GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Panel urges new administration to go slow on pay reform

• 47384
  

  "So, you have two people, one who shows up, does nothing and another who comes in busts tail and they get the same pay??? " Those busting tails should be making more compensation, particularly under the current GS system.

  Those with some experience have said all along that one of the major down falls of the NSPS implementation is that the same managers will still be managing. If those managers are too busy (I will give them some slack) to properly manager their poor workers, they are probably too busy to manage the good workers; who while need less supervision DO need reassurance and, if deserved, compensation.

  Those 15 page NSPS evaluations are NOT going to write themselves. Now they'll also have to go to the pay panel pools and defend their evaluations.

  But under the current GS system, it's MUCH simpler to submit an annual bonus award, or a step-increase reward, or even an impact financial award. So which system supports rewarding good performance better and easier? If you're going to knock the current GS system, you'll have to find another reason than the compensation plan. There ARE means to address good performance.

  But if you have the same overworked supervisors... adding an annual 15 page report and a political battle against quotas isn't going to help.

  Tip off Posted March 27, 2008 4:13 PM
• 47379
  

  In 1969-1970 I took a class that explained that what you technically know or your ability to do the job was about 6th item down as to why an individual would be selected for a group project. If human nature to prefer good old boys, cronyism, nepotism and polyanna's was so well known in the early 70s, why have they managed to institute a way to ensure the technically qualified and able bodied have less and less chance to get paid/promoted for their actual work? GS system kept the inevitable personal preferences at bay better than any NSPS system could hope to. We've mistaken a certain cachet or charisma for real ability for too long. Pay for popularity is not the answer. I'll be leaving government shortly for greener pastures, my 30 year experience now has the unknowing leading the ignorant (not stupid) and scaring the bejezus out of anyone that understands how much has been misunderstood and forgotten.

  Ralph Posted March 27, 2008 2:58 PM
• 47351
  

  So, you have two people, one who shows up, does nothing and another who comes in busts tail and they get the same pay??? Oh, and the former is usually an "old timer" and the latter a "young buck". I wonder where the friction is coming from!!!

  LEO Posted March 27, 2008 10:29 AM
• 47300
  

  "Ignorance, you can count on 1 hand all the CS folks denied step increases last year..."

  And whose fault is this, if true? Lazy supervisors and managers, that who. Managers and supervisors are so busy working to secure their own fat cat bonuses that little time is left for dealing with poor performers. I am not fond of those who just show up and do nothing because they know they won't get fired, but these folks are monsters that have been created.

  "by the way the Jan raise isn't a COLA, you should understand your pay before you defend your attendence".

  Whatever the January increase is called, it functions as a COLA because at best the minimal amount of the January change will allow you to tread water, provided your FEHBP premium doesn't go up even more than that. It is NOT an award for longevity. The locality pay aspect is a joke.

  "As to EEOC blacks are overrepresented in civil service they comprise TWICE their number in the eligable work force, EEOC has had quotas for years..."

  Since the opression of Blacks was CODIFIED by the goverment for hundreds of years, it is only reasonable that the government take the lead in correcting the horribly inequitable situation it created. Even in 2008, many department heads wouldn't hire a black person even if they were twice as qualifed as the nearest white candidate, due to plain old prejudice. The white candidate isn't always the best candidate, you know. If you see a number of blacks in any agency, they are likely in the "ghetto" of low grades (4's, 5's, and 6's). Goals and quotas are different by the way. My perspective, experience, and everday reality is so different from yours, I don't think that the race issue will ever be resolved in the USA.

  "As for IAW?? I've heard of the UAW, but their last contracts had a number of give backs when was the last time CS gave any of their pay or benefits back"??

  Yeah, I meant UAW. And it negotiates pay and benefits for its members so at least they have a say in what happens to them, good or bad. Feds (except post office) don't negotiate pay and benefits so we cannot give back anything if we wanted to. My point was that all workers seek what is best for themselves and their families, and nothing is wrong with this, nothing at all. Sure as shooting, employers seek what is best for them.

