GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Rigid pay systems listed among top workforce challenges

• 36336
  

  Grace, a few months is not enough time to judge/prove a system will work. From what I understand of the NSPS pay band you could be an outstanding worker and still not receive your performance pay.

  DoD wants to tie performance to the President's Cost of Living raise. Why does the President and Congress plan the Cost of Living if one man can do away with it and go against the President and Congress? The Cost of Living increase should not be even considered in the NSPS because it's to bring the salaries closer to the rising cost of living and has nothing to do with performance. Another issue is workers under NSPS will be capped on earnings yet more will be given to upper SES management.

  Civilian Worker Posted November 1, 2007 9:29 AM
• 36332
  

  Bryon, whether its new blood/old blood, or the good "old" boys, there will always be favortism, it's human nature. A civilian worker told me she plans to retire early because the people in her office were already sucking up to the supervisors and all she could see were the soles of their shoes. What kind of atmosphere is this creating? Hostile? Buddy, Buddy? How many times during your career have you seen reorganizations? Too many times to count! All they do is cause confusion. You will have slackers in every field, they will always figure ways around the system. How many times have you worked for a Supervisor with a personality difference/clash? Under the General Schedule there were avenues which the worker could tap for assistance but under the NSPS those negotations will be gone, all under the guise of Security.

  Dominguez said Defense has a problem with pay for high-ranking officials. "Our executive compensation schedule for senior executives is way underpriced for the value we get from those people," he said. "We need to jack that up." Wow, give the civilian workforce the shaft while the executives get more money. Sounds like corporate America with the outrageous CEO salaries and benefit packages.

  Changing the General Schedule is like rewriting the Constitution. Look out America, that will be next because the young blood will consider it outdated and antiquated. Look how the Civilian Servant Retirement System (CSRS) was done away with to be pushed into the Social Security Retirement System, which is being raided by every other cause and maybe more so by the illegal aliens.

  Leave the General Schedule in place and get rid of the NSPS, most gov workers do not want MAXHR/NSPS anyway and it you don't believe that just look at the negative comments this article has generated.

  Ann Posted November 1, 2007 9:18 AM
• 36208
  

  Quite possibly the most ridiculous aspect of NSPS is this...they have made the focal point of the system...pay. But pay is the one area that is repeatedly and almost proudly asserted as an area we simply cannot and never will be able to compete with private sector. This then is the foundation of our new personnel system? Are you kidding me?

  Jim Posted October 30, 2007 10:04 PM
• 36183
  

  I agree also that something needs to be done about the GS system, because it stinks. I came into the federal government as a student employee and now I'm a permanent employee and have been with the government for 4 years, but my pay definitely doesn't show how much or how hard I work, plus I have a master's degree and have gotten a Superior performance rating every year. Needless to say, since I have graduated, I'm seeking employment elsewhere and I'm 98% sure that it will be outside of the government. If the government wants to keep top performers, then they definitely need to find a better pay scale.

  DOI Employee Posted October 30, 2007 1:27 PM
• 36163
  

  Dick, key words....NSPS allows for an increase. The rest of you who have not been spiraled into NSPS, be careful what you wish for......remember when FERS was going to be so much better than CSRS, I didn't buy that one either and I'm glad I didn't. I'm not buying into NSPS either. I'm out of here. At 55 with 32 years of service, and many many hours of working without compensation because I really liked what I was doing.....that is all coming to an end. I'm now living in that world where the young smart people are coming in to the workplace being paid almost as much as I am and after more than a year still cannot perform. Will the supervisor ever admit they were wrong? Nope, they just promote the older worker who did not get the job because the younger worker was "more qualified". Someone should have told her that. She keeps telling us (not the supervisor) that she doesn't understand how we do the work, she doesn't think she will ever get it. However, she is getting the pay increases. So how does that square with the GS system.

