GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Pay Ploy?

• 45952
  

  I just joined an organization last year which has 5 engineers doing the same job as project managers. We just converted in January 2008. The supervisor is hardly competent, and is playing the new system to be able to award his 2 favorite employees who have helped keep him reached his position in the past. Although I am the only engineer with a Masters' degree and have the most experience in the office, my work is often unfairly scrutinized to enable the supervisor to downplay my achievements and enable him to reward less deserving performers. I feel that NSPS has increased corruption by putting employees pay in the hands of corrupt supervisors.

  John Barret Posted March 11, 2008 7:14 AM
• 23033
  

  I am not looking forward to the implementation of NSPS. Under the current GS system my supervisor actually had the audacity to tell me that his favored employee received a top line evaluation and the only bonus given because even though he knows she does not posess the leadership abilities or technical knowledge I do she has been loyal to him throughout the 15 plus years they have worked together. Rampant favoritism and nepotism were main reasons for the passage of The Civil Service Reform Act and I don't think humanity has had any great leaps in morality in the past 50 years, so what will happen in 5 or 10 yeaqrs from now? I'm glad I can retire in 4 more years.

  John Whitney Posted May 10, 2007 1:11 AM
• 22664
  

  We get off on money because it's in such short supply, but money was not the core problem with the old system. Rather it is the lack of flexibilty to respond to the job market. 2 months to advertise a position that is only open for applicants one week, followed by another 2 months of review and approval, and a couple more months to get the person on board. A four to six month lag for an hourly-wage employee is just not agile enough. (That's better than when I was hired 25yrs ago - it took 9 months from date of application to first interview, and two more before I was on the payroll as GS-5.) With one of the demo systems I hear they can hire a critical fill on the spot. For me, I'll be retired before my position comes eligible for NSPS, which is just as well, given the nepotism around here for promotions.

  TechManager Posted May 3, 2007 9:20 AM
• 22556
  

  NSPS is a plan to get rid of civilian employees. Stop all pay increases to those eligible fore retirement and watch them retire. Also, you can move pay below purchasing power parity over years so employees have a greater incentive to move to the private sector; however, the longer you wait the more the golden handcuffs lock them in. While the lockin is no longer the pension plan, the health benefits still offer something you are highly unlikely to find in the private sector.

  NSPS is a way to drive people out of employment in DoD and its components.

  taxpayer Posted April 27, 2007 7:13 AM
• 22476
  

  I've heard much from those at their pay cap and wonder what's different before or after NSPS? Under the GS system, if you're a step 10 and not changing jobs you're still blocked from increases, aren't you? But, as often happens, reading of those did enlighten me to the fact that some think our cost of living increases are to go by the way side. Does anyone this for sure? I've never seen that issue addressed.

  To be honest, my concerns are more pedestrian. So many of us feel trepidation that nepotism will increase and to be honest, the previous system wasn't immune just, in our eyes, less susceptible that I will not dwell on that issue.

  First, I question the story's statistics when the latest version of the Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics "The Fact Book", 2005 edition seems to refute their facts on average pay and more. Another of my concerns is that, even if you are the apple of your boss's eye, the politics of the pay pool may prevent proper pay distributions. Next, regardless of my status (and my boss's political prowess in the pool), Congress will look first to our pay whenever a chopping block is needed; or a platform desired. If the budget is not there, then there is no hope.

  Additionally, we've seen that not only did fully successful achievers not receive any disbursements (as seen in congressional testimony), but pay pool reviews of performance appraisals have required those same appraisals be rewritten; as attested to by supervisors in this readership who are already under the NSPS. Its one thing to tell me there's no money. It's quite another to say, "You did excellent, but because of limited funds (or Joe Schmoe won the battle of the pay pool) this year, I'm going to have to down grade your performance appraisal."

  As for the success of the test beds and the high bonus to pay histories, it seems that most are from very small populations of professionals in organizations with relatively big budgets, not the worker bees I toil along side of in this prairie dog canyon. This appears to be a case of comparing apples and oranges. Regardless, annual bonuses will not help me fight inflation after retirement.

  Please count me still skeptical.

