|
Federal Diary Live
With Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003; Noon ET
The Post's Stephen Barr is the author of The Federal Diary, which runs Sunday through Friday in the Metro section. Steve has been a reporter and editor at The Post since 1979, including stints as Federal Page editor, congressional editor and a staff writer covering the federal bureaucracy. He takes the column live to answer your questions Wednesdays at noon ET.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests
and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Stephen Barr: Thanks to all of you taking the time to join us today. President Bush last night hinted that numerous agencies may face lean times because of shifting budget priorities and the overall deficit. Earlier, the administration offered a preview of its budget plans to reporters: a 2 percent pay raise for 2004, the creation of a $500 million "human capital performance fund" to reward the best employees, and a pay raise for many senior executives.
I'm especially interested in hearing your views on the performance fund. The administration said it would be a way to boost basic pay and would not replace any other pay mechanisms, such as within-grade increases and bonuses.
A big issue here, I think, is trust. Do you think the performance raises will be based on honest evaluations? Or will it end up being vulnerable to abuse, cronyism and favoritism?
Let me know. Again, thanks for joining this program today.
Arlington, Va.:
Is the money for performance awards in the pay proposals strictly for performance awards or does it come out of the agencies general funding. I used to work for DOD law enforcement agency that for years would run a budget a deficit because ineptness and there had no money for performance awards for GS employees! SES's and management got their awards though. Did not happen once but happened several years in row!
Stephen Barr: Mark Everson, the OMB official who briefed reporters, said the performance pay would come from a separate pot of money that would be built into the budget. The $500 million will be prorated to agencies, based on their size. If the performance raises were limited to 10 percent of the workforce, the winners could pick up an extra $2,800 in base pay, on average, for the year, by my math. Administration officials suggested typical top-notch employees could get from 2 percent to 7 percent raises out of the performance fund, plus the annual across-the-board component. Frankly, I worry that $500 million may not be enough to make a difference, but I could be wrong.
Alexandria, Va.:
When researching how the federal government would implement the Bush Administration's $500 million performance bonus plan, you should ask the inventors of this scheme how they would prevent its perversion in situations like this one that actually occurred some years ago during my federal government career. A high department official complained that too many professionals in my division (way below his level) had been given "excellent" performance rating, and ordered that our ratings be lowered. This resulted in my and other managers actually lowering our performance ratings for the year; if the Bush performance bonus system had been in effect then, we would lost our share of the bonuses that we had earned for doing excellent work. You should ask OPM how they intend to prevent this sort of shenanigan in the future when it would really harm hard-working federal employees.
Stephen Barr: Excellent observation. I think this is a common worry about performance evaluation systems.
Washington, D.C.:
As a Federal Worker, I was troubled by Bush's justification of his budget proposal to increase discretionary spending budget by 4 percent. He stated this is equivalent to the amount the average American family's income is increasing next year. However, his budget proposes an increase in the salaries of federal workers by only 2 percent. This disparity is very alarming.
Stephen Barr: Well, your point is well taken, and explains why the Washington-area congressional delegation takes up the pay raise as one of its issues each year. Budget officials think that a 2 percent raise covers inflation and, when coupled with a steady job, represents a pretty good deal. On the other hand, it appears the raise for the military will come in significantly higher once we see the budget. Based on the Defense Department payroll, it appears the military raise will average 4.1 percent.
Washington, D.C. Fed:
Performance fund? Give me a break! You mean the "line the pockets of your cronies and politicos fund," don't you? A suggestion -- file a FOIA for all performance awards at the departments and agencies -- they have to give up that info -- regs require it -- and see what I mean.
Stephen Barr: Your skepticism is shared by many others. Still, it seems the government has to try some sort of performance pay in order to build credibility with taxpayers, and this seems a good way to start, since it does not involve more radical steps, such as elimination of the General Schedule or within-grade increases. Cannot managers be held accountable if they abuse the system? Am I naive? Am I wrong?
Rockville, Md.:
What the scoop on the pay this year? 3.1 percent? 4.1 percent? Any changes? I need to know if I can afford bonds on top of my TSP and CFC tax dodges.
Stephen Barr: It looks like the 2003 raise will be 4.1 percent, but don't count those chickens yet. The bill is in negotiations between the House and Senate and probably won't emerge for at least another week.
Frederick, Md.:
Have I missed something or are we still waiting of the federal budget to be passed by Congress? Any guesses as to when that will take place and what's happening with cost of living increases?
Stephen Barr: See the answer above. It appears that Congress will pass another short-term spending bill to carry the government through the end of next week while they work on resolving differences over the omnibus bill for the entire fiscal year.
Rockville, Md.:
Do you know what is the status of the implementation of the flexible spending accounts? Is it scheduled to be implemented on July 1, 2003?
