Return to Article: Comments on new Defense personnel system highlight fears
-
50928
Currently we in the GS can expect to see a fifteen percent turn in personnel, at a cost of 2,173,576,000 annual. Under the pay banding implementation we can expect to see a one hundred percent turn within ten years at a cost of 16,883,904,000 annual. Pay Banding will incur a substantial loss of both new, and tenured employees, and the Federal Government. The following is a chart of the total costs per employees over a twenty year career. This is the amount each employee will lose, once the current pay entitlements known as step increases are eliminated. > >GS 15 = $314,820.00 GS 14 = 267,624.00 GS 13 = $226,396.00 GS 12 = $190,394.00 GS 11 = $157,667.00 GS 10 = $140,605.00 GS 9$131,329.00 GS 8 = $118,908.00 GS 7 = $107,352.00 GS 6 = 96,660 GS 5 = $86,724 > >I would like to suggest a recruitment and retention bonus be implemented to offset this loss. The amount can be pro rated for tenured employees, and reduced for those who leave before twenty years. > >This bonus would be deposited into the TSP and would be the incentive for current and future employees to stay on board until they would like to retire.
-
14842
Nora, If what you say is true, then why do you work for the government instead of a private company???
-
8835
Budget Analyst has raised a good point. There have been several articles in the last week about people not joining the Army because they don't want to go to Iraq. Redstone Arsenal was unable to get enough suckers to sign up for deployable positions, so they started assigning people to them. I think this is definitely on the agenda of Rummy & Co., forcing us (the captive audience) to go there and anywhere else they feel like sending people for reasons of their own. If you look over the NSPS or a decent anlaysis of it, you see the outlines of a dictatorship, a plantation.
This is the last day for NSPS comments. If you haven't turned yours in, hurry. Those bombs over there are real.
-
8781
Though I agree with many of the concerns stated by previous posters, my concern is that of the possibility of we civilians in DOD being told we're being deployed to a war zone or else we'll be fired. Sounds like it couldn't happen, but it's possible given what the new system states. Many of the folks here have already stated they'd walk out the door before they were given an ultimatum such as that. It's something to think, as well as worry about.
-
8649
What turnip wagon did Nora fall from? Poor thing must have landed on her head. In my 35-plus years of "simple-service" I have never seen a "Pay-for-Performance" system work. Perhaps if it were computer ONLY, it might work. When I read the submission from the person who had to compete within the "best-friend" of the boss, and the one who had a boss who tore people down and ruined the organization; I shouted out loud OH, YES!!! I worked for both of them; Nora, they are real. I hope you get to work for both of them, then you can see why the general tone of these postings is thus. Our elected Reps in Wash? I have written to all three, have heard NOTHING! What does that tell you? GLAD TO HAVE 35 YEARS "BEHIND" ME.
-
8620
Hey, Nora:
It sounds good what you say about pay for performance in the private sector. Sure, there it doesn't serve the supervisor well in the long run to shortchange the performers...only because the bottom line in private industry is profits. The bottom line in the civil service is public service. That's why in the civil service the management can afford to have cost overruns and toadies. Where I used to work at DoD all the paper pushers that weren't directly involved with the work kept getting raises under the pay for performance projects, and the front liners that were too busy to kiss up to the boss got shafted. And since, they don't have to balance the budget, they can go hire contractors when they really need certain work done. Get it? The RULES are different in civil service. That's why Pay for Performance won't work!