  Tip off

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 24, 2007 8:45 AM
• 22435
  

  I'd lke to know what nitwit decided that 13's are not considered to be doing expert work. I've managed multi-billion dollar contracts and been responsible for billions of dollars in government property. I've deployed with the troops on more than one occasion. I have a masters degree in my primary career field. How is it that I rate being in a Pay Band which ensures that in the 8-10 years I have left before retirement, I'll never receive another pay raise that will benefit me in my retirement? I'm sure I'm not alone in this situation. If pay for performance is supposed to incentive me, denying me a pay raise for 10 years isn't the way to do it.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 21, 2007 12:51 AM
• 22429
  

  Henry,

  My office switched to NSPS this week and we work in a very low wage rural area. We are worried this will affect our LMS and limit our pay bands top rate. Will a Rest-of-US LMS rate be used or do we have reason to worry.

  My job requires me to travel among installations and speak to a variety of employees. Several good workers have reported to me that they have been threatened by their supervisors to reduce their pay and "GET" them once NSPS comes. Considering that management always sticks up for management, what is there to protect workers in this situation?

  Engineer

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 20, 2007 5:12 PM
• 22428
  

  Henry:

  Thanks for your input. However, DHS has told me that at the top of a pay band, any performance based increase I would receive would only come as a lump sum award, which won't increase my salary for pension purposes. As I understand the proposed MaxHR, we will no longer be eligible for the annual cost of living increase given to all GS employees, which I still receive as a GS 13 step 10. Even though I can't receive any further grades or steps, under the General Schedule my salary still goes up a little each year, which will affect my pension. However, MaxHR doesn't have a provision for a cost of living increase for all employees, just performance based awards, and a "pay adjustment" when the pay bands increase, whenever and if ever that occurs! Given what I've heard about pay banding from other agencies and organizations that already have it, in lean times there may be no money available to put into the performance pool, and thus no performance awards or pay band adjustments that year. It is therefore very possible, if not likely, that my salary would remain the same for a long time if DHS goes to pay banding, unless there is sufficient funding to ensure that each pay band increases every year through pay adjustments. After more than 25 years of federal employment, I'm not optimistic that my interests, or those of my fellow employees, are being considered by those who are pushing this plan!

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 20, 2007 4:16 PM
• 22421
  

  Civil Man,

  Thanks for asking! I don't know your "supervisory style", but you should be aware from your training that NSPS depends heavily on communications. If your style is that of a coach, you will be just fine under NSPS. If you don't ordinarily coach, it would be in your interests to learn about it......

  The performance appraisal system is fairly simple in concept - you should check with your boss to see which interim reviews (aside from the DoD-imposed ones) your command mandates. Unfortunately the tool which records performance data is less than fun to use, but I do know that there is a concerted effort underway to streamline/simplify it, so relief is in sight.

  You will have responsibilities to provide performance payout recommendations to the Pay Pool - my best advice to you is to closely review the Performance Indicators and Contributing Factors and keep a copy near you as you write performance appraisals. Also keep a copy of the Merit Principles - they are alive and well under NSPS.

  Learn from other supervisors and your Pay Pool Manager what constitutes "Level 3" performance at your new command - that is the general yardstick by which you will judge low, average, and superior performance for your folks. A good command will ensure that all supervisors are on the same page as regards what constitutes "Level 3".

  Rest assured that your paycheck will continue to arrive, retirement benefits accrue, leave credited, and all the other things you enjoy today. The only major change you will note is that the money flows in different channels - but generally in the same amounts as today.

  I wish you success - this system is really flexible, you can hire far quicker, and have far more tools in your arsenal to reinforce positive behaviors and correct less-than-optimum ones. Your local HR folks and your command NSPS PM will be able to answer any questions you have - use these assets to ensure your success.

  Again, good luck! We look forward to your comments in future posts!

  Henry Posted April 20, 2007 8:28 AM
• 22394
  

  Henry,

  Any ideas for a new supervisor going from a non-NSPS system to a NSPS system? We had the general training months ago before the court cases, but nothing since.

  Civil Man Posted April 18, 2007 10:24 AM
• 22370
  

  Senior Special Agent, I share your pain. We too had individuals who were at Step 10 and did not receive a WIGI buy-in upon conversion. Neither did employees in the GM system. However, any indvididual who was not at Step 10 was compensated for time served toward the next WIGI. To me, that seems as fair as possible - you were already at the top of the ladder and had earned your WIGIs over time - those who are following you were compensated for what they had earned already.

