Re: Ironic Words

We are "... continually at war AGAINST the ramparts of liberty, equality and justice ..."? Oh come now; I thought our new President was immune from such flubs. Ah well, even a new Messiah apparently has his rhetorical slips after all, not that his adoring media claque would ever acknowledge it.

Re: Ironic Words

HR Specialist,

Maybe you should look up the word "ramparts" before resorting to partisan rhetoric.

Re: Above article

Lets see Deming said what gets measured gets done, so you are contending that when it comes to government nothing gets done?? I have to agree with your assessment as a honest CS

Re: Pay For Performance

The current system has done nothing except spreat hate and discontent. It needs to be terminated.
I can say that the SCI and cash award system this year amounted to our leadership team sitting in a room and doling out the money to those who did not receive it last year, regardless of accomplishments.
I am sure there would not be any arguments if there was a way for those wanting to EARN more to get it, but there simply is not, and the disparity in pay grows every year. And since the FAA has moved out from under OPM, there is no way to challenge any of this. And when you try, you are simply told that you chose this job.
Please terminate PFP in the FAA forever. We do not have the "leadership" (not management) to administer it effectively.

Re: Pay For Performance

we have a highly paid high school educated work force at FAA. Yet they don't want to be held accountable, their work ethic matches their education

Re: Pay For Performance

Diversity Manager,
I think if you spent some time among the Tech Ops ranks you might see things differently. There are those among ALL of our ranks that are merely getting by until retirement. (including DOL)
Do not forget that these "high school educated" Technicians have spent the equivalent of a bachelors degree in training on highly complex systems to make sure you and your family get from point A to point B safely. The ONLY reason some do not have a college diploma is because they do not have credits in english composition, P.E. or similar courses. Personally, I could care less if the Technician knows the anatomical make up of a badger, but I am proud to be associated with those who know the mathematical equation required to calcualte line lengths, powers, etc required to propagate glidepaths which allow aircraft to land SAFELY in zero visibility. That, Sir is AWESOME!
So, I beg of you: Before you cast a widespread net over Technical Operations, walk a mile in their shoes.

Re: Pay for Performance (P4P)

I would disagree. In DoD as much as 85% of the employees and supervisors that were forced into a p4p, aka NSPS were and are still against the program.

Many in the HR community left DoD when it became clear that "quotas" were set by HQ on raises and ratings.

Re: Pay for Performance (P4P)

I am against it. It is fundamentally flawed with the negative "unintended consequences" far overwhelming any good it might do. I am not surprised at what Dr. Deming apparently said.


Many years ago I was asked to make a process that was new employee proof. (Actually, the chief said, "sailor proof",) but I told him it wasn't possible. Once we had to make judgement calls we had to rely on the judgement of the person making the call. We also had to allow for a learning curve. I could draw decision trees that would take care of 80% or more but the rest was why we needed people instead of just computers.

NSPS wants to try and judge by the numbers without any regard to complexity, difficulty, or any other non-quantifiable attribute.

We had a metric based on how many new packets of work were completed by a short time frame. Thing is, people would take the easier packets and leave the difficult ones for others. More packets done, better score. Figure the upset!

Re: Pay for Performance (P4P)

The point I was trying to make, and maybe I phrased it poorly, is that many Feds don't hate P4P as a principle. They hate how P4P was forced upon them and how the various programs worked. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think that through negotiations and the input of all interested parties, an equitable P4P system could be developed.

Don't get me wrong I think that most, if not all, the plans foisted upon Feds by the last administration were horrible. I worked for the SEC when "Political" management created a P4P program that recently resulted in a huge backpay settlement with the NTEU. Since I was outside the bargaining unit and have since left, I am out in the cold on that settlement. Personally, I lost about $1500 per year, because of the actions of my Weasel of a 2nd Level Supervisor. He was so bad, I even took a cut in pay to get out of there. Since then, his karma caught up to him, but that is another story.

Re: Pay for Performance (P4P)

It should be obvious from the number of negative comments on these articles concerning PFP or NSPS that the majority of employees are disenchanted with these systems. As one who has been part of FAA core comp (and done well) I believe we as an agency would have been better off under the GS system. Not only would the FAA not have such a bloated operations budget but we would not have the terrible LR problem we have now. Lets get back to GS and force management to remove the poor performers as they have always had the ability to do.