Re: getting this right?

Time in grade applies in Merit Promotion situations but there are (rare) ways around. Imagine someone qualified to be a computer specialist GS-11 but who takes a GS-5 computer operator job out of desperation. If that GS-11 is announced under Merit Promotion, our guy/gal cannot compete. If the same job is being listed by OPM, he can apply and get rated. If he rates high enough, his agency can then take him off the OPM list of eligibles. In effect, he goes out the door as a GS-5 and comes right back in again as a new-hire GS-11. He could be a new-hire through a new appointment as an outstanding scholar, as a severly disabled person or a severely disabled veteran. In each case, he is NOT competing under MP due to TIG restrictions.

Re: No TIG!

I do not agree that education is the answer. We have "so-called managers" that have degrees and still cannot write, spell, or even communicate to their employees. I am a firm believer that you educate yourself, no college degree can teach me how to speak, you learn by trial and error. I attended college, some teachers were there to teach, others didnt care if I learned anything. They teach you to write their way, and that is not always the right way. I taught myself throughout my career, by reading regulations and everything pertaining to my office. I observed and paid attention. So dont try to push education on everyone, common sense and learning on your own is the best way.

Re: No TIG!

I never said education is the answer. My argument is not to exclude education from consideration. There is no good reason to exclude education in my view, only benefits by opening up the field of possible applicants. And those additional applicants add some tough competition, which is why I believe that many people are afraid to vote to lift the TIG restrictions.
Education itself shouldn't be the only requirement for obtaining a position, but neither should the length of time you have been employed.

Re: Time in Grade Survey Results

While I can certainly see the merit of your argument, I believe an important consideration has been overlooked. There does not exist a truly objective rating and evaluation system. And therein lies the problem. When rating and evaluating employee performance many, if not most, rating officials tend to look through 'rose colored glasses.' This is characteristic of the human condition. We tend to favor and gravitate toward those individuals we like, often times overlooking those things that must be looked at in a fair rating. I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen more than it should.
There are verifiable performance numerical stats in place. But, in all honesty, these stats can be easily manipulated by rating officials. And if anyone thinks otherwise, they are not living in the 'real' world.
HR personnel can rely only on information given them. They are not in the work unit observing employee performance.

Re: Time in Grade Survey Results

We have all seen the "new" employee who, with only a few years experience, has become the "go to" person for the tough work. The "old timers" use his/her advice and the supervisors take the tough tasks to this "new" employee. In the Merit Promotion process at VA, at least one person on the MP panel was a supervisor working with the job material to be done in the position to be filled. That supe. has a vested interest in getting someone who will do the work well and make that supervisor plus others up the line look good.