  As for performance bonuses: once a payout amount is determined, the payout is paid as either a salary increase (counts for retirement), cash bonus, or combination thereof. Since you are at the top of your payband yours will be paid out as 100% cash bonus. Again, you are receiving the full amount of the payout, albeit in a form not attributable to retirement benefits. On the other hand, you were at Step 10 of your GS grade, so the salary upon which your retirement will be based wasn't going to increase anyway - so it's a wash, I think.

  Paybands adjusted upward by 1.7% last January. SECDEF has the authority to adjust the paybands every year, up to the amount authorized the rest of the GS-workforce under the January GPI. If that money is not applied to payband adjustments then by law it has to go into the Pay Pool - and employees will get it via that channel as long as their performance assessment is a "3" or higher. If the paybands do adjust, then in most cases your salary will adjust upward along with them. I really do not believe the federal deficit will influence payband adjustment since the adjustment amount is determined by Congress and authorized in the various spending bills. SECDEF cannot decide NOT to pay the increase, but he does have the discretion to channel it to payband adjustments or to the pay pool.

  Again, I urge each of you to inform yourselves how the system works - and remember that as long as you do your job, the money will flow as before but just through different channels. Overall, everyone will be just fine.

  BTW, I've observed that since we entered NSPS communications between supervisors and non-supervisory personnel have markedly increased. Who woulda thunk it?

  I'm always available for questions, etc - and I monitor this board almost every day - so fire away!

  Henry Posted April 17, 2007 1:47 PM
• 22365
  

  I am a GS-13 step 10 under the General Schedule. Under the proposed DHS MaxHR pay banding, I would probably go over at the top of the new proposed pay band. I would not be eligible for any within-grade-increase (WIGI) or WIGI buyout upon conversion. If I do well, and receive a good rating, I may be eligible for a performance pay increase under MaxHR. However, that would be paid as a lump sum, rather than a salary increase, so it would not count towards my "high 3" for retirement. In other words, my salary would be frozen at the current level for the remainder of my federal service, unless the pay band itself increases, which is questionable, given the huge federal budget deficit. And the federal government wonders why employees are skeptical of "pay for performance", and oppose changes to the present General Schedule???

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 17, 2007 11:28 AM
• 22339
  

  Henry, as an NSPS manager, I understand that it is your job to promote this abominable system. Make no mistake about it, NSPS is designed to hold down aggregate employee salary expenses. Its major feature is to abolish longevity increases, hold down promotion pay increases, and establish base and market pay via a arcane Northrup Grumman boiler plate contract to make pay levels whatever management decides it is. Just remember that year end bonuses are not defined as salary under NSPS regulation. Therefore they cannot increase base pay, attract FERS matching TSP funds, nor count towards retirement.

  Our command switched to NSPS in Jan 07. We have over 20 key positions which cannot be filled because the salary levels (formerly GS9~13) have been defined too low to attract any takers. But don't get me wrong, I expect that future retired O-6s which in the past hired themselves for their self defined GS-15 step 10 job positions will determine that they need significant pay increases to do the same job as their current active duty positions.

  I suspect that Paul Wolfowitz's malfeasance in promoting his girlfriend will be the pattern under NSPS. The only thing that has grown under NSPS is the contract HR workforce to administer the system, the ridiculous MyBIZ contract software program, and the yet to be unveiled contract to determine employee salaries. You say there is a war for talent. Having observed the current administration, I can only conclude that there is a war against Civil Service talent.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 16, 2007 11:29 PM
• 22326
  

  Michael, you still need to get your facts straight.....

  LMS replaces locality pay. Managers do not have the authority to give or withhold LMS any more than they did locality pay. And I've never seen locality pay be reduced and have no reason to suspect LMS would be lowered. The money to pay LMS is budgeted just as locality pay was - no individual command can refuse to pay LMS for budget reasons.....

  Only SECDEF can change the LMS rate.

  Under NSPS pay is composed of two elements: Base Pay and LMS. The total amount is called "Total Adjusted Pay". If you are overseas the LMS is replaced by the local COLA amount.

  Again, I urge you all to get your own answers by attending classes and doing your reading - don't let anyone make a decision for you....

  We converted to NSPS early this year. The system is working fine, no one has lost money, and we have everything to gain when the pay pool payouts happen at the end of the year. My salary has moved ahead faster than it would have under the GS system - as are those of everyone in the command.

  I'm out of this argument with this question: DoD is in a very real war for talent. Given that, why would they bring in a system which would drive people away?

