GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Administration continues quest to tie pay to performance across government

• 12889
  

  I am a GS-5 secretary and have five years left to retirement. I also am a former union steward. I have read many disheartening, discouraging, and just plain "idiot" plans for this reform.

  There is no doubt that most of the time "change and reform" can make things better; but with all the hoopla and the Bush Administration's headstrong attitudes that they "will" implement this change no matter who doesn't want it, I have one comment. Those of us who have made our career doing the best job we can in our "lowly, everyday positions" would like to ask the president and lawmakers, "Why don't you live on and make your budget on our paychecks and then see how well people will like this 'new' plan?" Furthermore, if civilian government workers' jobs are tied to "pay for performance," the same should go for the military. I have seen too many eprs/oprs that have been highly inflated to further careers, when if their job performance was tied to their paychecks, they would do a better job or be forced out of the service! If the pay for performance of the executive branch of our government, including the president, was instituted, they would owe the "people" lots of dollars for their bungling in Iraq, etc.!!!! Sandra Kunkle

  Sandra Kunkle Posted October 13, 2005 11:11 AM
• 11436
  

  Non-Performer, It's starting to look to me like legal action is going to be a regular part of many agents' jobs in the near future. I work for an office where the supervisors are hand-picked by the SAC. Some have no investigative experience, but all are friendly with the SAC. These people are the only ones who have any access to the SAC and their word, their complaints, their bad-mouthing of any agent they dislike, is the only source of information about agents' performance that the SAC receives.

  The INS groups - the ones that sit in jails and say, "Where were you born?" to prisoners all day - are used as punishment assignments for agents who aren't liked by their supervisors. The administrative or support groups are used in the same way. All of our punishment groups are filled while investigative groups become even more short-handed. I've never seen anyone come out of punishment, because then these supervisors would have to do their jobs. The good old boy in my office is a good old girl and her cronies, and good agents are suffering.

  We have senior agents with great experience and great working relationships with other agents, the U. S. Attorney's office, DEA, the inspectors, etc. yanked out of their own investigations without anyone in the agency talking to them about any perceived problems or issues. It doesn't matter if the issues are created by the supervisors' actions (we have one who disappeared for the majority of every day to spend time with the office intern - he couldn't do it at night - he was married to another agent. Yes, he's still here and so is the other supervisor he got into an accident with in both their g-cars - drunk). No one but the working agents will ever know that. Pay for performance? Better scrap the entire management structure first.

  Soon to be Former Posted August 6, 2005 3:58 PM
• 11126
  

  Back when I was working, I knew a retired NYPD Sgt. who took on a second career with US Customs. He mentioned an episode from his previous police career...While standing on a busy street corner, he was approached and berated by a pedestrian for 'not doing anything'. He replied: "Sir, since I've been here for about ten minutes, the bank across the street hasn't been robbed, no one has been mugged, and all the drivers are obeying the traffic signals". The man looked at him, apologized and left! Well, that's how it is in law enforcement. When I worked in the VA many years ago, we (as benefits counselors)had to produce so many interviews per day to keep our jobs. Of course the managers received bonuses at year's end based on the numbers. It worked out to (14)minutes per personal interview, and about (6)minutes per phone call. There's your pay-for-performance in action.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 21, 2005 4:13 PM
• 11101
  

  I'd just like to say that I'm sure this all looks great to those people who are signing the laws - they don't have to live with pay-for-performance (pfp). Just think if the president or Sec of Defense or State, the Senate, etc had to get paid based on their performance rating! Since the American people are their "supervisors", can we accomplish annual performance ratings on them to determine their pay? The minute they have to live by the laws they pass, then I'll be more acceptable to them. My greatest annoyance is that my annual increase doesn't even cover the increased cost of my health insurance premium every year. But that is something the above individuals don't have to worry about. Let them be like the rest of us!

  Now here's something to think about when considering pfp. My supervisor shows "affection" and when it's not accepted, she turns on you with a vengeance. Unfortunately, it's not that easy to "tell". Chain-of-command doesn't want to acknowledge it even though it's occurred more than twice-and they've seen it. Then again the chain spends off duty hours with the person... Since I've not returned any favors, how do you think I'll be paid for my "NON" performance? It should be my "work" performance; not my "bed" performance but that's not how it will be.

  I'm the "NON" Performer.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 20, 2005 2:30 PM
• 11082
  

  If the Administration thinks the new NSPS is a good blue print for a personnel system that ties pay to performance, it is badly mistaken. A recent survey provided to DoD employees about what performance metrics would be appropriate is a display of their inability to understand what performance is. All of the survey questions were fague (as the performance measures will be), and basically, if you have good intentions you should have no problem meeting your performance standards. However, the metrics are so vague, and subjective that a high performing individual could be rated low, and there would be no real proof of what reality is in performance. Looks like we are doomed.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 20, 2005 7:15 AM
• 11080
  

  There were NO misunderstandings, we understood every word of it. Now we have to go into "coverup mode" so people won't understand what they are doing until after it is approved.

  Bush tells the real story after approval, that way he can screw with us some more.

  Bush tells the truth, sort of, sometime, eventually. Well, you get the message.

  Shameful man.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 20, 2005 7:11 AM
• 11079
  

  "Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, said there was "lots of misunderstanding" surrounding the previous draft."

  If OMB has such a level of misunderstanding surrounding the initial draft just think how bad the idea must be! Changing the name of the act to appeal in a mrketing sense is ridculous and illustrates how bad the legislation is! Make the name of the act Destroy the civil service and see what happens.

  This action by OMB is illustrative of the very bad nature of the proposal not others misunderstandings. It is OMB and the President that do not understand.

  If OMB is so knowledgable why are they wasting billions of my dollars to implement an accrual accounting system across the federtal government that adds absolutely no value to management decsions and efficiency? This move was thoughtout about as much as the new personnel system proposals. It is all designed to reduce the influence of government employees so that politians can run amuck and the general public will never see it. They already have more "off budget" spending and costs hidden in agencies that have do direct connections to the things they fund.

  We need much more transparency in government and the new personnel systems and pay systems are design to close the mouths of civil servants that otherwise would resist political accounting and human resources moves.

  taxpayer Posted July 20, 2005 7:09 AM