Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6445 | +0.0013 | +2.97% |
| F | $11.8774 | -0.0469 | -0.44% |
| C | $10.3219 | -0.1223 | -37.67% |
| S | $12.5657 | +0.1354 | -36.50% |
| I | $13.6660 | -0.6198 | -44.81% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $12.1766 | -0.1670 | -33.24% |
| L 2030 | $12.2858 | -0.1473 | -29.43% |
| L 2020 | $12.4962 | -0.1326 | -24.95% |
| L 2010 | $13.5009 | -0.0729 | -12.67% |
| L Income | $12.5266 | -0.0428 | -7.00% |
« Previous | Next »
Welcome to the Real World! What Will Your 2008 Paycheck Look Like? DoD Makes Last-Minute Changes
« Previous | Next »
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Valued Performer
U.S ARMY Alaska
Fri Jan 4, 2008 8:50 AM
Post Reply
I have two employees that were rated a 3.0, Valued Performer but only recieved 1 share so will not receive the full pay increase. The system is designed to make over 90% of the employees 3's. You have to be more that a Valued Performer to get the full pay raise. This system will certainly lower total pay in the long run for emloyees. People like me at the top of the pay grade will benefit but you have to be at least a 3.01 valued perormer.
Re: Valued Performer
DA
Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:56 AM
2008 pay increase
VA Medical Center
Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:11 AM
Post Reply
Will someone PLEASE put out the usual sheet
showing pay scales at the different levels.
Good grief!
Notice
Fed Agency
Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:28 AM
Post Reply
Hopefully, this information will reach the employees other than reading about it on FedSmith. I for one read FedSmith just to find out what our agencies are not telling us....I know those of us who did not receive notice from NFC or our agencies that our pay was delayed because eventhough it was earned in 2007, it was considered as 2 different tax years and, therefore, we could not receive it until 01/2008 rather than our regular pay date...and then to find out the amount was different because of a change in the formula for calculation of tax. No notice..
NSPS
Department of Defense
Fri Jan 4, 2008 10:12 AM
Post Reply
I have been under the system for a year. The system might work well in the business community where large profits, and losses, are passed on to the employees. However, when you are talking about 2.5% of the payroll, the additional work load and time spent away from normal duties does not justify the reward. The small difference of payout between the number of shares does NOT motivate workers; neither does a work environment where you don't know or have control over you salary for the next year. We had "pay for performance" before using the annual bonus system. Bottom line: much more time away from our primary duties for little added value. I hope GAO does and indepth cost/benifit analysis.
Re: NSPS
DOD
Fri Jan 4, 2008 10:35 AM
We don't earn money. Face it, we are largely overhead. It is important to reduce overhead, produce well for the use of that overhead, etc. BUT the pool will only be as large as the budget allows. This means that some will prosper at the expense of others.
There will be great incentives for orgs to limit ratings above 3.0. There will be great incentives to make payouts bonuses rather than pay raises, (reducing actual amount of later percentage raises and reducing retirement basis.)
There will be great incentive to backstab, do only tasks that will look good on paper rather than labor at tasks that keep things afloat or fix hidden problems but aren't glamorous. There will be a greater tendancy to be a "yes man" in order to help stay on the boss's good side even if that isn't best for the mission.
Re: NSPS
CHRA
Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:22 PM
You are so correct!
Give it a chance.
Air Force
Fri Jan 4, 2008 10:13 AM
Post Reply
What will frustrate some people, and foster all kinds of cynicism and paranoia, is that each pay pool will have different funding and each employee can be treated differently. Elements 1 and 2 are specified OVERALL, but still variable at the pay pool level, and Element 3 was always funded differently by units. While people with a 3.00 rating will get one share, that share could be split into a unique pay raise and bonus amount for that employee so long as the total percentages meet the direction.
For example, if a pay pool share is two percent of one person’s $50k base pay, that $1000 could be split between a large base pay raise and small bonus. His recently-promoted coworker could have the same share split mostly to a bonus. Both people add the 1.5% across-the-board pay increase PLUS the Local Market Supplement (12.91% for rest of US).
From what I’ve seen, most people will be better off. Let’s give this a chance to work before we judge.
Re: Give it a chance.
USACE
Fri Jan 4, 2008 7:26 PM
Pay Concerns
DLA
Fri Jan 4, 2008 10:14 AM
Post Reply
The very nerve of the Government! They are actually going to require that an employee perform well in order to receive a better raise. How dare they!! Since when is THAT a bad concept? Take it from someone who retired within the civilian system and then began a second career in the Government.... quit your bellyaching. Count your blessings that you have your Federal job. Trust me, ... it could be soooo much worse. Go to work on the outside and then you'd have a better idea of just how fortunate we Feds truly are.
Re: Pay Concerns
US Army Corps of Engineers
Fri Jan 4, 2008 10:49 AM
I am sooo glad that I am a wage-grade, bargaining unit employee of DOD whose pay raise (for now) is determined by a pay-comparability study each year, itself governed by separate federal law.
I'm sure there are managers out there who are fair, forthcoming, and communicate well with their employees. I've even met a few of them over the years. Too bad the other 95% give them a bad name.
The problem is not that employees don't want to work for their pay. The problem is that managers don't want to manage problem employees who don't. Counsel, document, establish a remedial plan of action, document, and correct the behavior -- or send them down the road if they won't change.
How dare the employees want to be treated fairly!
Re: Pay Concerns
TSO
Fri Jan 4, 2008 11:43 AM
It goes both ways, don't be a fool.
NSPS Pay
DON
Fri Jan 4, 2008 10:28 AM
Post Reply
Our base has chosen to institute a local business rule for NSPS that the GS structure is embedded into the Pay Band structure. In essence, this means that even though my Pay Band (YF2) can go to $107,991 my job (GS12) will never pay greater than the Step 10, currently $82,446. But I see jobs that I know are GS12 and they are advertised as YF-XXXX-2, $56K to $107K. Isn't this false advertising? How would an outsider know that he/she can never get to that magical $107K in this job? Seems a bit unfair!