Stephen Barr: We're still waiting for lots of details--OPM has a contract out for bid--but officials say they will hold an "open season" in May to get the program rolling. I'll write more in the newspaper column as OPM makes information available.
Washington, D.C.:
I think the performance fund is great in theory but will be lousy in practice. In my little office I know exactly who will receive a bonus under this system and it's the same suck up who got a step increase award this year for being such a good friend to the director, coming into work late, leaving early, and always talking about how overwhelmed by work she is.
Those of us who do the real work, in the meantime, and raise challenges when ill-thought out plans are proposed received nothing.
This will continue. Even though our contributions save their butts, we are not popular. They take the credit, though.
Stephen Barr: So depressing. Still, what you describe is favoritism without a performance fund. Is there a chance that OPM can focus attention on this new fund in a way that will keep it from falling into such claptrap? Congress possibly could insist on certain standards to be applied, including perhaps some auditing and oversight from GAO. Any ideas out there on how to overcome this? It is a real problem we've all seen.
Arlington, Va.:
You asked, "Cannot managers be held accountable if they abuse the system? Am I naive? Am I wrong?"
I vote for naive.
Stephen Barr: Darn. Walked into that one.
Rockville, Md.:
"Cannot managers be held accountable if they abuse the system? Am I naive? Am I wrong?"
Who will hold them accountable if they make a political appointee look good? Do you really think anyone gives a d--- about some federal worker, I mean, we all drive Mercedes! We go on strike regularly! We send our children to private schools with $20,000/year tuitions!
Oh, and that should be "tax dodge," I hardly think paying my way for my retirement and giving money to some charities is real tax dodge. That's reserved for Stanley tools and everyone else who sends their money to their Caribbean island headquarters.
Tax them!
Stephen Barr: Clearly, political appointees are a problem. Some of my correspondents argue that Republicans emphasize performance because it is a back-door way of reminding the voters that government workers are lazy bums. I don't subscribe to that theory, but there is a lot of cynicism on this topic.
Arlington, Va.:
If the methodology of performance evaluations is not changed, if the managers continue to not watch who gets what assignments and if those allocations are fair (in terms of workload and challenge), and if managers continue to be incompetent in communicating with staff what needs to be improved, then the new performance system will be implemented without rewarding those who deserve it. If the role of management is taken seriously, then there is some chance of success. I am seriously worried that women and minorities will suffer under such a plan.
Heaven help me. I have to reinvent myself to get out before this hits.
Stephen Barr: You make some excellent points. Some MSPB studies have suggested that managers need training in order to administer fair and credible evaluation systems.
Meanwhile, I should point out that although much of this discussion assumes the $500 million performance fund will kick in this year, in fact, this compensation change requires the approval of Congress. I think lawmakers will buy the idea, but it is not a done deal and will likely get debated during hearings in several committees.
Arlington, Va.:
Most managment analysts agree that the prime motivators for workers is not pay, but a sense of accomplishment, teamwork, and having their work praised and validated by their boss. I'd rather spend the money on mandatory management training for my superiors to improve my work environment than to get than a 1.5 percent raise. I spend more than 9 hours a day here.
Stephen Barr: Superb point. Thanks.
Arlington, Va.:
Steve,
Federal Diary is SO much better since you took over! Here's a story idea -- track the "real" rate of pay for federal employees (after taking account of inflation) over the last, say 50 years. GS levels is easy, but if possible, try to keep constant for the same job description. For example, a typist in 1953 probably had to have a lot fewer skills than a government secretary needs today.
My guess is that federal pay has fluctuated quite a bit. Then it would be interesting to see if government services or public perceptions bear any relation to that.
Stephen Barr: Thanks for your kind words, but this project is clearly above my grade level. Perhaps we can find a think-tank type who will take this on. Getting a yardstick on pay is incredibly difficult, especially when you look at how much the government has changed since World War II. Today, more than half of civil service employees are in the top five GS grades, reflecting the higher skills and occupations used in the government. Like to hear ideas on this idea, too.
Arlington, Va.:
It should be a requirement that agencies publish names and dollar amounts of all performance awards to its employees. It shouldn't be considered private. I dont believe it is protected info under the Privacy Act if Social Security numbers and other personal data isn't included.
Stephen Barr: This is possibly one way to introduce accountability into this proposal. Thanks for your comments.
Washington, D.C.:
What is the status of Federal employees over age 50 being able to increase their retirement contribution through the catch-up provision?
Stephen Barr: TSP expects to make this benefit available in mid-year, although they are not saying exactly when. It does not appear that you would have to do it in an open season. Main holdup seems to be reprogramming agency payrolls to account for the over-50 contribution. Meantime, start saving up your money if you want to make this contribution.
Arlington, Va.:
I want the money. You can't train a incompetent inept idiot no matter how much money you throw at it. There has to be something there to train. My dog would do a better job in the trainging than my senior managment. The dog works for treats and praise. I work for cash for treats for the dog. Managment analysts need to get out in the real world!