  Living a Different Reality Posted March 26, 2008 3:52 PM
• 47262
  

  RM - Keeping wages down was almost Rummy's sole motivation; the other part was a desire to politicize the federal workforce. No surprise there.

  One thing these people never acknowledge is that there is value in longevity. If all you have is a 4-year institutional memory, you have a problem.

  Queen of Flunkies Posted March 26, 2008 10:56 AM
• 47258
  

  The "January Pay Raise" was ALWAYS considered a COLA. I am going way back to 1972 when it was given in October, the beginning of the fiscal year. Reagan pushed it to January to try to save a bit of money that they didn't have in October. Somewhere they have tried to sell us that it isn't a COLA, but it is, and always was. It was the measure they put in effect to try to keep up with inflation. Without this COLA, feds could not keep competitive with private industry.

  Mr. Ed Posted March 26, 2008 10:29 AM
• 47255
  

  Anyone remember Deming's Red Bead Experiment? Great example that illustrates the distinction between worker performance and management (system) performance.

  TJC Posted March 26, 2008 10:13 AM
• 47190
  

  Go ahead and blame the worker bees for a failed system..... It's what management does best. The truth is there are a lot of managers in DoD unable and incapable of managing. Those who fit into this role got there by the Good Old Boy policy's going on for so many years in this institution. Rather than rewarding the worker bees for actually doing the work our Government Leaders who have failed us in so many ways continue to make the same stupid decisions. Excuse me for being blunt....has anyone seen anything positive come out Washington in the last ten years?

  T-Bone Posted March 25, 2008 1:36 PM
• 47093
  

  Lynn Jennings hit the nail on the head. It's not the system; it's the management/leadership. If Scott Cameron did not realize this during his time at the Interior Department, then he is wholly unqualified to sit on that panel. The Federal Government is inundated with very poor quality managerial personnel at all levels and most agencies do nothing to increase the quality of that workforce. Go ahead and continue with the NSPS transition, but in the end you will find nothing was improved, because it was never about the pay....unless Donald Rumsfeld's only intent was to reduce costs by reducing salaries.

  RM Posted March 24, 2008 2:08 PM
• 47056
  

  Pay for performance is a big step backwards to the 1800's when cronyism prevailed and federal workers had to make sure "their guy" got re-elected so they could retain their job. It was re-invented recently, under names such as NSPS, by political people who have political motives in mind. Let's not be snowed by the BS about the problems with the GS system or the "motivation" promised by pay for performance. This panel got it right - slow down the train before we throw away the independence of the career federal workforce from political manipulations. Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling in is grave (he was Civil Service Commissioner who instituted many of the reforms to cronyism that we saw in the GS system, before he was president, for those of you who don't know.)

  JT Posted March 24, 2008 7:55 AM
• 47040
  

  NSPS is a tool that management uses to give who the wish the higher of the raises. Let me provide you classic example. I was a GS-11 higher to GS-12 position, with a one year probationary period throw in there for their good measure. after 8 monthes on my developmental PD, I was place on my new GS-12 PD. My pay was never increased with the new duties. They told us don't compare our salary with the GS pay schedule, yet how can you not. At this present time I'm on a GS-12 PD yet my pay don't even equal the step 1 of the GS-12 in the area I work. How can we say this system is fare. If you don't become a yes man/woman to management, NSPS will slow down your career in DOD. At lease under the old system ,I would at least had been given GS-12 pay. I see it this way, management get the work from their employees, but in most cases employees don't get the pay from their leaders. I pray that one day our leaders with a spirtual heart will see the hurt that and pain, that this new system have cause countless numbers of DOD employees. Its time for change, and I hope the next administration reverse the suffering that many of our government worker have gone through, retro the monies that many have lost through converting into a NSPS that don't pay youf or your step increse unless you spiral into NSPS.

