Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 42
Page 2 of 4

« Previous | Next »

The Persistence of Pay-for-Performance in Government

Here's an Idea

HR (labor)
USAF
Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:48 AM

Post Reply

Establish a job; set the salary or hourly wage; adjust as needed for inflation and say to the applicant or incumbent, "This is what the job pays; here is what is required in the job; you perform these duties and you get a pay check; you don't and you get fired. If you want a larger paycheck, find, apply for and accept another job with a higher set salary."
That should be the definition of PFP in the government.
If you are so valuable and want your income to depend on the vagaries of your performance, then get your dead a_ _ out in the private sector!

Re: Here's an Idea

engineer
USACE
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:32 AM
totally agree with comment, very will stated

Re: Here's an Idea

Unhigh on the Food Chain
VA
Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:25 AM
Unless, of course (see earlier comment), you are instructed to perform duties of the "brown-noser," or they keep changing your duties to suit their buddies and refuse to actually put your duties in writing.

Re: Here's an Idea

worker
Fed
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:10 AM
Your specs will encourage people to perform at the fully successful level and no higher. Not a good idea.

Re: Here's an Idea

HR (labor)
USAF
Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:41 AM
To FED Worker,
Give the country a workforce performing fully successfully at the jobs and duties required for a set salary... not a bad idea as far as I can see.
The current view of the workplace that everyone should be special and can work above "fully successful" is the result of a coddling culture and concern if Little Jimmy is being encouraged enough.
What is lost on today's workforce is the idea that only your best is, in fact, good enough to be "fully successful" at your job. If you are able to do more or better, you find a better paying and more demanding job. You don't complain that my current job doesn't pay me what I'm worth.
Like I mentioned, if your that great hit the private sector which is just waiting to reward you with what you really deserve.

No stomach for this

Electronics Engineer
Dept. of Defense
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:11 AM

Post Reply

I quit reading this piece after the gush-athon by this author. His pro-gay gushing over the author's aberrant lifestyle totally disgusted me. Not gonna read another single word . . .

Re: No stomach for this

Retired Financial Analyst/Budget Analyst
USAF
Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:02 PM
And I bet your at the top of the NSPS ladder with your bigotted statements and lack of tolerance! Another example of why the system is broke!

Re: No stomach for this

worker
Fed
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:14 AM
What does his sexual preferences have to do with anything? Why is it negative?
Gays want to be treated as regular people, not as negative or positive for their preferences. What is wrong with that?
I am not gay, so I do not gain by these comments.

Re: No stomach for this

Analyst
DOD
Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:55 AM
We shouldn't be surprised that a DOD reader was offended by gay-positive comments. The DOD is one of the most discriminatory friendly - gay-bashing places to work under...I hope he is already or nearing retirement..gays serving openly in the military is the future...has been for decades in Europe. The reason that gays are even referenced is the OPM Director is openly gay - a first as far as the highest level held to date...secondly, it remains legal to discriminate against gays, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered (GLBT) employees in the federal workplace. Every other conceiveable group is already protected - primarily by Title VII - regardless of one's religious or moral beliefs, legal discrimination against anyone in employment, housing, or lending is an abomination. GLBT employees should be protected and will obtain the protection in the federal workplace in the near future. Diversity cannot be stopped and makes the government more efficient.

Run like a business?

Nameless, Faceless Nobody
DON
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:23 AM

Post Reply

Let's see....big business is getting tax funds and not really being held accountable.

Let's see...Majorly large bonuses for "performance" but who can really document what the bonus recipients did? (besides tank the economy.)

Let's see...Make a "business" model for something that is naturally "overhead". I see some strange attempts to prove "income" streams for what amounts to work needed to keep the whole shebang running.

Make good definitions of the job. Have pay increases become a true cola, give nice goodies to the top 10%, fire the bottom 10%, and treat the rest like the good, solid performers they are...and let them continue to earn enough to feed their families.

I agree with the guys that want to start "PFP" in congress THEN work it downstream.

