Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 108
Page 3 of 12
Page 3 of 12
Your 2008 Pay Raise: Would You Prefer 3.5% or 7.6%?
Total Comments: 108
Page 3 of 12
Page 3 of 12
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6972 | +0.0013 | +3.40% |
| F | $11.9749 | +0.0219 | +0.38% |
| C | $8.6601 | -0.6223 | -47.70% |
| S | $9.4250 | -0.7684 | -52.37% |
| I | $11.4821 | -0.6136 | -53.63% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $10.4314 | -0.5746 | -42.81% |
| L 2030 | $10.7668 | -0.5171 | -38.16% |
| L 2020 | $11.2461 | -0.4459 | -32.46% |
| L 2010 | $12.8789 | -0.2531 | -16.70% |
| L Income | $12.1740 | -0.1561 | -9.62% |
November 21, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
2008 Pay Increase/Pay for Performance
VHA
Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:36 AM
Post Reply
I personally don't like being grouped with everyone else in my department. My audits and production level are above the majority of my co-workers, but I get nothing for that. Incentives are non existant here and I don't feel any reason to work any harder. The morale here is very low, which is another problem with the group mentality. Competition, whether it be for money or praise, is a great motivator!
The DOD plan sounds like a good thing.
Don't show your ignorance
SSA
Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:39 AM
Post Reply
Mr. Smith
The pay raises you are talking about are pay adjustments for comparability and were never intended to be raises based on performance. Performance based differential are handled by the award system which is tied to performance appraisals. I am not arguing it "should" be that way, but that is the way it currently is structured. To pretend that the yearly pay adjustment for federal workers is something other than it is, is disingenous to say the least. Was this your bias or your ignorance that was showing?
From your remark about a "socialist state," I would say it is both. Socialism not any socialist state that I have ever studied has legislated this nor even advocated equality in wages, only immense inequality in wages.
I really had come to expect more from you. Just stick to reporting and leave the editorializing out of your columns, unless you know what you are talking about.
Sorry...
DoD
Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:39 AM
Post Reply
...but one of the reasons I even joined the federal workforce 25 yrs ago was b/c of the posted salaries. I always knew where I stood comparative to other workers. Long before anyone even though about NSPS and P4P, there were SSPAs, WIGIs, ANAs, and the like.
Like most other things, P4P looks good on paper--but in practice, it's quite another thing. Let's don't forget that Ms Lacey et al originally said that NSPS workers would get NO pay increase this year. Had it not been for feds whining loud and clear, this year's increase wouldn't have happened.
I'm waiting for the day when all of us are told there's NO $$ for ANY increase--but for the chosen few. I just hope I'm retired before that day comes to pass.
pay for performance
defense department
Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:41 AM
Post Reply
If the current term is pay for performance, what have I been receiving the last 20 years, pay for non performance?
Truth
DOD
Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:41 AM
Post Reply
Another slanted article. When will the madness stop? The facts in this story are misrepresented, and I for one, am very disappointed in Mr. Smith’s distortion of the truth:
This article states, “Even for those of us who struggled with math in school, it is apparent that the average employee under the NSPS system got a raise more than twice as large as the rest of the federal workforce”. This is completely false.
Mr. Smith, please explain to your readers that under the GS Scale, employees also receive Step increase (most on a 12-month basis dependant upon where the employee is in the scale). For example, a GS-11 Step 1 (RUS) received a 2.99% Gov’t wide increase. In addition, at some point in the next 12 months, will also receive a Step increase from a 1 to a 2, resulting in an increase of $1,816/year or 3.3% raise. Adding this 3.3% raise to the GWI of 2.99% = 6.32% raise. The step increase is not automatic, but rather the employee must meet the requirements of their job, which is reviewed yearly. During this review, in my experience, employees may also be given a bonus (i.e. cash, comp time, etc..) based on performance. Our bonuses were usually about 1%-1.5%, plus a few comp days. Adding it all up, the GS employee as explained above receives a base pay increase of 6.32% salary increase, a bonus of around $750 dollars, and a few extra vacation days. Now put these numbers up against the chart in your story and it is obvious to see that employee under the NSPS system did not get a raise that equals ‘twice as large as the rest of the federal workforce’, but rather a smaller increase.
Take the higher cost of living localities out of the ‘average’ NSPS calculation, and I would venture to guess that the NSPS increase for the RUS (which is the majority of employees) is far less than conveyed in your story.
In addition, my agency rated 86% of the employees as a ‘3’. Not sure were the 57% in your article comes from, but it sure isn’t here.
NSPS Paid Less than GS - The True Story
Dept of the Army
Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:44 AM
Post Reply
The information provided to Fed Smith from DoD is flat out wrong and misleading. I was rate a 4 and got a 5.5% raise plus a bonus. Yes, it is better than what GS got (in DC area) or is it? Nope. NSPS did not give me my 2.7% step increase which I was due this month. Also, any discussion of bonuses is flat out misleading as both systems GS and NSPS give bonuses - so they offet each other. On an annualized basis, step increases equals 1.6%. Whatever NSPS gave out in raises, it did not include this factor. What does this mean? It means that anyone under NSPS will soon fall behind their counterparts at other agenices. You may have gotten more at the moment, but if you consider that step increase you were supposed to get (if you were still under that system) , you will soon fall behind. It is all a timing issue. I can provide you with a detail analysis including a spreadsheet model that proves this. brooke.allen@us.army.mil
better pay? I think not!
DoD
Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:47 AM
Post Reply
What employee is thrilled to receive less retirement than our fellow federal workers in other agencies? Why not take a typical fed worker who just received their NSPS payout, for instance someone who is valued (score 3) with a 1 share payout. Do the math over time to include retirement and lets see how DoD does.
If someone is scored a 1 or 2, then the supervisor and director in that agency FAILED. They failed to either provide a true sit down, training, direction and expectations. If they are that bad after doing all you can do and have been deemed not worthy after all the sit downs and training..FIRE THEM. DoD just like GS doesnt fire bad performers..so NSPS is no better than the GS. In fact its worse, because when I am 65, I will have less than others.
Many have resumes out there. The true test will be in the next few years between those that are retiring and those that will leave DoD to another agency.
What Bush/Rumsfeld has done is cause agencies to compete with another