Fed UP
-
8607
The most upsetting thing about this proposed NSPS rule out for comment is the fact that it is not much more than a regurgitation of the bill as it was enacted, written to be understandable to the layman. Most of the meat of what will comprise the new system is deferred to the still yet unpublished, Department of Defense implementing regulation. The most upsetting thing in this NSPS ruling/ DOD implementing regulation is the reference to assessing ones behavior in their performance assessment. Code of Conduct, Ethical Standards and compliance with regulatory requirements is acceptable, but assessing ones behavior is immensely difficult to provide for a fair and impartial assessment. Desired behavior is a part of the organizational cultural mold. If one doesn't fit that mold or mindset, they will never advance through this proposed system. Another hard point in the proposed rule is the fact that there are no provisions to appeal mid-range performance assessments. The only appeal rights listed are the rights to appeal recommendation for dismissal. More upsetting is the fact that the secretary has been give authority to implement Reduction in Force (RIF) process for things as simplistic as discontinuance of business and product lines. Where is the strategic alliance here by which performance objective will be generated? Moreover, the priority for establishing the RIF criteria is 1) veterans preference, 2) performance assessment and 3) tenure. (I am a veteran who has no veterans preference, due to the time of my service, I have 15 years of government service and I haven't seen a performance award pay out since 1996, when I moved from my previous organizational culture) (BRAC). Protecting our veterans is a good thing, but one wonders how many veterans will be left in five years. In essence, this proposed system is not being design to do what it was purported to do. The very premise of this bureaucratic system will not attract and maintain the bright and educated young workers of today's workforce. I see this system as creating a bunch of scared mindless drowns, if allowed to be implemented. I urge our legislators to read this proposed plan, and request that DOD draft implementing regulations become more visible. Mandate that employees will have the opportunity to be a part of drafting the implementing regulation.
-
8602
Is anyone from the House and Senate listening??? I work in a military setting. I have a civilian supervisor. Her best friend works in the same section. Who do you think gets all the award money? Her friend!! Who do you think gets all the work while the supervisor's friend gets none? Me!! She babies her friend all the time. This employee does no work, calls other employees names and nothing is said to her. The new pay system will just make it easier for the supervisor to give this employee more money for being a bad/nonteam playing employee. The union has been my only sounding place to see me through this nightmare I'm in.
SOMEONE HELP US!!!
-
8596
This NSPS is a ploy to remove nonperformers. Then when they have done that, next all the elderly Civil Servants under the old retirement system. Less money to be spent on retirees. Then they will not be able to hire replacements so they will contract out to big business who will put cheap untrained labor in without the high cost of retirement expenses (overhead) and all those politico/Big bang rich people will invest in those companies and they will make money on the backs of middle class Civil Servants and we will be eating cat food and paying 75% tax bills when we are 75 years old while they are raiding the social security system.....
-
8583
Nora - If what you say is true, you have been very lucky. Unfortunately, much of the world doesn't operate like that - it should, but it doesn't.
-
8575
The new system does not fit the Government culture. It did not work before, when most people were basically honest. Why does anyone think it would work now? That is why we developed Civil Service Reform in the first place. The current system has the means to reward and punish, but is not used properly. The new system will result in a lot of problems. This is nothing more than a means to reward political players and reduce labor costs. Remember who got the big bonuses recently? Political appointees. It is also a ploy to push older workers out the door.
-
8563
Interesting thread.
Nora - advice. Reasoned inputs generally draw vitriolic response whenever you aren't on the side of the "whine and complain" crew. That said, you're on target.
I don't have a dog in this fight except as a taxpayer, but it will be interesting to watch. I just hope that the managers in the civil service get extensive training and apply "pay for performance" appropriately, rather than in the manner that nearly every GovExec poster forecasts.
As I see it, pay banding is primarily an attempt to combat "grade creep" that has occurred over time. You know; employee has maxed out and the only way to give a (usually) deserved raise is to re-write the PD to justify an increased grade. This is not a problem until you factor in that the next exployee hired STARTS at the higher grade - and this has been going on for a long time...
To all the "doom and gloom" crowd, I hope you're as wrong in this prophecy as those forecasts regarding the "impossibility of an election ever happening in Iraq..."
-
8556
To Silverdale,
I once thought as you. I had competent supervisors and wanted to be rewarded for what I did. Actually I still do. But, then I got that supervisor you can't imagine. I know you can't believe it since only those who've been there can see how bad it can get, but yes, he would do things to hurt his staff even if it eventually would hurt him. He hounded two top performers until they left. Appraisals were full of nonsense -- his method was to cut & paste from various samples he kept. I'm finally out from under him, but I'm not sure I can ever recover from the damage he did to my professional reputation and career. So if you really want your supervisor to have total control over your future, be careful what you wish for -- you may get it.
-
8555
People are just confused by the labels.
"Pay for Performance" is just code word for cutting civil service salary costs. Sure a select few may actually earn a little more, but their added cost will be more than offset but the many who will be by defination "poor performers." The poor performer label will probably be defined more by the paucity of future payroll dollars than actual job performance. Representative Istook from Oklahoma has a good grasp of the new pay for performance concept. (Anyone remember the old GM personnel system and what caused its demise?)