  CW Posted March 23, 2008 6:10 PM
• 47021
  

  Ignorance, you can count on 1 hand all the CS folks denied step increases last year, you may have worked but the majority just show up, by the way the Jan raise isn't a COLA, you should understand your pay before you defend your attendence. As to EEOC blacks are overrepresented in civil service they comprise TWICE their number in the eligable work force, EEOC has had quotas for years just ask department heads who couldn't hire or promote because the person wasn't the right color or sex, so your are right there is a lot of racism in the government but its sanctioned. As for IAW?? I've heard of the UAW, but their last contracts had a number of give backs when was the last time CS gave any of their pay or benefits back?? Socialism is strong and if Barrack gets elected taxes will have to go up to pay for world poverty, hopefully it will paid for by CS

  dan ketter Posted March 22, 2008 11:10 AM
• 47005
  

  11 yrs military, 10 yrs IRS and 10 yrs DoD, all in personnel/HR. Yes, NSPS is politically motivated but, by the military not the SES. Why? Mr. Rumsfeld received unclarified information from his trusted staff (mostly military or retired military who have no clue about the Federal workforce other than they dont' have complete control over them. However they're still trying to get it by getting us to volunteer to serve in combat zones). If you've ever been in the military you know that old rumors/myths are taken as truth (i.e., all Federal employees are sitting on their butts and you can't fire them. I'like to see them say that in our office). These are the same people who have not been civilians since they were 17/18 yrs old. Whats really wrong?

  1.Trying to instill a corporate image in a Federal/Military bureaucracy.

  2. The GS system was the only retention incentive Federal employment had. You have none now. You have free wheeling from job to job and agency to agency.

  3. Paysetting is a free for all (for some).

  4. The NSPS rehtoric is enough to gag a person after awhile. I've been in it going on 3 years now and it never stops.

  5. Merit Promotion Procedures has seen their last days including time in grade, fair competition for positions, and having to be basically qualified for the positions.

  You don't build a valued, qualified, professional and technically proficient workforce in this manner. The bottom line is the GS system worked, the supervisors and managers in it didn't.

  BH Posted March 21, 2008 6:15 PM
• 47002
  

  1. "Annual pay raises just for showing up for duty are no longer justified."

  2. "There's no question that cronyism exists but we forget EEOC and the requirement to promote less than qualified people. You can't do this for 30 years and expect to have a qualified work force. That' the reason that NSPS is so hard for folks they've been getting away with lousy performance their entire career and now someone is asking them to perform. Until CS gets beyond the "jobs" program mentality that attendence is all that counts the fed workforce will never be held in any esteem."

  Comment No. 1: In my 21 years of Federal service, I have never received the "just for showing up" increase. Each step increase I have earned has been just that, earned. If any supervsor had certified that my performance was below par, I would not have received it. The January 1 increase is supposed to be a cola, which theoretically allows one to financially tread water. It is most definitely NOT a pay raise.

  Comment No. 2 Do I detect a note prejudice here? How in the heck has EEOC caused the entire federal workforce (which is sstill overwhelmingly White)to be full of lousy performers? That doesn't even make bad sense. I am Black and haven't received a darn thing because of my race. I came in with degrees and credentials, many more than my White counterparts, who always seem to get high grades (12, 13, even 14) with only high school or maybe an associate degree. Promoting less than qualified white people was happening a long time before the EEOC was even created. You spout such stupidity that it hurts my eyes to read it.

  By the way, ALL working folks carry a sense of entitlement to some degree. Ever heard of the IAW and General Motors? Stop trashing your fellow feds, for heavens sake, for wanting the best for themselves and their families. Working for the Fed should not be considered charitable service.

  IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS Posted March 21, 2008 3:10 PM
• 46994
  

  Bill great comments the military is hiring do you think you can cut it?? I don't as a CS 20 hours work weeks and constant whinning won't get you far

  dan ketter Posted March 21, 2008 1:55 PM
• 46988
  

  It's funny how the military pay and compensation boards are considering going to a pay-for-performance system with time-based increases in each grade to "reward" high performers who achieve promotions faster than average.

  From GovExec article "Military and civilian pay are competitive, quadrennial review board finds", 13 Mar 08. "Even members who receive early promotions find the financial benefits short-lived because the higher pay associated with early promotion is not sustained after the point at which an on-time promotion would have occurred."

  And "Panel backs military pay-for-performance", 6 Mar 06. "Military service members may join their civilian counterparts in the Defense Department in a move to pay for performance." Later in the article "The committee's recommendation is to begin paying soldiers based on the time they have spent in a specific grade [steps], instead of overall time in the service [TIS]. 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."