  No names please Posted October 30, 2007 9:47 AM
• 36122
  

  Pay for performance will only be as good as those managing it. At this organization 75% of management are military. They don't even realize that the young, likes to have fun admin person assigned to their section should be doing their administrative work for them. They are always out looking for that old biddy down the hall who doesn't work for them, but she really knows how to get the job done. Alas she is not young or looking to have a good time. She is much too busy getting the job done properly to just want to have fun. Guess what the young, wanta have fun was selected as the employee of the year. Talk about pay for performance, I guess if you are a good actress it must may work.

  No name please I'll be fired. Posted October 29, 2007 2:34 PM
• 36120
  

  I have worked for federal government for about 10 years and I have been under the NSPS system for about the last two. I agree that the GS system wasn't perfect, but NSPS is worse by far. I am now seeking employment outside of the federal government. My conclusion is that NSPS will contribute to the talant drain in years to come as good employees leave to work in the private industry. Good luck to those that stay.

  Boe Green Posted October 29, 2007 2:19 PM
• 36116
  

  Under NSPS a reassignment from YB02 (formerly GS7) to YB02 (formerly GS9) allows an increase of 5%. Under the old GS System this promotion would have equated to an increase in pay of approximately 18%. The DA saved approximately 13% by promoting a Federal Executive Board Employee of the Year 2007 under NSPS. This is what it is all about, saving money to pay the big boys, and to hire additional consultants.

  Dick Posted October 29, 2007 1:45 PM
• 36114
  

  I seriously resent being called desperate. Federal service was my first choice when I graduated with an MPP 6 years ago.

  I also wish the Partnership for Public Service would like beyond what Georgetown and Harvard grads are doing. Yes, they rack up obscene amounts of debt, but that was a choice.

  I took a full scholarship to the public policy program at a large well respected state university over selling my soul to go to Georgetown where I had also gotten in.

  Why because I knew that I would either go into the government or nonprofit sector and the kind of debt Georgetown would have put me in would have been crushing?

  Kate Posted October 29, 2007 1:27 PM
• 36107
  

  Let me see if I understand this John Palguta thinks getting rid of the General Schedule will get rid of the problems. Michael Dominguez said it right about meeting the challenge, "I can't say with high confidence that we're poised for success."

  All the panelist agreed the GS is too rigid and needs replaced with a more performance-based, market sensitive pay system (looks like the panelists know which side of their bread gets buttered!)

  Michael Dominguez touted pay reform under the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) at DoD by realigning your organization around observable outcomes. How could DoD be so wrong for so many years?

  Dominguez said Defense has a problem with pay for high-ranking officials. "Our executive compensation schedule for senior executives is way underpriced for the value we get from those people," he said. "We need to jack that up." Observable outcome: Give the civilian workforce the shaft while the executives get more money. Sounds like corporate America with the outrageous CEO salaries and benefit packages.

  Sallyanne Harper, CFO at the Government Accountability Office, recommended that the government work out an accommodation to allow retirees to return to federal service on a part-time basis. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. Ms. Harper knows many government workers will be exiting under the NSPS along with all their corporate knowledge.

  Panelists agreed that in addition to more flexible pay systems, agencies must have dedicated managers who can ensure employees have clear performance expectations and goals aligned with missions. Evidently nobody has read the Position Descriptions of many government jobs. Flexible? The NSPS will become a nightmare when each agency/department claims they do more Security work and deserve their own different/higher pay band.

  "I think we have a growing consensus ... that in government, you can have the best technology, all the infrastructure and even the budget, and none of it works unless you have the right people in place," Palguta said. "I think leaders are starting to understand that." Could the leaders be the problem? Is the US moving to a Socialized system where only a few people have control? The opposition to the MAXHR & NSPS is proof of this! Just look at the comments this piece of propaganda has created, so many people cannot be wrong.

