Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 17
Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3
« Previous | Next »
Should Federal Pay Be Related To Performance?
Total Comments: 17
Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2091 | +0.0012 | +0.68% |
| F | $13.6399 | +0.0091 | +2.29% |
| C | $13.8863 | +0.0805 | +5.06% |
| S | $18.2024 | +0.1285 | +10.58% |
| I | $18.7514 | +0.0846 | +1.16% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.3254 | +0.0762 | +4.42% |
| L 2030 | $16.0684 | +0.0658 | +3.93% |
| L 2020 | $15.8233 | +0.0534 | +3.28% |
| L 2010 | $15.4905 | +0.0218 | +1.78% |
| L Income | $14.1097 | +0.0175 | +1.65% |
March 18, 2010
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Another Point of View
Treasury
Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:05 PM
Post Reply
I worked in an agency that instituted pay banding and merit pay. I stayed for a couple of years and then voted with my feet. The money that management put in the various pay pools just was not sufficient. The managers got theirs but the workers received crumbs. This is after giving up WGIs.
If merit pay is to work in Title 5 agencies, there must be a provision in the law that the funds will be there and that agencies can't rig the pay pools to benefit only one group. If this is done, and the merit increases are meaningful, then it may work. What won't work is if one person really is superior and his/her slug of a coworker received pay increases that differ only by a couple hundred dollars a year. That is not motivation enough to make most people try harder.
MR. KOCA
DCMA
Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:59 PM
Post Reply
mr. koca is correct is stating that "there are many things i do not know about this area." this is where he should of stopped with his article. who in the world decided that managers know best. this knew system nsps and pbm will only cost more money and will eventually end up being a system of those that are awarded are the ones who are the fair haired boys and girls and not the producers. this new system is already screwed up by management determining what and how pbm is to work which has no relation to the reality of how work is accomplished.
Pay for Performance
USDA
Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:39 PM
Post Reply
A whole new paradigm would have to be developed for this to work. The problem in the government isn't the subordinates. It is the managers. Until we start treating managers like coaches in sports, i.e., if they don't get their team to perform, they're gone, they simply won't be held accountable. I've seen too many managers screw things up, then retire with no worries about what they left behind. Start at the top on how we're going to hold managers accountable, then worry about the pay for performance of non-managers.
No - it shouldn't
usfs
Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:06 PM
Post Reply
Let the pay(with normal cost-of-living increases) come with the job.
Let performance dictate how long you keep the job or how well your able to succeed to different and higher levels of work (there's the incentive!).
Is this guy kidding?!?!?
DoD
Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:30 PM
Post Reply
I work in an early-adopter agency and I can tell you quite truthfully that the supervisor is NOT the best person to decide how much you should get paid. Too many times, the supervisor is on the carpet about personnel costs and is told to keep scores low to keep the costs down. I have been told more than once that my work is great, but there isn't enough money to give me a raise. So there is no incentive for me to succeed as the higher-ups are rewarded for NOT paying the lower-downs to excel. To insist that we are all wastrels sponging off the public spigot is ridiculous--at least until you get to the GS-15s and higher who dictate our scores to meet their goals. And they get the raises for our work!
Basic Assumption
FAA
Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:15 AM
Post Reply
In my occupation the best person for a supervisor job is often the same person least suited to continue as an Air Traffic Controller. This system has worked well for many years. The new supervisor who now pushes paper, not airplanes, becomes less stressed. The controllers left behind also have less stress because the new supervisor is off the boards. Lastly, the flying public benefits from this upside down system. The good people in this job need somewhere to go when the their work deminishes just a little.
NOW, they are grading the people left working the planes.
No, I do not not think it is a fair system
Pay -- Perfromance
Retired
Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:59 AM
Post Reply
In theory this is great. In practice it won't fly due to the fact that management does the evaluating. This give management a golden opportunity to discriminate against and worst to manipulate future promotions. Anyone who doesn't agree that this takes place now is a fool. This will only give management greater power to discriminate.
As for the rights of employees to appeal or complain about any unfair practices, well the federal appeal process is a joke. You are at their mercy and there is little you can do about it.