  They felt the need for performance incentive for SP4 Snuffy (at 2yrs TIS) who got promoted to SGT 2 years faster than his buddy (at 4yrs TIS), who came in the same time. The problem, they say, is that all pay and incentive for SGT Snuffy is lost as soon as his buddy, the lesser performer, is promoted since then both pays are then calculated the same at E-5 (w/4 years TIS). The boards seem to think that if the military had something like our step increases, then SGT Snuffy would still be earning more than his slacker(?) friend. i.e. If the system was like ours, SGT(step 3) Snuffy vs. SGT(step 1) Buddy. Additionally, between full promotions there could exist pay -tep increases as a reward.

  Catch 22 - There exists a logical and legal justification in a military (of government) regulation either for or against anything management wants done; it all depends on who is doing the interpretation.

  Funny, isn't it? Sure seems applicable here!

  Tip off Posted March 21, 2008 12:53 PM
• 46975
  

  I dont know why but everytime I read or hear of anything pertaining to NSPS I hear the theme song to the Dukes of Hazzard in the back of my head. " Just a good ol' boys"

  Uncle Jesse Posted March 21, 2008 10:58 AM
• 46973
  

  I have a problem with the phrase "the GS rewards longevity" with regard to pay. Step increases are great, but the real increases in pay come with promotions. Promotions are supposed to be based on performance, so why is there a need for a Pay for Performance system? The biggest problem with the GS system arises in recruiting. Many college graduates are offered GS-12 level salaries... The GS system only truly rewards longevity during a RIF.

  DoD Civilian Posted March 21, 2008 10:57 AM
• 46966
  

  During my federal service career I've had the fortune to be out of work for 19 months due to BRAC, down-graded twice because of a cross the board re-classification and Contracting out (A-76) and now the pleasure of NSPS! If you can't accept change for better or worst...The GS system may not be perfect but NSPS isn't the answer.

  KB Posted March 21, 2008 9:48 AM
• 46940
  

  I'm responding to the comment about using contractors because you can quickly obtain them when needed and quickly be rid of them when they're not needed. However, the government has recently -- and this is where the requirement to allow existing employees to bid for their jobs come in -- started allowing contractors to bid for the jobs of existing employees, not to fill an immediate need for which the government would have to post a position announcement. Thus, the use of contractors would result in a loss of employment for some people, regardless of their skills and accomplishments, were it not for the requirement that existing employees be allowed to bid to keep their jobs. And since, as others have noted, contractors cost more, where the savings? Not only do the replacements cost more, but the bidding process is costly, the time for the contractor staff to learn the duties is costly, and the government winds up paying unemployment to the displaced employees. The government should be ashamed of itself.

  kentucky filly Posted March 20, 2008 8:04 PM
• 46938
  

  I agree with Dan Ketter, we must stamp out this entitlement mentality within the federal government. The military is the next area for reform. Annual military pay raises need to be abolished and a NSPS system needs to be implemented. Annual pay raises just for showing up for duty are no longer justified. Military pay tables need to be abolished and replaced with pay banding. If an officer can not prove his worth he should not be entitled to a longevity pay increase. Too many officer staff positions exist which do not add anything to mission accomplishment. After all, five years into the Iraq war almost 50% of active military have yet to serve in the war zone.

  Bill Sruggs Posted March 20, 2008 6:20 PM
• 46926
  

  All the above comments are true. Even panelist Scott Cameron has something to add by challenging the way things are. But my bias is that listening to a temporary executives talk about something they know a little about, compensation for public service, reminds me of listening to wind. The whistling is entertaining, but it's still wind.