  Civilian Worker Posted October 29, 2007 12:54 PM
• 36099
  

  I disagree that our current GS pay systems are ONLY a "system that's based on tenure". This is a classic example of misinformation that is perpetuating the entrenched, bloated, and stagnant view of civil servants rather than that of a noble, hard working, and civic minded group of American employees and workers. There are tools within today's GS federal supervisor's toolkit to discipline, train, and motivate the federal employee. The greatest challenge to management today is to make supervisory positions full time rather than worker bees with additional duties. If our pay system is so antiquated and merely tenure based, then why did the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation, appointed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in March 2005, suggest "to begin paying soldiers based on the time they have spent in a specific grade, instead of overall time in the service." Their logic was "That way, a soldier promoted early into a higher grade will earn more than the people he left behind, even once they are bumped into the grade automatically. Committee members said they see the promotion system as the single best way to measure performance in the military, and want to attach it more strongly to pay." And, surprise - surprise, those were Republican congressional representatives prior to the Democratic hostile takeover in November '06. Please read the GovExec article, "Panel back military pay-for-performance", Mar 6, 2006. "Our executive compensation schedule for senior executives is way underpriced for the value we get from those people," he said. "We need to jack that up." tells me that the intent of NSPS is to limit the income, and therefore cost, of the lower level functionary and shift those funds to the upper level. Please remember that the SES receive annual bonuses in the range of $14K to $17K. Please read the GovExec article "Executive Extras", Mar 8, '07. Are you feeling as sore and tender as I am? I'll I'm hearing these days is "DOWN IN FRONT!!", and a slap on the back of the head.

  Tip off Posted October 29, 2007 11:55 AM
• 36072
  

  Let me see if I have this straight...higher level executives strongly endorse the NSPS and higher level executives warrant increased pay which NSPS will provide.?.?

  Steve Posted October 29, 2007 8:09 AM
• 36016
  

  Grace,

  Your comment concerning your knowledge about NSPS, having been in it a couple of months, is like saying you're knowledgable about nuclear physics because you spent a couple of months at a college. Try living the dream like I did and you will bail out too.

  CDANW Posted October 26, 2007 3:20 PM
• 36005
  

  Holy cow! That's no panel, that's a pep rally for NSPS/PFP! All the panelists listed have not so hidden agendas involving the self-fulfilling prophecy of success for this with big bucks to be made when clueless agencies come to them as self-styled expert consultants for help in implementing this crap. Especially Palguta who's been a shill for this and dining out on it for ever so long. HR has become like resort real estate, you've got to churn the market to make a buck. Everyone has to conjure up a new initiative or a new boogey-man to chase around. That's PFP and the retirement tsunami for the moment. GS/WG work just fine were competently administered and does just what it's supposed to do to, depolitisize and decorrupt the civil service. It would work even better if we fully implement FEPCA and some of the other laws we routinely waive every year. If you want to serve and make the big bucks, follow your mercenary inclinations and work for a contractor. Like everyone on this panel will after '09. If PFP sounds like motherhood and apple-pie to you, remember the devil is in the details and you've been hearing these lies for a long time now. Take a long hard look at NSPS, there's lots there besides PFP not to like. Mom feeds you too much apple pie and you get type II diabetes and high cholesterol. Love the discussion. Either way, let congress know how you feel.

  Other Mike Posted October 26, 2007 1:48 PM
• 35932
  

  The talent they want to recruit is "retired military"...younger than what exists now but not really young. In less than 20 years they will have another baby boomer-like crisis. Check out DOD's waiver of the 180 waiting period vis-a-vis Bush's declaration of a continuing state of national emergency.

  frank Posted October 25, 2007 7:02 PM
• 35926
  

  Grace your logic is flawed. Just because people object to or question NSPS doesn't mean that they are slackers who are gonna can'd by it. Typically i have found that these are intelligent people who have thought about the full implications of such a system. ofcourse you have your unintelligent ones too.... I am a new government employee, infact i've only been here for a year. I will say that i came here because i want to serve my country. I took a huge pay cut to come work for the government. But the pay is known, the increases are known, everything is public, and thats other part that brought me here. NSPS will subject our pay checks to Budget constraints, Political sway, and generally good ole fashion favoritism. I do admit that people should be held accountable for their actions, but if they aren't doing it now what makes you think they are all of a sudden going to start doing it under a new pay system? I have been approached by other governmental organizations about possible employment, and because of NSPS i am seriously considering the switch. CIA, NRC, USPTO here i come!

