Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 76
Page 2 of 8

« Previous | Next »

Are You One of the "Good Old Boys?"

Pay Banding

IT Dept:Network Administrator
NOAA
Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:26 AM

Post Reply

I wonder how many GS-3/4 sat on the board that made the dicisions about how the JOKE (Pay for Performance) was to be setup and managed ? We have PayBanding and it appears to be a SCAM to get more money to the staff at the top and take it from the staff at the bottom of the pay scale.
Who cares if they Quit .
There is nothing a GS 2/3 can do to get a $5000.00 bonus like a GS 15/16 can ...
That's my 2 cents worth !!

"Pay for Performance"

Pyschologist
DOT
Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:32 AM

Post Reply

There are huge, unresolved issues around "pay-for-performance" in both the private and public sectors. For examples, there is good evidence that pay for senior executives and most especially CEOs is not based on performance at all and that even bad performance is rewarded. There is also evidence that in many organizations, the "performance" evaluation process in the private sector is not nearly as neat and clean as often presented in discussions about "pay-for-performance" and that in fact playing self-serving politics is common (especially in mid- and higher management). Third, the primary methods of paying for performance in the private sector for working grunts is either commissions (for sales) or piecework. Surveys by the American Compensation Association that "variable pay" (e.g., pay at risk because of performance) accounts for perhaps 10% of salary costs and that just half of employers use rewards for individual performance based on specific criteria (and primarily for managers). The single largest factor in determining pay is not individual performance in the private sector, but the company's position in the marketplace according to work by the ACA. Pay-for-performance is not a panacea, is not universal, and is often poorly implemented and managed in private organizatins, creating feelings of inequity, perceptions of unfairness, de-motivation, and turnover.

Hoo-Rah! A Government of "Good Ol' Boys"

Contract Specialist
Army
Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:42 AM

Post Reply

Thanks, Ralph, for the advice. Just what the federal government needs. All employees attempting to pattern themselves as cookie cutter workers, supervisors and managers. Perhaps we can get time during lunch to practice goose stepping.

And what does the taxpayer get out of this? No one with the capability to speak out against abuses, fraud, waste, corruption, thug-mentalities in government. Lemmings heading toward the cliff. Unite federal employees. Join the Pollyanna, ostrich with its head in the sand club. Ralph will welcome you with open arms, as will the current administration. We already know how they feel about opposing them. You get called un-American.

Re: Hoo-Rah! A Government of 'Good Ol' Boys'

manager
DoD
Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:49 AM
Advice to work hard, do a good job for the organization and promoting yourself with the supervisor equates to "Perhaps we can get time during lunch to practice goose stepping"?

Sounds like you have a bitter attitude. It is unfortunate to see this attitude displayed among "civil servants" but, unfortunately, it is increasingly common.

Re: Hoo-Rah! A Government of 'Good Ol' Boys'

Statististician
USDA
Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:15 PM
Already power and influence seem to trump competency and hard work. Most federal employees I know are happy to do an honest day's work for an honest day's wage. But when the current awards system is riddled with favoritism, cronyism, and politics, what would give federal employees any confidence that a pay for performance system would be any more immune from such failings? The current pay system is far from perfect, but at least managers don’t have a free for all.

Re: Hoo-Rah! A Government of 'Good Ol' Boys'

Grunt
DoD
Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:21 AM
And where do civil servants get their bitter attitudes? They are a gift from managers such as this one from DoD. My last performance appraisal was exceptional--I exceeded every single standard/objective placed before me. Did I receive any additional pay for this exceptional performance. Sadly, no. This should serve as fair warning for what "pay for pandering" has in store for us. Perhaps if I could pee while standing up, things would be different and my attitude would be sweeter...

Re: Hoo-Rah! A Government of 'Good Ol' Boys'

Casual Observer
Federal
Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:31 AM
The kind of attitude you have towards a situation is a choice. If you have a manager you dislike and who is pressuring you, not rewarding you fairly, etc., the type of response you generate towards that is your choice. You can piss and moan about it or you can deal with it constructively, such as by leaving the job and the unpleasant situation and finding something better. I've had my share of poor bosses in my time and found it was much more constructive to leave the jobs and move on to better ones.

From the tone of the comments I've read from some people here and based on my own experiences in the working world, my guess is the ones complaining most vociferously are those who are poor performers causing problems and are using the complaints as an attempt to shift the blame from themselves onto their supervisors. Blaming your boss for your crappy attitude and choosing not to handle it constructively and professionally is a technique used by those who are weak and irresponsible.

Re: Hoo-Rah! A Government of 'Good Ol' Boys'

Grunt
DoD
Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:10 PM
Is the "Casual Observer" truly an observer? Talk about an attitude. Why should hard working, productive employees have to leave their jobs because a manager is inept? I resent being called "weak and irresponsible" because I enjoy the work I do and choose to stay and perform in an exceptional manner. I believe that posting a comment to an article can hardly be characterized as "pissing and moaning". And if ever unhappy employee were to find another job, how would that serve the public interest, something that we are sworn to do? We are stewards of the taxpayer dollar, regardless of what the "observer" has observed. We only want to be treated fairly and equally.

