Civil service reform was long the wallflower of the legislative scene. It was there in the room, standing awkwardly in the corner, glanced at but generally ignored.
Now civil service reform is front and center in the Senate, the focus of senators' attention for the past few weeks, surprised at its sudden change in stature, unsure whether to bask in the popularity or retreat to the corner.
Many senators are surprised they are paying so much attention to the issue. They are getting to know, much more than they ever thought they would, the intricacies of federal labor-management rules. They are using phrases such as "personnel flexibilities." Surely awkward-and-shy civil service reform blushed at hearing Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, say on the Senate floor Wednesday, "Suddenly in the context of this homeland security debate, civil service reform is the issue du jour.… It's about time."
Eventually, civil service reform will leave the spotlight of the Senate floor and head off to the executive branch, where managers will have to implement it.
Of course, civil service reform has not been a wallflower in the career ranks of the executive branch. In fact, it's long been something of a socialite, frequently coming up in conversations at parties, around the water cooler and among career leaders in many agencies. Civil service reform is better understood and its nuances more clearly known in the executive branch-in the career ranks more so than in the political ranks- than in the legislative branch.
Two weeks ago, Pay and Benefits Watch ran excerpts from a letter signed by Richard Bell, president of the Classification and Compensation Society. Bell and his colleagues suggested that the administration and Congress need to move cautiously in changing the civil service. The society's letter may be one of its final acts because its numbers are dwindling. Fewer and fewer personnel officers specialize in classification.
Howard Risher, an independent consultant who has studied federal civil service issues for the National Academy of Public Administration and other groups, responded to the society's call for caution. Here is his response:
"The possible demise of the Classification and Compensation Society is symbolic. It confirms an important shift in the management of work and employees. The need for classification, however, is not going to cease-every organization has to be able to tell the accountants from the engineers-but it is apparent that the traditional classification process is out of sync with today's work environment. Simply stated, it's too time-consuming and too bureaucratic.
"In fairness to the members of the society, classification is not the biggest problem. When the General Schedule pay system was created, the mistake was defining and thereby locking the job hierarchy of the post-war era in statute-Chapter 51 of Title 5 describes the characteristics of jobs in each GS grade. Those somewhat ambiguous descriptions have been interpreted broadly over the years. All the components of the GS system, except the locality differentials, have links to the Classification Act of 1949. Our labor markets and virtually every occupation have changed dramatically since then.
"There are multiple problems with the GS pay system. It's broken. It's time to replace it. The alternative, a banded salary structure, has been widely accepted in the private sector. More importantly, there is extensive federal experience with bands. The China Lake 'demo' is now in its third decade. It is widely assumed that in the near future the General Schedule will be replaced with bands. The OPM white paper, A Fresh Start for Federal Pay, makes this argument. The need for 'experimentation' is over.
"Bands are not inherently more costly. Corporations would never adopt a new concept that is known to increase their costs. The universal practice in the private sector is to rely on a budget for increases. Budgets are the key to controlling costs.
"Another important issue is the legislative requirement for 'equal pay for substantially equal work.' That is fundamental to classification. But the argument for equal pay assumes 'work' can and should be evaluated without regard to the incumbent or his contribution. If two jobs were equal in 1949, they should still be equal today. Obviously, however, there have been enormous changes in the way work is organized and managed in those five decades.
"The spokesperson for the society questions why 'an engineer working for a non-Title 5 agency [is] entitled to more pay than one who works for a Title 5 agency.' First, it is important to note that no employee is 'entitled' to a salary. The use of that word is unfortunate but also indicative of one of the basic problems. The reason the salary differentials have evolved is simple-the labor market is driving salaries for engineers up rapidly. The non-Title 5 agencies have the flexibility to respond to market trends. Noncompetitive salaries have become an impediment to improved government performance.
"An even more compelling example is the difference in salaries paid by contractors for workers doing the same work as federal employees. Those differentials are often substantial.
"Labor market forces cannot be reversed. Demographic trends indicate that tight labor markets for selected occupations will continue to drive up salaries. This is not a philosophical issue. If federal agencies want to hire qualified people, they have to offer more competitive salaries. In a knowledge economy, it is inevitable that the demand for workers is going to trigger larger and larger differentials.
"The problems are going to get worse. The 9/11 crisis has increased government's need for workers with specific capabilities. Few would argue with the need to hire qualified people. Long-term job openings and high turnover are simply not acceptable. Pay is going to be a focal issue in staffing the positions essential to our security."
In next week's column, we'll run readers' comments on civil service reform. Readers of Pay and Benefits Watch are the people who would be most affected if Congress approves in-the-spotlight civil service reform. Send your comments to bfriel@govexec.com.
NEXT STORY: New military relocation program moves forward