The Week in Comments: Pay, performance, budgets and debt
The best in reader reaction to recent articles.
A roundup of some of the comments received this week in the GovExec.com Mailbag. All comments are presented in their original, unedited form.
On Senior executives give low marks to Obama appointees
Can't help but wonder how many of the raters are holdovers from Bush or folks who burrowed in during the prior administration. Obama is notorious for leaving them in place. Little wonder if they rate his "people" poorly. He should have canned everyone he could have on opening day. Now he reaps the harvest of his "bipartisanship".
I wonder how they rated the Director of OPM? I doubt that he would get a passing grade with retirees.
One word: duh! Of course, the SESer should not be casting too many stones while living in glass houses.
I thought we got much better appointees than previous administrations: our current appointees (at least at the highest levels) actually care about the agency's mission; in the past, we've had dentists, industry operatives, and even accountants who made enough political contributions to buy a post. Now, I've seen plenty of SES's and GS-15's who have no right getting their career appointments at that level -- no doubt you've got some poor performers in your pool of 148.
On Pentagon would pursue performance pay under House-passed authorization
The DoD should be focusing on developing an effective Cost Accounting System to track all their costs. That is the first step in implementing a performance-based system. If you do not track cost, how can you assess performance?
What a waste! Put DoD under the General Pay Schedule; stop wasting time & money. NSPS has wasted unrealistic amounts of the American Taxpayers money and it's time to stop the real waste and get on with letting the federal workers do their jobs and free up time for management. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
What a joke! They just scrapped the NSPS because it could not be implemented fairly, and now want to go back to the same type silly system. These people are buffoons.
On Agriculture Department offers buyouts, early outs
If buyouts are being looked at as a good incentive to leave government service early, it would be wise to up the ante on the amount of money offered. In 1995 the buyout amount was $25,000; in 2011 the buyout amount is $25,000. Something is wrong with that picture if the agency offering the buyout thinks that - after taxes, about $17K in 2011 buys the same as it did on 1995. Allwoing for inflation, etc., we should be looking at something closer to $40,000 (after taxes MAYBE $25K).
USDA is fooling itself if it thinks employees will take the early out without the buyout - even if it's "still only $25K." What's the average number of takers of early out without the buy out...maybe 2 or 3 percent? Yeah, USDA employees will jump right on that band wagon!!!
There are more than a few Feds who would take a VERA in a nanosecond. While this might be an expensive way to reduce the workforce, it might be less expensive than a RIF and it would be better for the folks who need to continue to work by taking some pressure off of them and giving them more upward mobility. Agencies should consider this as an opportunity to better align skills with needs with the added benefit of reducing personnel costs. From a selfish perspective, I implore DHHS to offer VERAs in my series.
Of course, let's get rid of the inspectors and other front-line staff that are trying and fighting a losing battle, to keep us healthy!
On Efforts to bring jobs in-house may be losing momentum
Contracting out doesn't save money in my organization because the government managers do not eliminate the contractors even when they are no longer needed. Our managers need training on how to balance and assign workload.
The Administration's initial concern remains valid. Outsourcing can be a good solution, but its goodness depends heavily on the quality and competence of government oversight. Moreover, cost comparisons generally ignore the man-hours, turbulence, and demoralizing impact generated by A-76 studies.
The one advantage to contractors seems to be glossed over. If the individual is a dirt bag you can get rid of them immediately. Try that with a GS employee; it will take you 5 years to get through the process of just contemplating firing the individual. If a GS leaves a position, due to the hiring process it takes upwards of six months to replace the individual. Regardless of how critical the position is. If the position is contracted you can have someone in place next week. I agree with the need for some process changes, but a holistic effort is need to address all the problems. Contracting gives DOD Commanders flexibility that the GS process doesn't and often because of the "Color of Money" used allows for less overall expense then using the GS employee or a uniformed service member.
On House rejects hike in debt ceiling
Some may call it "playing politics" but I agree with the GOP on this one. Just raising the debt with no action being taken to correct the debt issue is plain stupidity. The problem with deficit spending will never be corrected unless it is forced down their throats. I see no reason why the politicians wouldn't want a balance budget amendment unless it would cut into the their home-base pork barrel spending projects.
Republicans said nothing about about the debt when they controlled all three branches of government. The debt the last year Bush was in =1.44 Trillion. Hypocrracy?
My wife and I have to manage our budget, balancing income and outgoing money's. If we didn't we'd lose our home and everything we own. Taxpayers would not bail us out. So, did we hire/vote in a bunch of illiterate goofs to Congress? The only answer is - they feel like they can spend taxpayer dollars better than the taxpayer or they don't care how much money they steal (like from Social Security).
On Price tag of official time spent on union activities grows
2/10th of 1%. How much time & costs are our law makers wasting. The big corps. got the big tax breaks, where are the jobs?
Personally I have no problem with my tax money being used for these circumstances. I don't think the Union itself should be criticized, I truly think Management needs to be looked at. If these is an increase in the amount of time, perhaps it should be investigated as to the cause of the increase. In the State that I work there are numerous EEO issues, Retaliation, Harrassment and bullying by individuals in Management and their co-worker friends. Instead of just looking at the Union the WHOLE picture of what is going on should be looked upon.
If managment were forced to abide by what was negotiated by BOTH parties then there would be no reason for the Union to be "wasting" time fighting management abuse. Why do you insist that all of the governments problems exist because of the Union and its activities??
As a Union Representative, I know for a fact that there was not data at my station to even prepare a report. I was told that the information provided was "estimated". When I questioned about deductions for leave, etc....the answer was "dah". Therefore, I am certain that there was an overestimation....to this date still unable to get a copy of what was submitted for cross-checking. Therefore, the data must be validated before coming to any conclusions.
On 77,000 feds earn more than their governors, report finds
Of course governors get free housing, transportation, and an expense account while in office. Did Sen Coburn count this in the governors' compensation? Also, do governors get a pension after serving 4/6/8 years? I know Feds don't. Thanks, Sen Coburn for yet another illuminating study (not).
And many of them are probably more highly educated than most governors, and could command much higher salaries in the private sector, yet they chose to work for the federal government. Instead of demonizing them, we should be glad to have them. This class envy stuff is going to destroy this country.
What does this have to do with earning a decent wage within the federal government? Typically, the Governor's salary is set by the state within which the Governor is elected. It has nothing to do with the value of the position, nor with what the person actually pulls in. Another prime example of the impending class war that the media seems more than willing to fuel with retoric.
The question should be: Why are the Governors so underpaid? I'm sure that there are many interior designors in the private sector that have salaries that exceed their state's Governor.
Did this study take into account that Governors typically have a "mansion" paid for by the state taxpayers? Please look at the total compensation package, otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.
What my Senator didn't tell you that the OK governor is the 17th best paid in the nation (147K) even though we rank one of the poorest states in the country. As one of his constituents, I think what's driving him is that the largest single site employer in OK is Tinker AFB, which houses many DoD employees and we do get paid better than the median OK salary of 35K. A DoD employee can have a good life in OK because cost of living is so cheap, but I'm not sure why we should be punished for that. I wonder if he even knows what our mission is. I think many people in OK voted him in because he wanted to tackle the deficit and is against earmark spending, but I don't think we ever imagined we would become his public enemy #1. I'm so disappointed in the approach he is taking on Federal Employees. He needs to come visit us DoD employees in OK and understand that we are hard working, highly skilled, highly educated and are tackling some of the most complex military sustainment issues in the world. We are keeping 50 year old planes in the sky Mr. Senator, our Governor wouldn't know the first thing about that, she needs to clean up the Dept of Education and Dept of Human Services!