Additionally the new system will buy enhanced loyality for the privilaged few. . . A private enterprise concept that Ken Lay (Enron) and Bernie Ebbers, (World Com) well understood.
It is interesting to compare DoD Civil Service personnel systems (by definition poor performers)with military personnel systems (by definition great performers). Military still retains inflated performance evaluations coupled with automatic annual pay increases, automatic with-in grade steps increases, and automatic promotion consideration driven by vacancies created by a generous 20 year full inflation indexed non-contributary retirement system independant of Social Security. The secret to this successful well recognized excellent performance is a leadership and work culture that takes care of its own and is dedicated to not leaving any of its members left behind. Is there a lesson for civil service here?
The ultimate ironry is that our military, FBI, and CIA failed to protect the US from the attack of Sept 11. Someone needs to be held accountable, therefore the DoD civilian personnel new National Defense Personnel system had to be created. Anyone for sacrificial lambs?
-
8547
I agree with the ICE agent, the 30-day comment period for both the DHS and DOD HR systems is a joke. I spent a few hours reviewing the comments on the DHS MaxHR system last year and learned quite a bit from the comments that had been submitted offering suggestions on how to improve the current pay system. Unfortunately, DHS chose to stick to their guns with the ill-conceived MaxHR system and ignored the vast majority of the suggestions for improvement to the current system and the proposed regulations published in 2004. I believe the DOD is going to do the same exact thing as well. Both DHS and DOD claim the final regulations are a result of employee and stakeholder input, but that doesn't come close to reality.
As for the HR specialist from Silverdale, you should know from working in the HR field that the greatest budget expenditure for an agency comes from its personnel costs. The "new and improved" HR systems in DHS and DOD are nothing more than an attempt to control employee payroll costs through pay banding and pay-for-performance.
I have news for you, your employer has the means to recognize your outstanding performance in the current HR/GS system utilized throughout the majority of the government. It's called quality step increases and pay bonuses, which essentially work the same as pay-for-performance if utilized properly. Unfortunately most managers throughout the government are not trained in the proper way to recognize excellence or choose outright to ignore outstanding work. If you think these new systems will change anything for the better, you're sadly mistaken. With the deficit in the current shape it's in, I don't foresee any real pay-for-performance that is worthwhile and motivating for an employee taking place in the next several years.
-
8543
Having spent most of my life working in the private sector, pay for performance is nothing new to me. The concept of receiving a pay increase simply because "it's that time of year again," is a concept that was and still is a mystery to me. My experience has been that team leaders want competent, hard working team players that are willing to "go the distance" to get the collective job accomplished. The idea that they would withhold well-earned compensation to a hard working individual simply because they can, doesn't serve anyone, including them! I welcome the opportunity to be recognized for my hard work and ability and would love nothing more than to be surrounded by workers of a like mind. This is a change that is long overdue for federal workers who's "sense of entitlement" amazes me.
-
8534
The so-called public comment period is a farce! DHS also had one when it rolled out MAXHR, the proposed new payroll system featuring pay banding. The public comments were overwhelmingly, and scathingly, negative, yet DHS went ahead and ignored them, and did what it wanted to anyway. Looks like the same thing will be happening in DOD. As someone who is also being forced into pay banding against their will, you have my sympathy.
-
8525
I feel if they want to do the pay banding to cut back on employees why not offer more early outs and I'm sure that more people would take it and then you would retain the good old boys. Early outs have not been offered in this organization but 1 time several years ago and thats it.
-
8522
This is another ploy by DoD to save money at the expense of the employee. If our pay system is not working today, what makes those in favor of NSPS think the new system will work?
-
8515
This entire matter is a bunch of political hype. The point is that the political appointees want the right to pay those loyal to their cause and not pay those that may oppose them because they are doing stupid or illegal things. The discussions that I have seen eliminate GS grades but institute the same thing calling them "pay bands." for example, if you are a GS-13 you will be at the top of a pay band that currently is GS 11-13. Therefore, if you have been stuck at 13 for ten years you still will be stuck in the "new" pay band system. Pay bands are simply GS grades but with fewer grades. What a great improvement - da!
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.