  Remember: there's nothing worse than a deaf man who does not want to hear......

  Henry

  Henry Posted April 16, 2007 1:44 PM
• 22321
  

  I'd like to address something that has bothered me during this whole discussion. Several times, people have remarked about managers/leaders with only a high school education; the way it has been written comes across as a major slight towards those managers/leaders becasue they don't have a degree. I recently finshed my degree after 19 years in Civil Service and now have been selected as a manager in another DOD group. I don't feel any different since I received my diploma, and feel that I will be an effective manager with or without the degree. Perhaps instead of making a blanket statement, people should judge each manager on what they produce and how they motivate their employees. I've worked for several managers in my life with DOD, some with advanced degrees and some with none. The degree didn't make one whit of difference to what kind of leader they were. NSPS might be a bad thing, but each manager should be judged by themselves.

  Civil Man Posted April 16, 2007 12:34 PM
• 22298
  

  FAA's paybanding system is set up now to pay approximately $15,000 LESS than the GS equivalent for a journeyman Aviation Safety Inspector, and about $20, 000 LESS than GS for the Senior Aviation Safety Inspector.

  Don't believe anyone who tries to tell you that pay banding is budget neutral. It's not. It's only a way to lower wages. FAA is proof of that.

  J Posted April 15, 2007 4:19 PM
• 22286
  

  "Henry,"

  If you read or perhaps understood my earlier comments, I never asserted that LOCALITY payments were COLAs. COLAs (cost of living adjustments) are self-defining for goodness sake. And yes, it may be true that at this moment in time the so-called "Local Market Supplement" may be being applied in the DA area (due to a lasar light focus on the issue nationally), but if YOU actually took the time to read (and perhaps understand) the NSPS implementation language, language that was cobbled together by idealogues, demigods and organizational syncophants, it is quite clear that discretionary LMS payments ARE NOT the equivalent of the manadatory LOCALITY payments. TO help you to understand the difference, LMS' are at the discretion of so-called 'managers' many of who hold high school diplomas. Actual payment of discretionary LMS (staff-wide) is dependant on a host of extraneous factors, including but not limited to subjectively determined adequacy of funds to support same. Only time away from the currently lazer light of scritiny and future budget years will tell if staff receive the full or even the partial amount of the LMS. This, so-called 'management' having the discretion of paying or not paying LMS/LOCALITY payments to all, reweapt all staff, payments that are heretofore entitlements, payments that are upwards of 20% and more of a person's base salary, is a far cry from the current mandate/entitlement of LOCALITY payments under the GS system.

  Michael J. Smith, M.P.A. Posted April 13, 2007 6:26 PM
• 22275
  

  Michael, you need to read the NSPS Implementing Issuances before making ungrounded statements.......

  Locality pay (which, by the way was NEVER a cost of living allowance, but has ALWAYS been a cost of labor adjustment) has been replaced by the Local Market Supplement (LMS) which is also a cost of labor adjustment. It happens that the amount of LMS equals the amount previously paid in Locality Pay in all areas....in the DC area it is 18.59%. Everyone in the area gets it, it cannot be raised/reduced/taken away by management (just like locality pay...)

  Please don't make incendiary comments unless you have your facts straight...

  Henry Posted April 13, 2007 9:38 AM
• 22266
  

  Joseph got it right. Years ago I worked with some WG people. They made more than the GSers because their pay was based on local wages, and local workers in their trade were unionized.

  Figures don't lie but liars can figure; I am suspicious of something coming from this type of source, concerning this matter. Remember how "few" negative comments they got during the NSPS comment period?

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 12, 2007 12:53 PM
• 22264
  

  Let's speak factually, at least for the NSPS in DOD, regarding two very basic and important compensation issues. First, GS staff are entitled by law to receive locality pay, which is used to determine retirement annuities, unless, of course, they are adequately informed that they have been determined to be failing in the performance of their duties and responsibilities. Locality pay, depending on where s/he may be employed in the Nation, routinely approaches 20% of his/her base salary. Under NSPS, locality pay is taken out, repeat taken out of his/her base salary. And in its place under NSPS is a Byzantine, highly subjective and preposterously process-laden so-called "performance awards" system that was concocted by groupthink-based deologues and demigods whereby DOD first-line 'managers,' many of who are high school graduates, and many of who gained their positions and promotions over the years within DoD by performing as organizational sycophants to other first and second-level 'leaders,' so-called 'leaders' who also hold high school diplomas. Under the NSPS scheme, this same person must now 'compete' to get back even 1% of that heretofore locality pay entitlement. And second, the same applies to the annual federal-wide cost of living increases, COLA increases that were always intended to be applied to all staff, subject to the one caveat above.