  A huge amount of logic and thought went into a system that efficiently resolves most issues about fairness and acceptance, and distribution of the pay budget. The government is losing people, but most of those losses are because of retirement from a model employment system. Losses such as Mr. Cameron's are expected. If executives want something more than their federal job, challenge and salary, they should move on to something "more". Mr. Cameron did it right, recognizing that the suggested changes are much bigger than one administration, and the gains are not obvious. Organizations that have experimented with real change have been suffering sticker shock, but without a corresponding hike in morale, productivity, or accomplishment of mission. The most favorable comparison to the current GS system is the incremental improvements to military pay, also marching along to provide a fair (not great) day's pay for a fair (and dangerous) day's work. Compare that to the price (and cost) of contracted work for the military. Civilian and military salaries are a bargain compared to the contracted ones.

  The GS pay system has provided a most efficient and economical model for both rank and file in bureaucratic history short of what it replaced in most parts of the world - conscription, and in budding democracies spoils systems and patronage to bosses. Complaints abound in any system, but at least in ours we can measure changes in years rather than decades or centuries.

  Advocates of wholesale change have no credibility because they do not reflect. Each effort to recreate a total compensation system comes with the same challenges and minimum requirements.

  If private enterprise has the answer to this organizational and societal conundrum, should we next trust private sector economists to run a privatized Federal Reserve? I think not.

  Pat McKenna Posted March 20, 2008 2:42 PM
• 46922
  

  There's no question that cronyism exists but we forget EEOC and the requirement to promote less than qualified people. You can't do this for 30 years and expect to have a qualified work force. That' the reason that NSPS is so hard for folks they've been getting away with lousy performance their entire career and now someone is asking them to perform. Until CS gets beyond the "jobs" program mentality that attendence is all that counts the fed workforce will never be held in any esteem

  dan ketter Posted March 20, 2008 1:50 PM
• 46918
  

  Andy, yours is the first solution I have heard that would address the cronyism of both NSPS and GS. A central promotion board is a creative solution and one that I would support locally.

  The H-Man Posted March 20, 2008 1:40 PM
• 46916
  

  To fix Pay For Performance, give the supervisor the authority to increase pay up to 5% and then retain the Cost of Living increase in January as provided by Congress and the President. This will allow people to keep up with inflation, and it limits the supervisors to only rewarding for performance. In the new system as it is working there are no more Cost of Living increases and supervisors have to provide for those along with performance increases. How many supervisors know how to do that without the resources Congress has from OPM and the Labor Department? I hear some outstanding people got less than 2% increases for the year in January when others get 4%+ because one was given by a supervisor (the 2% without locality consideration) and others got them from the President (with locality consideration).

  Gary Posted March 20, 2008 1:38 PM
• 46915
  

  To fix Pay For Performance, give the supervisor the authority to increase pay up to 5% and then retain the Cost of Living increase in January as provided by Congress and the President. This will allow people to keep up with inflation, and it limits the supervisors to only rewarding for performance. In the new system as it is working there are no more Cost of Living increases and supervisors have to provide for those along with performance increases. How many supervisors know how to do that without the resources Congress has from OPM and the Labor Department? I hear some outstanding people got less than 2% increases for the year in January when others get 4%+ because one was given by a supervisor (the 2% without locality consideration) and others got them from the President (with locality consideration).

  Gary Posted March 20, 2008 1:37 PM
• 46897
  

  Promotion/hiring under NSPS is problematic. Under the old system there was at least an appearance of fairness, for the candidates had to compete for a new position. Under NSPS mamagers can select anyone that is "qualified" for the position, without competing it. Lack of a profit motive allows managers to select cronies who do not carry their weight in the organization. When my organization transitioned from GS to NSPS many managers withdrew vacancy announcements in order to wait out the conversion, for they knew they could appoint their crony vs. running the risk that a non-crony might prevail in the competition under the GS system.

  Jerry Posted March 20, 2008 12:57 PM
• 46896
  

  In order for anything like Pay for Performance to have any effect, workers must feel like there is a possibility that they could get a top rating, or at least a 4 rating. As is, unless you are close to the flag pole, most people are being told to "get used to threes" (a rating of 3). (maybe you can get a 3.2 or a 3.3) That is demotivating.