  valek Posted October 25, 2007 3:10 PM
• 35924
  

  Hey KD, you are absolutely right. I don't know why they keep calling NSPS pay for performance. The GS 13 through 15's where I work are all under this system and hate it. Why, because they don't get the raises they used to under the GS pay scale. They are getting ripped off and are tasked with more work and oh by the way, have less people under them to do the work. I thought NSPS was sold to us as a way for top performers to get paid more but that was just a big stinking pile. It is apparent that the goal all along by DOD was to cap costs on salary increases and therby save money. They are go good at saving money aren't they? Listen up, there is absolutely no incentive under NSPS to move up. Here where I work when you go from a GS 12 to a 13 means it means you move from the GS pay scale to NSPS. Why would anyone want to give up their Cost of Living raises and steps to go to a system where the total raise averages about 2-3 percent(also takes away from your high 3 salary for retirement). Plus under the GS pay scale if you went from a GS 12 to a 13 you got about 10-11K, under NSPS the promotion is capped at 5 percent, or about 3-4K. Why would anyone want to move up and go under that system. And by the way, NSPS stripped the rank structure so no one really knows what level you work at. Under the GS system, if someone told you they were a GS 14, you knew that person was in a leadership position. What do people know if you say you are a YC-2...Absolutely nothing (or maybe on the verge of insanity). To top that off we have military personnel who value their rank structure telling us how great NSPS is? Would anyone dare remove rank structure from the military? And don't tell me that a 3 Value Performer is the same as a top block of the past. Again, cost control measures. It's time for DOD to wake up and realize they are running off their top performers....Or is that the goal here?

  Bart Tanner Posted October 25, 2007 2:51 PM
• 35923
  

  There are no managers in Federal service. Some of the better supervisors might be called foremen but they are certainly not managers. Managers understand management is about people, not bean counting.

  A good start on reforming the Federal pay system would be to put in a rule that supervisors cannot receive a rating higher than the average of their employees.

  All changes should be made from the top down. Let the SESers and political appointees feel the impact of NSPS or any other system before they inpose it on the rank and file.

  Glenn Posted October 25, 2007 2:37 PM
• 35919
  

  50 Year Old Contemporary: Point well taken. I certainly shouldn't lump all the managers I've met into one category. Needless to say, we've all met them, and most of us fear their ineptness, contemporaries included;) And to Mr. Black, those of us who consinder ourselves bright, and believe me we're hear in significant numbers, do not simply jump for the biggest dollar. Most of us, and here is the biggest shortfall in executive thinking, are here for the challenge. If you don't challenge us, we're out of here.

  Young and Frustrated Posted October 25, 2007 1:19 PM
• 35859
  

  To young and frustrated: It's refreshing to see your youthful enthusiam. I used to have it as well. Keep hope alive! Fight the good fight! When you prevail, you will probably be about 50 and you can take joy in the fact that younger, "better qualified" people are being promoted past you. I'll bet that after 25 years or so under NSPS you will be signing a diffent song.

  A 50 year old contemporary Posted October 24, 2007 7:27 PM
• 35857
  

  Mr. Palguta is insulting, ignorant, and absurd when he warns of that the government will be left with the "best of the desperate", but he does reek of a thorough steeping in political rhetoric, and of lots and lots of contacts inside the Beltway.

  There isn't any major problem with the GS system, (except that it is not used the way it is designed to be used) but consultants get paid to re-invent the wheel.

  Very few consultants have the ability to gain insight into the federal government because it is so much more complex and multi-faceted in every regard than they are ever prepared to admit.