Pay for Performance vs "Good Ole Boy"

Consultant
HHS
Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:50 AM

Post Reply

I would have to say that most of the whining about pay for performance isw coming from people entrenched in the real "Good Ole Boy" system. The one that doesn't require any performance uther than complete aquiesence to the union and the party in order to assure a continuing highly paid position that is 40% vacation desquised as "work from home" with no productivity standards.
Being expected to actually produce something to justify being a GS-11 is really scary, I am sure.

Re: Pay for Performance vs 'Good Ole Boy'

Nameless, faceless, hardworking nobody
DOD
Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:59 AM
The problem is not being asked to produce. The problem is being a GS 6 who is doing great work to support her superiors. I know they get the credit that is ok...the problem is that I expect there will not be sufficient funding for pay increases. I expect that I will be unable to "earn" a real raise no matter what I do. I expect that the senior people will get the money and I will be left to try and figure out how I am to keep my apartment and feed my kids. Yeah, if that is whining then I apologize. I just do NOT expect to be treated fairly no matter how much I produce.

Pay for Performance

Administrative Director (Ret)
RD, USDA
Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:23 AM

Post Reply

I have to agree with the author of this piece. Federal employees are not used to endorsing the company and making it more profitable and consumer oriented. They are used to putting in time for retirement. As a director of personnel for ten years, I saw the habit. In the real world, employees work hard to be noted by the boss. Some people do this better than others. Some people get along better than others. You cannot take the human factor out of the equation. It's about time Federal Employees learned to serve Uncle Sam instead of expecting Uncle Sam to wipe their noses. The good ole boy system is alive and well now and the pay for performance system won't change it. It will find a way to adapt in any system. Learn to work hard, promote the organization and do a good job. It's that simple. Those complaining are making their own lives way harder than they need to be.

Re: Pay for Performance

Legal Assistant
Fed Employee
Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:53 PM
Your comments are great for those who never worked in the private sector. Well, let me tell you. When I worked in the private sector, I worked hard received great raised and bonuses. However, when I came to the government I have seen people who don't work, and receive all the awards, while the people who are working hard are not recognized because they do not suck up. My first government was great I received QSI's because I am a hard worker, however the second government job I took I see the opposite. I don't get yearly rewards....

Re: Pay for Performance

Editor
DOD
Fri Feb 8, 2008 3:41 PM
The "good old boy" system has and will be. I was a GS-6 at one time, worked beyond the description of hard, bailed out delinquent projects left and right from GS-12s who made twice my pay. When reward time came, I got my 1.5%, and so did they. That was 1.5% of base salary, so while I was getting less than $500, they received over $1,000 for screwing up. Mgrs didn't have the knowledge of how to work the personnel system for upgrades, let positions for upward mobility be taken by attrition due to not filling them in a timely manner, and it went on and on. All that puts a bad taste in an employee's mouth, to say the least. So why did I continue to do it? Personal integrity. And I took that personal integrity with me to another agency.

Why p-f-p?

Director
Government Personnel Services (private)
Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:23 AM

Post Reply

Thanks for the article Ralph. While I think your suggestions for coping with p-f-p are correct, unlying this advise is the question, "Why are we doing this?"
Will this government of the USA be more more responsive to the threat of terrorists because we have a p-f-p system? This was the Administration's pretext for "bringing it on" in DoD and DHS.
I think p-f-p is represents a philosphy that those in positions of power are more important to success than working stiffs. Unions bbelieve just the opposite. Have supervisors done a decent job evaluating performance to date? My experience is, "not very". Whatever it takes to change that seems more of a distraction from national security. If the promise of p-f-p were a more efficient government, I'd be all over it. But a government of folks promoting their individual achievement to their less-than-observant bosses isn't what we need to thwart Bin Laden & Co.

are you one of the good ole boys?

Nameless, faceless, hardworking nobody
DOD
Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:53 AM

Post Reply

Yup. You gotta suck up and play pretend if you want to feed your family next year. Yup, you gotta pretend that what the boss wants isn't really on the edge, (or over that edge,) of unlawful or unwse. Yup, you have to be just like the (presumably honest-with-the-best-interests-of-humanity-at-heart) private sector people, (with a profit motive!) Yup, in the interests of making government function better we must move the Smile-with-a-knife-in-your-hand way of life from the Beltway, upper management, political appointee, or just plain petty power playing wannabe arenas to the places where ordinary employees have invested themselves in doing what is needed to get a ship deployed, an aircraft in the air, facilities cared for, etc.

I don't think this system has worked in the private sector and I think it will be even worse in the public.

Re: are you one of the good ole boys?

Engineering Technician/CWO4(ret)
vha
Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:12 PM
A few years ago it was "downsizing", 5 yrs after the "exalted" private industry gave up on that flop. Remember the "great" DEC (Digital Equip. Co)? They actually went back to "human telephone operators" due to the "absurd reasoning" that when my computer has a problem, computerized telephone menus does not solve it.==customer loss
Total Comments: 76
Page 2 of 8

« 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.