PFP Isn't the Problem

HR Practitioner
DoD
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:59 AM

Post Reply

I greatly respect Robbie and agree with his basic premise that we in the Government need to "look before we leap" into the PFP pool but I submit the problem isn't PFP. BTW, I agree that PFP arguably doesn't make a lot of sense outside of profit-making concerns because, as Robbie notes, most of the work public servants do is not easily quantifiable. Given that, assessments that drive pay decisions in the public sector necessarily take on a rather subjective hue. For that reason, I would encourage an entirely new paradigm for Federal performance appraisal - do individual performance assessment on an exception basis only. The focus should be on organizational performance targets not individual performance standards. If the organization succeeds, the assumption is that I've contributed to that success and my pay is set accordingly UNLESS I've been singled out for being a superior contributor or one that has failed to contribute. With the former, you get more, the latter, nada.

Re: PFP Isn't the Problem

Tomato, Pepper and Potato Grower
Oaklandon
Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:08 AM
Agree about org goals and rewards. That's fine for direct labor/line work. What about support staff? Support staff also contribute to overall org performance. How would you define org? Smallest org entity under one supe or larger?

Re: PFP Isn't the Problem

HR Practitioner
DoD
Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:10 AM
Tomato grower: The organization would have to be defined and it could be as large or as small as the leaders want it to be. In my case, it would be the HR organization. We have performance goals that align with the strategic goals and performance targets of the larger organization. I could be included in either organization for appraisal purposes. My proposal covers everyone, at every level, except the SES, who have their own system.

NSPS IS A JOKE= AN EXPENSIVE ONE

Retired Financial Analyst/Budget Analyst
USAF
Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:53 AM

Post Reply

After reviewing the results of NSPS at HAFB in Utah, this PFP needs to be shut down. The soaring costs in executive pay with poorer performance and financial results is evidence in itself. The retired military now running the system knows how to play the system to maximize their pay without any link to performance, or how to fill the squares to appear great without doing great. Talk about a buddy-buddy system, NSPS is the worst. By constantly changing or reassigning each other to new positions, switching jobs, they are able to key additional pay without additional responsibilities or proof of performance. The same as the GM scheme, the GS-15s get the most, the 14's less and the 13's and 12's whatever is left over. Some executives have keyed the system to increase their pay over 20% in one year!
A total lack of fidiciary responsibility is evident in every aspect of the NSPS. Another failure in DoD!

Re: NSPS IS A JOKE= AN EXPENSIVE ONE

Aerospace Engineer
DoD
Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:38 PM
There are two things that really torque me off about NSPS:

1) Supervision has a vested interest in keeping ratings low. Doing so ensures that shares are worth more money. Since supervision gives themselves most of the high ratings, the guys on the former-GS-12 level are left fighting for scraps.

2) The very few 4s that are given to the working level guys mostly go to the software and electrical engineers since they're the hardest to retain. Yes, NSPS ratings are used to discriminate. HAFB already has a real problem with religious discrimination, now we get job-series discrimination on top of it.

NSPS

ISS
DoD
Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:33 PM

Post Reply

I've read in a number of articles that if and when they do away with NSPS they will convert those of us under NSPS back to GS.

My question is this: what level do they put us back in the system? Some of us have gotten pay increases and reassignments to other commands with the 5% increase and if we are near or above the top step of the grade level will we be forced to get "save pay" until the step 10 catches up with us--effectively freezing our pay and eliminating any cost of living increase?

Or will we come back in at a grade and step that is close to our salary? Will we be stuck at the top step of the grade (example GS-12) that we were when we first were converted into the system?

Doing away with NSPS can possibly be painful for some of us who now exceed the top step of their initial grade. It will depend on how they do away with it, and splinter the three bands they created back into the GS system.

I'm holding my breath for the next shoe to drop...

Pay-for-Performance in Government

grunt
cant say
Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:22 PM

Post Reply

I bet teh Unions are just boiling, becasue thsi isn't what BO led them to believe.

Someone in DC who has lots of power, has pushed this and isn't going to let it go quitly into the light, becasue they know best and they are not going to listen to anyone.

Re: Pay-for-Performance in Government

Fed Peasant
DOD
Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:04 PM
Yee jest mite be right!! Somethins perculatin in high places. I call it the OBAMA RAMA.
Total Comments: 42
Page 2 of 4

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.