Revamping the Civil Service

[Heretic]

For those who don't know it looks like the GS pay system will be going out to window real soon (October/November time frame) to be replaced with a system that will foster favoritism.

This is really the first thing that I have strongly disagreed with the President on, in theory it sounds great but you know how things turn out when working for the government.

The system has been in place over at Dahlgren for some time now. I have talked to several people over there and their "performance raises" were smaller than a step increase.

Here is a link to how the pay system works out, Engineers and Professionals are in the ND scale. www.nswc.navy.mil/wwwDL/XD/HR/DEMO/wash03.gif

 

[Oz]

What's an NT/NG/ND?

 

[Heretic]

Im not exactly sure what it means but ND is for people with college degrees in scientific fields, NT is comparable to a technician and NG I really have no idea.

Talking with people from Dahlgren they told me there is a mathmatical formulia to relate performance to pay raise, however the performance is whatever your boss thinks, so your boss is pretty much deciding how much your going to be paid.

I dont really see this getting rid of poor performers, but I do see it hurting deserving people. In the GS system it seems that only those deserving get a grade increase (most of the time) even though everyone gets their step increase if they put in the time.

The union put out a petition a few weeks ago but I wouldnt sign it because it had a few mistruths in it. Even though I am against this proposed system because I know it will be screwed up and perverted some how I will not sign something that is worded with mistruths and half truthes intended to scare people.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Heretic
For those who don't know it looks like the GS pay system will be going out to window real soon (October/November time frame) to be replaced with a system that will foster favoritism.

This is really the first thing that I have strongly disagreed with the President on, in theory it sounds great but you know how things turn out when working for the government.

The system has been in place over at Dahlgren for some time now. I have talked to several people over there and their "performance raises" were smaller than a step increase.

Here is a link to how the pay system works out, Engineers and Professionals are in the ND scale. www.nswc.navy.mil/wwwDL/XD/HR/DEMO/wash03.gif

Please provide a source for this claim. I am aware that many locations have switched to it as part of a demonstration project, but I have neither seen nor heard anything about the entire Federal Government going to "paybanding".

 

[Heretic]

Ken the info came from my division head a while back in a meeting.

 

[Kain99]

I'm sure that this is really scary for Government workers. I think the program is overdue.

Maybe, if pay becomes performance based we will see an increase in productivity.

Without any real details, I can't speak to the possible failures of the idea.

 

[Heretic]

If there were an unsubjective way to measure performance it would work fine, however its all subjective. Often in our jobs we are to provide information on whether or not something is good or bad and if the information we provide points to bad even though we are just the messengers we get looked at as if it was our fault. Often the feeling has less to do with actual performance and more to do with the political side of things.

 

[Kain99]

Isn't it all subjective out here in the real world? Maybe this isn't worth getting all spun up about.

 

[jlabsher]

Rumsfeld, Bush & the Pentagon are pushing it for FY2004. It was originally in the DOD budget bill but was moved out to committee and will come in as a separate bill. They are trying to push it onto all agencies after DOD.

The whole pay for performance idea is crazy, especially with some of the political favoritism that exists, brown nosing, etc. and poor gov't managers. Sure it exists in the "real" world, but the private sector makes a lot more money than the public sector. Many civil service rely on the annual pay raise. Of course, military gets the annual raise AND the longevity raise.

I think Bush is once again trying to make political hay at the expense of the nation.

 

[Kain99]

Let's talk about the "real" expense to the Nation. Civil Service workers undeniably take advantage of the system. It's outrageous!

It's simple boyz! get up on time, do your job, and learn to compete.

It's true, Civil Service won't be the same but that'll be a good thing.

 

[alex]

Pay for performance in the real world works just about the same as the new system explained by Heretic. It is all subjective to your bosses whims or fancy. And just because you get a good review does not mean you will get any more money!

However, it can get even worse. I remember one time my boss was told by the HR Director that he had to redo all the Perf Evals because his ratings were too high and they made the other depts look bad! But then again if you are working for the State of MD right now you won't be getting a step or COLA not matter what your review says.

I think the real reason behind this move is to have the ability to farm out jobs to the private sector easier. They can lay off and/or fire people easier and then outsource their work. This can be a good and a bad thing for taxpayers. Outsourcing does not always equal cheaper or better performance.

 

[Heretic]

Originally posted by alex
Outsourcing does not always equal cheaper or better performance.

Yup, often you have to have an equal number of government monitors as it would have taken to orginally do the job so you pay them, you have to pay the contractor employees which in general make more than the civil servants, there is the profit for the company and there is also the political contribution that got that job contracted out in the first place. So tell me this saves money...The civil servant also has a much high accountability catching all kind of hell if anything goes wrong. If the contractor (company) does something wrong they get their lawyer to figure a way to say "that wasnt in the contract" and they get more money out of it.

NASA just thumbed its nose at outsourcing for its latest Mars rover.

 

[frogger]

Well said Heretic...it's a vicious cycle.