  Helen Posted March 20, 2008 12:56 PM
• 46884
  

  What I observe here is that the pace of change and the careful planning needed has been lacking. Think back - in the first phase of the administration, Mr Rumsfeld declared in January of that year that the current system bound management too much (certainly true if you're not willing to spend the time to be a good supervisor), but the kicker: "And we're going to come up with a new system that solves all problems and have it running by 1 October, by gosh!!" HR really can be byzantine and systems need update. But HR professionals are not "the enemy" in this effort in the way Mr R painted us - we're the ones who know what works and what should change. Remember that Congress had to FORCE DOD to "consult" with the real HR community after a couple fruitless years to design NSPS - it was done too quickly and implemented much, much too brutally. NSPS framers got their comuppance in many ways, employees will suffer under this half-baked system for a long time before any real improvements can happen. You just cannot force your ignorance into any area of expertise and dismiss the experts - it's not just HR systems, its any endeavor. Several agencies followed DOD's uninformed and ignorant lead, I just hope the next administration can bring some sanity to what became an ugly display of ego with nothing substantive behind it.

  AF HR Posted March 20, 2008 12:02 PM
• 46883
  

  Frankly, just the name "Pay for Performance" is highly objectionable to many federal employees. We too easily accept the high-sounding names created to describe this or that administration's pet projects. The same can be said for describing every proposed change as a "reform." All too often, these so-called reforms will not make things better than they are and, in fact, would often make them far worse. The current GS system ended political patronage and arbitrary personnel decisions based upon personal bias as effectively as any pay system is ever likely to do. Changing the GS system without compelling evidence that it is harming the country is simply irresponsible. Where's that evidence? If an objective, comprehensive examination of the benefits and liabilities of the GS system were conducted, I have no doubt that it would receive very high praise, indeed. It's pretty clear that the true motivation behind the proposed change (not "reform") of the government pay system is to increase the level of political influence in the federal workforce and reduce personnel costs. Those goals are counterproductive to the best interests of the country and are not worthy of pursuit by this or any other administration.

  Desert Dweller Posted March 20, 2008 11:49 AM
• 46881
  

  Blah, blah, blah,... the bottom line is that until more funding becomes available to fund a more expensive "pay for performance" system (the true underlying reason for a slow reform), this isn't going to satisfy anyone's interest in moving to a new system. If you want to be part of a half-baked "pay for performance" system then enjoy yourself. I'd prefer to go where a firm is willing to really pay for performance based on profitability of the organization, which would most likely be capable of funding increased performance payout costs. Read "the company does well then you do well." If the government (not for profit) does well, then your work buddy will increase his retirement benefits based on your effort. I'll spare you the long story behind that comment, but who do you think will receive the base pay increase and who do you think will receive the performance payout. And just where did that money come from,... what use to be your annual increase,.. ho about that? At least in a corporate situation, there's less chance you'll have to tolerate that mess. Government doesn't get anymore more funds for the pay pot if they perform well. Corporate world puts more in the pay pot if they perform well and they don't take from Mary to pay Joe. Run far, far away from this NSPS nightmare! If you're all about making a nickel, you're in the wrong business anyway. As far as the government not recruiting or keeping the best talent,... I'm not buying into it. We have some of the best folks doing their best work and sporting the world's best government! Some have been doing it for many years under this pay system and been doing just fine!

  jrb Posted March 20, 2008 11:40 AM
• 46876
  

  Why not Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), which considering upper level managers ego would be near impossible. Anyway, simply change everyone the same way they did with the new retirement system in 1984. Everyone hired within the government, lets say, after 2004 would go under the new pay system. Anyone hire prior to that date would be given an open season to stay as is or go under the new pay system. If you accept a new job/promotion within any government agency under the new pay system you be placed in that system. This would give the majority of employees a simply and fair say in what they would want.

  James Lewis Posted March 20, 2008 11:27 AM
• 46875
  

  Leave the GS shedule alone. It works quite well. I gree with notion that, while the GS system is not perfect, it has gone a long way to correct some to the pay problems that were faced by women, minorites and those not in favor. Leave it alone!

  Ronald Cotton Posted March 20, 2008 11:26 AM
• 46862
  

  You need only to look at the current financial crisis and the Subprime debacle to see what "Pay for Performance" can lead to.