  However, if you have to make a blanket statment about pay for performance, it would be this;

  You cannot pay the "elite" more for performance until you actually DEFINE performance. The President's Management Agenda attempts to do that at an agency level, but even here it is only partially defined and measured. Unless there are real ways to measure how GS-14s and 15 managers are meeting the objectives of the PMA, then Pay for Performance will never be anything more than 50-old friends handing out favors to each other at Christmas. They won't be rewarding the young, the innovative, or the diverse. Why should they when their "goals" are fuzzy mission statements and have no impact on their budgets?

  And if you had to make a blanket statement about how "underpaid" the SES are, it would be perhaps marginally. Perhaps instead of being paid $120,000 a year, they should earn $175,000, or $200,000, and then perhaps the same raises should be seen for certain functions with the GS sytsem, but the notion that the government should look like a major corporation that pays its board multi-million dollar salaries is crazy.

  That's what so many outside of government just can't get their minds around. This is government. Not Pepsi-Cola. Until they understand and respect the purpose of a healthy public sector, they will never design or lead any radical improvements.

  Kate Posted October 24, 2007 6:29 PM
• 35850
  

  Why do so few people believe these personnel rule changes will have any value? These seems to be to much spin and no value.

  Bill Posted October 24, 2007 4:07 PM
• 35839
  

  I do not think that the exc pay is rigid or low compared to other gov employees. If you succeed to lobby for raising the exc salaries, you need to make sure that this approach applies to all employees. Otherwise, you would create an unhealthy pay system that foster more favoritism than what already exists among the ranks!

  A large difference in pay would create a subserviant group to a select"so called elite". It may affect productivity in the long term.

  Amal Mahfouz Posted October 24, 2007 2:18 PM
• 35837
  

  This has got to be one one the biggest piles of horse squeeze I've read on this site.

  Let's call NSPS what it really is - a way to reduce payroll and retirements for people who have committed their lives to government service by lying to them.

  Just tell them they will only have to earn their 'step', then change the rules and the authorized COLA and make the "payout" a one-time bonus thereby reducing the salary baseline in future periods.

  PT Barnum would have been proud.

  GovtPCO Posted October 24, 2007 1:47 PM
• 35823
  

  Funny how all of these senior leaders keep criticizing the GS pay system for being too rigid to allow them to adaquately compensate the "high performers". Yet a single step raise at even the GS-11 level coupled with a normal cost of living raise is equal to the absolute maximum annual raise allowable under NSPS of 5%. The fact is that NSPS eliminates the large grade raises from GS-7 to GS-14 that everyone strives for. Standard intern programs today allow new hires to reach full performance at GS-11 in two years. Under NSPS a new college graduate hired in as an intern at GS-7 pay would take over eight years of maximum raises to reach today's GS-11 rate. Anyone with any talent is not going to stay around that long at that pay. All NSPS will do is turn the Government into a training ground for the private sector. One or two years experience and they will be gone. And then the Government will be looking for another inexperienced, unemployed, and desperate new hire to enter the training cycle.

  K D Posted October 24, 2007 12:08 PM
• 35819
  

  Let's see. Basically the panelists want to scrap the civil service system go towards a system focused on all power to the leader. Did the panelists list improving the skills and education of the hired employees? Or did they demand improved education for everyone so they had a better choice of already prepared or trained potential employees? They're quite ready to dump people who don't dance like trained monkeys as quickly as possible. We know such vaunted efficiency yeild short term benefits with long term massive negative consequences, especially corruption.

  This focus on all power, money rewards and organizational influence towards the leader sounds like fascism. No wonder we're losing in Iraq with a mentality like that.

  Alfred Molison Posted October 24, 2007 11:40 AM
• 35818
  

  Until the entire administrative system is overhauled in civl service, and formal leadership & mangement training is made mandatory, along with a system where employees can hold management accountable for their actions, nothing will never change.

  A government agency that has to have it's employees represented by a "union" has already failed. Why would you need a union to protect your employees from a non profit generating entity? It is a clear sign that poor management is prevalent.