 

[pilot]

I don't know where people get the idea that govt. workers don't have to compete for pay raises. Sure, they get the annual raise (usually about 3%--just enough to cover inflation and health insurance that goes up every year). The step increases that come with seniority are also modest. But to actually get promoted (e.g., a significant increase in pay), the competition is fierce--and the higher up you go, the worse it gets. To get to be a GS-14 or GS-15 is almost impossible to get without being well qualified.

 

[pilot]

Re: Re: Revamping the Civil Service

Originally posted by Ken King
Please provide a source for this claim. I am aware that many locations have switched to it as part of a demonstration project, but I have neither seen nor heard anything about the entire Federal Government going to "paybanding".

Ken:

I've read a number of articles about it recently. WP is a good source. Also, try www.fedweek.com.

Right now they're mainly saying DoD. But DoD is a huge percentage of the federal govt., and everything I've been hearing is that the implication is that this is just the first step towards switching the entire federal govt. over.

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Re: Revamping the Civil Service

Originally posted by pilot
Ken:

I've read a number of articles about it recently. WP is a good source. Also, try www.fedweek.com.

Right now they're mainly saying DoD. But DoD is a huge percentage of the federal govt., and everything I've been hearing is that the implication is that this is just the first step towards switching the entire federal govt. over.

Pax River was offered the chance to go to grade (pay) banding a number of years ago (early 90s). If memory serves me, the AFGE local's members turned it down. Several issues (like favoritism, already mentioned, and the subjective performance appraisal process) made it look like a bad idea. The main sticking point was that automatic raises (based solely off of the performance evaluations) could escalate the payroll burden of the activity thereby resulting in layoffs. Which nobody wanted, even if there was a chance at getting faster pay increases.

I have found very little about converting the entire government over to the practice, though it seems OPM released a report on the topic in April. I will try to obtain a copy and see what it is that they recommend. The synopsis says, “The results of the study indicate that it is easier to simplify the complex federal job classification procedures than to control salary cost. While the data show that salary costs rose under the broad-banding systems, these increases are the result of certain choices made by the demonstration projects. The study identifies seven factors critical for cost control that should be considered before implementing broad-banding. Lessons learned from this study could provide the basis for the design of less costly systems.” To me, this indicates that it is still a consideration and not a done deal.

 

[Kizzy]

I not very sympathetic to government workers right now. I am a state employee and we haven’t had a COLA, a step increase, or performance pay in 2 years. Also, we have higher health care cost all across the board and less going into our 401K plans. But, the comment about the evaluations being sent back to the supervisor because the rating are too high, has happened in state service way too many times. I know because I am an AFSCME representative for my local.

I am in a position that requires 6 years of administrative experience or each year of education beyond 12th grade can be substituted for the experience. After 15 years, I make just a tad over $32K a year. If you have a boss that you just don’t click with or is just a prick, you’re screwed under this "pay for performance" plan.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by IM4Change
I not very sympathetic to government workers right now. I am a state employee and we haven’t had a COLA, a step increase, or performance pay in 2 years. Also, we have higher health care cost all across the board and less going into our 401K plans. But, the comment about the evaluations being sent back to the supervisor because the rating are too high, has happened in state service way too many times. I know because I am an AFSCME representative for my local.

I am in a position that requires 6 years of administrative experience or each year of education beyond 12th grade can be substituted for the experience. After 15 years, I make just a tad over $32K a year. If you have a boss that you just don’t click with or is just a prick, you’re screwed under this "pay for performance" plan.

Well, I feel for your pain, but why stay with the state if they aren’t treating you right or if they don’t value your worth? Couldn’t you find a nice cushy position in the Federal sector? http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/a.htm Not sure about your health care costs but for my coverage (standard BC/BS) I pay around $2800 a year, it goes up every time we get a raise.

I too have dealt with performance appeals back when I was a steward for the local. I found it amazing how some supervisors rated people on criteria that had nothing to do with the performance of an employee and blatant examples of favoritism and disparate treatment. Also ran across a few employees that felt that they deserved advancement for barely meeting the minimum performance standards (and supervisors with supporting documentation). It’s probably the same in any organization, business or government entity.

Currently at Pax it is a pass/fail system for the performance evaluations. Those that bust butt and do outstanding work get the same score as the person that just shows up and meets the bare minimum. Which I think sucks because it, in my mind, is counter-productive. Others argue that it lessens employee conflicts and other management problems (like actually having to rate someone).

How would grade (pay) banding work with the pass/fail system or would we have to revert back to the old five tier scoring system?

 

[Kizzy]

but why stay with the state if they aren’t treating you right or if they don’t value your worth?

I knew that question was going to come up. I actually have my eye on the ball, and that ball is a bigger and higher paying job. The job I want is a $6,000 raise in the door and more than 10K the first year. I needed my B.S. degree for that job (I just finished in May 03) and considering 15% of those positions are retiring in July, I think I'll have a good shot. I am top of the list, so I don't want to walk away from the 15 years I already have vested.

 

[Heretic]

From what I have seen there are just as many contractors that take advantage of their company as there are government workers. One example is a fellow that always put down overtime that he never actually worked....he got caught twice and the company didnt fire him, they just moved him to a different area on base.