Re: Pay for Performance

Let's face it, here's what will happen:
1. No one will get less than they are paid now--even poor performers.
2. The same people that get the big bonuses, favored assignments and quick promotions will get the biggest increases. In other words the supervisor's "favorite pets".
3. Those in disfavor will suffer to supplement the the pay of those in favor.
4. After you take the cost-of-living part out of money available for annual increases, there won't be enough left to make a significant difference in the amount for "merit pay" anyway.
5. The whole thing will just cost more.
6. The highly paid will have to be paid even more to stay ahead or their favorite recipients.

Re: Pay for Performance

I don't think the problem is favoritism itself. Rather, it's the definition of "favoritism." If rewards are based on illegal standards (race, sex, age, etc.), then they deserve to be challenged. But the rewards should go to the employees who are always ready and willing to perform, to those who put in the extra effort, to those who do work that needs to be done - without having to be directed to do it. To turn the phrase, those who shine in the workplace deserve to be the "favorites."

Re: Pay for Performance

If supervisors are held accountable for their units' performance, then they in turn will "favor" the line employees who do a good job and make them (the supervisors) look good. There is nothing wrong with this kind of favoritism; in fact, it's exactly what pay for performance is meant to encourage. Whenever FedSmith publishes an article like this, I'm always amazed by the number of comments from people who say supervisors will favor those they like, as if it were some kind of God-given right for federal employees to be openly hostile towards their supervisors and yet not suffer any consequences for it. Out in the real world, if you really can't stand your boss, you look for another job. I've had a number of bosses I didn't particularly like, but I've always treated them with the respect their positions deserved and tried to do the best job possible for the customers, and it's paid off for me. Try this approach instead of whining and nursing grudges, and you might be surprised at how well it works. And if it doesn't work for you, well then, move on.

Re: Pay for Performance

It is interesting to me what has been said on this forum. But let me give you a personal account.

I have been a federal employee for over 22 years. Through my federal career I have received exceptional ratings since the very beginning.

One would think that I would want Pay for Performance but the quick answer is no.

Let me give you just one example of cronism that I have personally witnessed in my career.

One supervisor I had would not give me any monetary awards while she was the one that did my rating. Even though at the time I had a production rate of 213% and an error rate of .07%.

One question is why, I have the documentation to show this fact.

Well let me tell, she did not like my after work lifestyle. Can you guess, yep that is right. Since she decided I was a "sinner" I didn't deserve anything. Did this stop me from working. You betcha. Lucky for me though I got a different boss within a couple of months and then the awards and ratings were right back again.

So you all out there tell me, can pay for performance work? I say no, I couldn't complain to anybody after all I just wasn't rewarded like my peers. I was given an exceptional rating. Award recognition cannot be grieved.

Ummm, something for you to think about, eh?

Re: Core Compensation

Where I work my co-worker does less than her share but because she claims to be into the Lord, no challenges her or makes her do her job, on the weeks she is taks to do a particular task when she does not do it, which is all of thime the Supervisor does it for her. They say I deserve a performance Award but they always put her in for one also, because they say they want to be nice.