  Neither NSPS nor GS will solve the problem of rewarding and retaining quality people. Without instilling a sense of professionalism and dedication to government service you'll still have the same problems. The current GS system has several incentives to attract and retain good people as well as several proven legal options to get rid of non-performing people. I have used them and it works. It boils down to our leaders. Good leaders know how to motivate, train and promote good people. It takes a vision, time and planning. Something a lot of our leaders lack. Maybe instead of NSPS we have GS employees centrally managed and hold centrally controlled promotion boards like the military with standards to be met. This will make it harder for poor leaders to pick their friends.

  Andy Posted March 20, 2008 10:48 AM
• 46850
  

  Pay for performance is very difficult in government since, as this article points out, there is no profit motive. The GS schedule works well IF supervisors use it-they need to document poor performance and provide options-training, etc. But this takes time and energy-the easy way is just to ignore it, give the person a good appraisal and pass them off on some other office-I've seen it done!! Also, contractors should be used sparingly and to do the WORK-technical! I do not like to see contractors spitting out power point presentations on how to improve-put them to work on the "nuts and bolts" and use seasoned employees and managers to document processes and suggest changes.

  CAM Posted March 20, 2008 10:05 AM
• 46847
  

  Somewhere there should be a "middle" between longevity and performance. I believe employees should be rewarded for both. I have no idea how to determine a 'formula' to achieve this, but I know there are 'bright sparks' in the human capital arena that can. Some believe rewarding soley for longevity breeds sloth, and some believe rewarding solely for performance breeds sycophants. Both are probably right. That's why there should be middle ground sought.

  Rick Rogers Posted March 20, 2008 9:50 AM
• 46846
  

  I recently went from a GS position to a pay for performance position. I have seen and I have gone through the pain of going to NSPS. I see former GS-12 slots and GS-13 slots (what I took) that GS-11's and GS12's(myself) are bidding on and all they get is 5% as they say it is a re-assignment not a promotion and the people do not receive a "buy in" of the amount of time credited towards a step increase (I was due a step increase in 6 weeks). This makes the pay offered to person in GS position (in conversion to NSPS) not able to get the amount a GS-13 or a GS-12 step 1 would get. The position bid on was banded to the higher GS position that was required prior to NSPS conversion due to responsabilities. They also told me earlier in my career (November 2007)they have bands within the band that is determined by responsability and a person cannot go to the upper limit of the band. If there is bands within the band what good is a pay banding system as all it does is discriminated against GS employees and is there to cut cost and do what mangement wants to do. They are operating it like a GS schedule only with managment cost cutting measures when it is to their advantage. They do not give GS employees the pay when they take jobs with more responsability. So they double talk to save money. They say NSPS received 7.6% increase this year which was more than the GS Schedule employees. They forgot to add step increase in for GS employees plus any awards given to them for doing outstanding work which to me is getting paid for performance not like the NSPS system. I received several awards, a step increase and the COLA on in January 2007 and it total over 10%.

  Peter P. Gilreath Posted March 20, 2008 9:50 AM
• 46838
  

  It is already too late for the FAA. they imposed a new pay scale and working conditions on the controllers in 2006 and people like me are leaving in droves. It is a total failure but won't admit it. They cannot hire and train enough "B scale" people to replace the veterans and soon the NAS will be at a stand still.... if not causing a major aviation disaster. The controllers that are still working are being forced to work 10 hour days 6 days a week. This summer is going to be BRUTAL.

  Retired Air Traffic Controller Posted March 20, 2008 9:30 AM
• 46816
  

  I agree with the great leadership concept.

  At the present time cronyism prevails in the selection of personnel to fill supervisory and higher level positions in many government organizations. I know this from personal experience. I also know that cronyism breeds corruption because I've witnessed the corruption first-hand.

  For the federal government to be more efficient, we need to instill a sense of professionalism at all levels. We need to select and promote the best qualified candidates with proven leadership skills to serve in supervisory and higher positions.

  We also need to start holding management fully accountable for its wrongdoings instead of forcing an agency to pay for the mistakes of its management while the individuals causing the problems are allowed to continue abusing their positions of public trust.

  Clinton E. Crackel Posted March 20, 2008 12:43 AM