  Again, you have a non profit generating agency handing out bonuses to its employees, when what they should be concentrating on is developing and maintaining an evaluation system that means something. That in turn would strengthen promotion and transfer possibiities. Create a system that promotes the best qualified, not the best liked. The majority of promotions in civil service are based on who a supervisor likes versus who is the best qualified. Why create a best qualified list when management almost never selects the best qualified people on that list?

  Because this good old boy system exists in the civil service, pay for performance programs will never, ever work.

  Is anybody paying attention here?

  Steve Posted October 24, 2007 11:40 AM
• 35812
  

  There's definitely a crisis in leadership, but a another problem is the one size fits all mentality. OMB insists that a supervisor must be responsible for more employees than one can manage effectively in highly technical environments such as IT.

  Erich Darr Posted October 24, 2007 10:13 AM
• 35811
  

  As a young, enthusiastic employee, it saddens me that the leadership expected to implement these changes in DoD are the very leaders how benefitted from the old system. They are the managers who are the "best of the desparate", so what motivation do they have to promote younger, more talented workers ahead of their 50 year old contemporaries?

  Young and frustrated Posted October 24, 2007 10:06 AM
• 35809
  

  While I believe performance based pay is a good idea in theory, when implemented in the public sector it has proven to be dysfunctional. For example, look at the FAA and the SES compensation plans. For a multitude of reasons, they fail to motivate employees and deliver on what they propose, true pay for performance. The main problem with performance based pay is that government agencies cannot ensure that funding will be allocated for the payout of performance based compensation. This is the dichotomy; Government agencies can initiate a performance pay plan, but only congress can fund it. When times are lean, guess what gets cut from the budget first!! While the national security personnel system is touted as a success, it is a new system that has not been totally implemented and thus has not had time to succeed of fail. Standby and observe. Only time will tell, but funding will be the key.

  Jerry Templet Posted October 24, 2007 9:36 AM
• 35807
  

  The new DoD performance system (NSPS) is also too rigid in some respects, especially when it comes to promotions; the 5% cap on salary increase for a move to a new position really limits managers in hiring the right people for the right job. For example, I recently turned down an offer for a second-level supervisory position at a different location rather than give up a grunt-level position at a lower cost of living area, after returning from 19 years in private practice and having years of managerial experience. The potential move made no economic sense with the 5% salary increase cap, so I passed on the opportunity to fill a position I'm extremely qualified for, only to stay in a position I'm overqualified for because I would have lost money, relatively speaking (to have moved to a higher cost of living area), to have taken a job with more responsibility at the higher cost of living area.

  Jeff Posted October 24, 2007 9:30 AM
• 35802
  

  I am a retired Federal employee with 40 years of service. All the noise about how outdated the General Schedule pay system is nonsense. Show me another system in the private sector that clearly lays out what someone could potentially be paid--does not exist. The other thing we keep hearing is that is based on longevity--that too is partial nonsense. Just because someone is breathing and showing up for work does not necessarily translate into an automatic step increase. They also have to be doing their job! There are too many managers and supervisors out there that just automatically sign the sheet and send it back to personnel when an employee is due a within grade step increase. They can be turned down!

  The performanced based pay system is wonderful in theory. If it were a perfect world with perfect managers it would work. We do not have either. There will be much, much, much favoritism going on and those managers that have the morals of an alley cat will take advantage of it.

  Sallyanne Harper's comment about letting retired federal employees return on a part time basis will work if the law is changed. Right now there is zero incentive (except in some positions within DoD) to return because everything a retired employee makes working PT for Uncle Same is offset in there annuity.

  Linda Sullivan Posted October 24, 2007 8:55 AM
• 35799
  

  I continue to be amazed at the number of articles I see on this topic of "talent development" as a concern for quality of future government employees. However, I have yet to see anyone tackle the issue of the many talented and educated employees already in the system being able to get advanced because of either archaic promotion and hiring systems or the sheer refusal of the "good old boys" system to adhere to established laws and regulations. Even when talented and educated individuals attempt to point out these flaws utilizing the EEOC's processes, they then simply become a target and can forget ever getting ahead. This problem is in part due to inadequate staffing at the EEOC in conjunction with their lack of due diligence in the performance of their jobs.

