle mentoring responsibilities, if they (1) were civilians with appropriate training & background [rather than military who rotate too rapidly to appreciate or learn from the impact of their decisions on a program's eventual success or failure](2) were not inundated with data calls from constant reorganization of agencies and within agencies (3) were trained in managing "human capital" as the true investment that it represents whether government or commercial (4)were backed up by their own supervisors in hiring, firing, and personnel management decisions, (5) didn't have to spend the majority of their time defending their programs against unrelenting fly-by cuts to make up for the effects of poor fiscal planning and spending (6)could be freed of "color of money" limitations that end up being skirted around anyway.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 18, 2003 7:15 PM
• 366
  

  Readers of the article: you owe it to yourself to click on the link and read the entire Act ("Defense Transformation for the 21st Century"). There's much more in this act that may surprise you. Major changes to law regarding small business, pollution, and even impact on marine mammals. Too bad that Mr Rumsfeld chose to lump our futures in with those of the sonar-inflicted whales and the loosening of environmental and SBA regulations. His idea of transformation appears to be a purposeful removal of perceived impediments to his ability to hire whomever he considers the best and the brightest and the military's ability to operate wherever, whenever, and however he defines. These obstacles, however, are really laws that were developed over time in response to American values for clean air, clean environment, respect for marine mammals such as whales (who can be rendered deaf, unable to navigate, and thus doomed to death), and fairness to small businesses. Take a hard look and write your representatives and senators.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 18, 2003 6:54 PM
• 351
  

  The idea set forth in this article suggests that the evaluators and managers at the very top of the organization are without bias in any way and would treat all employees with an even hand. The even treatment would be reflected in equal pay for all doing the same jobs. The fact of the matter is that "equal pay" is a myth. The person who is the favorite of the official who hands out pay increases still gets the biggest increases regardless of employee competency or the merit of that action. The removal of step increases and annual across-the-board increases guarantees that there will be disparate treatment of employees and will open the floodgates of EEO complaints.

  This is one dumb idea.

  Anonymous Posted April 17, 2003 11:50 AM
• 350
  

  It appears that "Rummy," like others, either have not read or are ignoring the Army civilian training and leader development study recently released by the chief of staff of the Army - Army G-1 personnel keep making public statements and press releases that indicate the army's strategic workforce (civilian) initiative is supported by the study, but the study group found no evidence to support any part of it - the study group asked G-1 personnel to see the data supporting the initiative over 18 months ago - the Wexford Group and the G-1 personnel has yet to provide the data (if it exists) - in the meantime two studies indicate that what the Army intends to do is counter to what is happening in business and industry. One study was a joint study by the Departments of Labor, Education, and the Small Business Administration, and the second study published a year later by the Department of Labor statistics both indicate that the most stable element of our workforce is management, yet the Army's intent is to make mobility a requirement for management personnel.

  According to the data compiled from the study, Army civilian personnel do not posess the requisite skills to fulfill their management and leadership responsibilities as they exist now let alone be able to perform the additional duties required by the new proposal - managers and their followers both indicate this - at the present time only 11% of these personnel are eligible for training and the majority of them are evading the training for one reason or another. The "Rummy" proposal seems another another smoke screeen to save money at the expense of the folks who are supposed to do the work.

  Anonymous Posted April 17, 2003 11:49 AM
• 349
  

  1. Is it the personnel system that is broken or who runs the system?
  2. What do the people working for Uncle Sam suggest as improvements? I have never been asked.
  3. Raising all SES wages to $198,000.00 per year is fraud, waste, and abuse.

  Anonymous Posted April 17, 2003 11:43 AM
• 333
  

  This appears to be the same type ploy as in the Homeland Security Department. Take union representation away from the employees so they have no recourse and the agency can do as it wants. Everything that I read in the article points to taking everything away from the employees, the same things that took many years to gain. This administration is bound and determined to destroy civil service one way or another. If Congress gives in to this the whole country eventually will be hostage to contracted services which are no longer controlled by the people. What Rumsfeld chooses to ignore is that he is not a CEO, but a servant of the people. Rumsfeld is a power hungry tyrant who needs to be removed from his position and sent back into retirement. He was not good as Secy of Defense in the past and has not improved. This is a person who will not listen to his commanders and only sees things his way, and he will do irreparable harm to us if he succeeds in getting this passed. Do not be swayed by the number of jobs being increased, that is a tactic to gain support, and with the powers requested he can later cut jobs at anytime. This is not a good proposal for civil service in any shape or form.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 16, 2003 8:11 AM
• 332
  

  The civilian personnel system is due for overhaul. The intent to protect workers from nepotism has become protection for poor performance and retention of non-productive employees. If the civilian workforce is to respond to current world events it cannot be hamstrung by archaic rules and cannot continue to be threatened with competitive outsourcing.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 16, 2003 6:55 AM
• 330
  

  Don't do it! The only good thing in the proposal is to replace 300,000 military with civilians. The military run the department and that needs to change so that there is a contuining civilian authority present to evaluate policies. Military come in on a two-year job rotation and do whatever they want because they do not have time to learn what is and they will not be here when the problems arise. Never allow the SESers or managers to provide pay on any basis because it will go to their friends - have seen this over and over in hiring. I have yet to see a job filled in the proper manner.

  Tax Payer Posted April 16, 2003 6:39 AM