  Can anyone, anyone who is a thinking and rational person, not comprehend or at least understand what many beleive the NSPS really represents, which is a transparent scheme that will be used and abused by, at best, third rate 'managers' to attempt to intimidate non-beholden educated career professionals into becoming the equivalent of organizational toadies?

  Michael Smith Posted April 12, 2007 12:06 PM
• 22262
  

  The devil is always in the details. Although I don't think it likely, every process in the new pay system could be operated in a fair and above board manor, with just one little tweak. All I have to do is hire a contractor to determine comparable commercial pay rates, insist he include a few mom and pop shops to keep the averages down, and voila, I don't need to give everyone the Congressionally approved salary increase. Oh my, isn't that what the GAO just did!

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 12, 2007 10:36 AM
• 22261
  

  As the article title suggest, the study results may not be totally and factually complete, nothing incorrect, just not all the facts. For instance, one big factor left out is when GS is converted there is a time in grade buy-out, so yes the salary is higher. So many have converted with the buy-out in the last few years that of course the alternate systems have a higher average. Plus, if a GS converts less than 90 days before the annual GS pay raise, they get the pay raise factored into their salary. Since a lot of hiring is done between 1 Oct and 1 Jan, i.e., less than 90 days before the annual raise, another higher salary factor hits the average. Or:

  "DOD Release, No. 661-06, July 12, 2006 DoD Announces Next Phase of NSPS Implementation The Department of Defense (DoD) announced today that it will implement Spiral 1.2 of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), a new civilian human resources system, to over 66,000 employees between October 2006 and January 2007."

  Lets see, over 66K employees just got a buy-out raise, then another cost of living raise, calculated on their buy-out salary. Wonder what impact that has on comparing average salaries?

  But what happens in a few years when the "FAA syndrome" gets full peak, and most are at the top of the scale; to get a raise, even one for cost of living, you have to get promoted out of the pay band. If your job does not exist in a higher band or the number of promotions are limited, then what happens to the average?

  As the cliché goes "Statistics don't lie, but you can lie with statistics." OMB/OPM are experts at this and unfortunately the proof of factual or smoking mirrors statistics will not be revealed for 4-5 years. Way too late for most.

  They could of course do a study on those converted a few years ago under the Demo projects and use the results of that study comparing real counterparts by grade, not comparing GS-5s to GS-13s. Wonder why they haven't done that study, or if they did, why not also give those statistics. And measure the rate of increase/decrease in the average. Maybe "why ask the question if you are afraid of, or know you won't like, the answer?".

  Ted Posted April 12, 2007 10:29 AM
• 22260
  

  The CBO needs to do a study of the FAA's Core Compensation (Core comp) pay system. Every employee I know who was forced into Core Comp is now earning less then they would have been earning had they stayed under the GS system. Core Comp is a classic example of a payroll reduction system masquerading as a pay for performance system.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 12, 2007 10:03 AM
• 22258
  

  Well it is working for our service. We just got the workd that there is no money for in-band increases as well as promotions and special awards.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 12, 2007 9:49 AM
• 22257
  

  And we need a study to determine that the NSPS, PBM, MaxHR, what ever they're going to call it is about saving money? As long as the people of America swallow it, keep putting it to them. What is "non-GS"? SES? You bet they make more money and offered a wider range of salary, just look at the article last month on their bonus'. But you know what they do to get there? It's not individuality or forward thinking and effeciency of America's tax dollars. And the wheels of government are greased with "Yes" people.

  Civil Slave Posted April 12, 2007 9:39 AM
• 22253
  

  In the final analysis, the article interprets the CBO: "That explanation seems to suggest that if agencies only had the choice, they would pay their employees more". It makes sense then, that the most cost-efficient and mission-effective solution would be to simply raise the salaries across the entire GS scale without further expensive analysis, argument, or politics. Higher pay would attract the best candidates to replace the fast-growing number of federal retirees.

  Joseph Posted April 12, 2007 8:35 AM