  As for the "rigid pay systems", the current GS system is a better system than the "pay-for-performance" when you have managers who belong to the "good old boys club" and use performance appraisals to punish individuals for speaking out for their rights despite excellent service to our country.

  I would like to challenge the USDOL and the Committee for Labor and Education to take a serious look at: how many EEO cases are dismissed through Summary Judgments? -is it possible that the number of those "judgments" have grown over the past 5 to 8 years? -does that speak more of the administration or a reflection on the inadequate staffing of the EEOC? -how many men versus women have advanced degrees and what GS level of pay do they occupy? -how many women and minorities who have filed actions through the EEOC process have seen a change in their performance appraisals from before the action to after the action?

  Until someone actually takes this topic seriously and conduct a thorough investigation as to what has been happening, simply changing the pay system will not alter a thing with regards to the issue of "talent development" in my opinion and I would be glad to be a part of that solution if possible.

  Theresa M. Brandon Posted October 24, 2007 8:45 AM
• 35798
  

  Articles like these are misleading. The government has never hired the best of the brightest. Why would anyone work for the government except those that have some sense of public service. Desperate, not so, willing to tolerate abuse from politicians, re R. Reagan and his ilk, yes. The brightest seek employment elsewhere for much larger salaries. This has been a misnomer for a long time.

  Richard Black Posted October 24, 2007 8:44 AM
• 35797
  

  I spent a few months in NSPS while overseas. It is a start in the right direction. Obviously, those who think it isn't are those who would be eliminated by it early on.

  Grace Posted October 24, 2007 8:32 AM
• 35790
  

  The problem with Federal government pay/compensation is politicization. Republicans preach smaller government and do everything they can to make working for the government unattractive (low compensation) in an attempt to reduce the government's size. This short sited behavior only penalizes those in government employ. Democrats preach bigger government and tend to create more programs without thoroughly diagnosing the problems and figuring out the details of implementation/solution, leading to more workers being unproductive and wasting money, time, and careers.

  Neil Posted October 24, 2007 8:06 AM
• 35787
  

  "Compensation and other human resources initiatives are worthless unless accompanied with solid leadership, Palguta said."

  Give Mr. Palguta a medal. Federal executives and their unions can whine all they want about inadequate pay for senior executives. But, what mostly keeps high quality people away is the lack of solid leadership.

  Senior executives have long set a poor example for other levels of management to follow. They are more interested in being bureaucrats than leaders. They waste time and resources playing their political games and fill management positions with even more of their ilk.

  Why throw good money after bad?

  Robert M. Posted October 24, 2007 7:36 AM
• 35786
  

  The focus on Pay systems in response to a the anticipated "gray flight" of federal employees is misguided. What is needed is leadership at the Presidential Appointee level of the agencies. Rather than political idealogues who have been brainwashed as to the uselessness of the typical Federal Employee coming in and surrounding themselves with non-career people, the President and Senate should be appointing and confirming leaders that will lead their workforce. Without leadership first, any compensation system changes are simply a bureaucratic adjustment of the rules.

  Bill Posted October 24, 2007 7:30 AM
• 35785
  

  The biggest problem with the boomers leaving the workforce in projected record numbers in the next decade will not be recruiting talented people as much as it will be keeping talented people who have to work for old school 65 - 70 yr old supervisors that won't leave because they have it made. Let's get rid of some of the old blood / good old boy network in the management areas and get some of the new blood with new ideas and energies and put them to work. We may even be able to retain people that are comptetent and relaible as a result.

  Byron Posted October 24, 2007 7:29 AM
• 35784
  

  The GS system could have been tweaked to accomplish this goal, as the Government is inherently different from the private sector in both mission, and motives. It is difficult to imagine a workforce that is dedicated to the public when they are being influenced politically for fear of not getting a raise. Since it does not seem likely that a PFP can be administered properly due to it's intended nature of reducing payroll as one of the ancillary benefits, at least in the first few years. It provides ample incentive to rejoin, or never leave the private sector as to not be hampered by too much regulation, and to actually be paid for perfomance. The article is actually gently reminding the reader that the leadership is key. It's not likely to be a smooth ride.

  Mike Posted October 24, 2007 7:21 AM
• 35780
  

  I'm going to assume that because of his position, John Palguta is not an idiot. However, his comment about replacing the decades old GS system makes me ask this question. Is having an old system worse than having a dumb one? Under the GS system I could go from 12s6 to 13s3 to 14s1 and increase my salary by $6809 and $9151 respectively (Philly locality). This same job progression under NSPS would result (in best case progressions assuming the max 5%) in increases of $3903 and then $4098. A reduction/loss of $7959 to take a job two levels up! BUt under NSPS these aren't promotions, they're reassignments. From the govt perspective...I get this as a good thing. From the employee perspective as a reason to stay...I see this as a bad thing.

  So Mr. Palguta...is this the better, less rigid system you're envisioning??

  Jim Posted October 24, 2007 6:51 AM
• 35779
  

  Yes, the experts have all the answers. Just ask them! As a 3rd generation civil servant, I will advise my son to stay out of government. First, they killed the perfect retirement system (CSRS, which I am grandfathered under) and now they are going to politicize our paychecks. Most of the so-called performance evaluations are going to be highly subjective. They will also be "normed" by sex and race, so don't believe that your performance will only truly reflect only YOUR performance. And don't expect management to properly grade themselves. They know they all do an outstanding job. Anybody who truly believes this is going to improve things has never been in the trenches or is on the outside looking in. Of course the actual employees who will be effected are never consulted or their opinions taken and discarded. Onward through the fog!

  Too Long a Civil Servant Posted October 24, 2007 6:47 AM
• 35773
  

  When you base your daily duties on your desire for greater wealth rather than a sense of duty to your country, then you need to get out of Government Service. What kind of workforce would we have if our employees left everytime more money came along? They are complaining about basing pay on tenure and complaining on the drain of experienced employees in the same breath. This is where the problems come from, we are run by morons.

  The best leaders you will experience come from the military and they don't get paid crap, but they do what they do because they love their country and the people they lead.

  Border Patrol Agent Posted October 24, 2007 1:19 AM
• 35762
  

  While another way to describe the "rigid" federal pay system is to call it a "stable" pay system, if I follow Mr. Palguta and Mr. Dominguez arguments, they should support keeping the current pay federal pay system, but an across the board raise of 10% - 20%. If these "experts" really want to attract the best skilled professionals to government service, they will improve the compensation without stripping away the stability provided by the current system. If you add incentive in sense, and remove an incentive in another sense...though all in the same compensation package, you will attract no one. The dance continues...and the retirement of skilled and experienced feds accelerates.

  Don Posted October 23, 2007 9:11 PM
• 35759
  

  Here we go again. Private industry once again dictates how the government should remunerate its employees. Naturally, none of these so called experts need to worry about the consequences of their misguided ideas. They won't be the ones feeling the pinch when things go sour. The only thing that is wrong with the current GS pay system is that it is not implemented correctly. There are a number of incentives within the system to reward top performers. Yet, as most government employees will attest, how many can recall receiving a step increase? Current managers are either incompetent, unwilling or being held back from using the system to its fullest potential creating the illusion that the system does not work. If the managers are incompetent, then no new pay system is going to fix the problem. On the other hand if managers are intentionally held back then the need to fix broken system has become a self fulfilling prophesy.

  DHS Employee Posted October 23, 2007 8:39 PM
• 35748
  

  Dominguez said Defense has a problem with pay for high-ranking officials. "Our executive compensation schedule for senior executives is way underpriced for the value we get from those people," he said. "We need to jack that up."

  NSPS Translation: We need to cut pay for our lower ranking employees to free up additional funds to pay our senior people more.

  John Post Posted October 23, 2007 6:53 PM