Stephen Barr: So, are you saying we can't teach an old dog new tricks?
Orange Line, Va.:
Cannot federal government managers be held accountable? You're not wrong, but you are naive.
Stephen Barr: Darn. Not winning on this one today. I'm afraid to ask what other kinds of decisions these managers are making that are potentially more disastrous and we can't hold them accountable.
Washington, D.C.:
Well, I think the problem is that the managers who do the evaluations are not used to evaluating workers based on real criteria. The Fed has worked in this no-man's land for years. At my agency, performance ratings were so abused that they are now pass/fail and are not used for bonus awards at all.
How did this happen? Well, people who didn't get perfect scores filed grievances. Managers will do anything to avoid grievances. Everyone became "Exceptional" and no one needed improvement.
In some jobs you can quantify achievement: did you produce 5 percent more this year than last? But how do you quantify the contributions of someone who spends his time in meetings and writing RFPs?
I'm the only person in my division who has ANY work experience outside the Fed (10+ years and I was in management, too). I'm not in management here and I can't tell you how GLAD I am about that. It's like a foreign country.
Stephen Barr: Thank you for that analysis. Despite the joking around today, you underscore the serious issues involved here.
Mitchellville, Md.:
I have applied for many federal job and am getting so discouraged at the process and the way tha the insiders get to manipulate the system with everyone's tax dollars. I recently applied for a federal Govt job at OPM and there were six (6) openings. I was mailed a letter which stated that I had received a score of 100 on my application. I called the personnel rep to check on the job and found that all six had been filled. I also found that I was #2 on the hiring certificate. I did not even get an interview or phone call. NADA. I filed a complaint with the Office of Special counsel to find that all 6 positions were filled from the inside and that the management has that choice and does not have to select everyone for an interview. My question is "what is the purpose of the application rating system" and "what is the significance of having the list of applicants in order of qualifications." Seems like something stinks in the process.
Stephen Barr: Many Federal Diary readers share your view that the government prefers to hire from the inside. OPM has created a task force, led by Deputy Director Dan Blair, to streamline the hiring process. But perhaps we need some reform here. Any comments from experienced HR hands?
Pay banding:
In my previous DOD federal job, we were under the "demo project" of pay banding. I liked the idea of earning your increase vice automatic steps. If your salary is maxed out, you get it in a bonus. Makes the stereotypical complacent dead wood workers get off their duff. BUT, I could see where in some places it could be used to the higher ups discretion, personal agendas, etc. So it has pro and con to it.
My biggest gripe with federal budgting and every federal employee knows this; you are NOT encouraged to save the govt money. (and in reality OUR tax money). We all know we HAVE to spend all our money at the end of the fiscal year or risk not getting more. There is a major frenzy of buying those last weeks in Sept. We are also not encouraged to get the cheapest prices for our money thanks to Javits, Wagoner- O'Day and their brilliant plan. Why doesn't ANYONE address this issue. You'd think the days of having to buy the $50 hammer could be changed. I've actually been reprimanded (as a card holder) for trying to get a better price and save money. We must keep the prisoners busy making furniture I guess.
Stephen Barr: Glad you liked pay banding. Your comments point to a challenge that you don't see in most private-sector organiations, and that's the application of policies designed to help certain groups of citizens. The government creates preferences in order to reach larger policy goals. I happen to think most of them are good ideas, but it can complicate life at times, I'm sure.
Fairfax, Va.:
In my 20+ years in government, several as a manager, I have found that performance appraisal time is always accompanied by "we can only have x outstandings this year," so in a pool of good employees, it turns into "whose turn is it for the outstanding?" We can always find ways to award those who miss out on the outstanding, but I expect that won't be possible with the outside pot of money. I think it will make this fiasco even more cutthroat then it is now.
Stephen Barr: Thanks for the manager's perspective. It would be a shame if this new fund creates ill will.
Annapolis, Md.:
What's the latest talk on increasing Telecommuting with in the Federal Government.
Thanks
Stephen Barr: OPM has been survying agencies and looking for ways to move this ball. I don't want to be seen as piling on the managers today, but OPM officials find a lot of reluctance in the management ranks to spend time and money on telecommuting these days.
Bethesda, Md.:
The Proposed OMB A76 revision is a proposal in draft form. I assume this means it is not law.
Are the agencies directed to follow it at his time even though it is still a draft?
Stephen Barr: At the moment, agencies don't have to follow the revised version, but the comment period is ending and OMB plans to move ahead with a new A76 process. Agencies also face demands, through the president's budget, to run competitive sourcing initiatives, so the contracting out efforts are underway, even though the new A76 has not been published.
Washington, D.C.:
It's likely that the aggregate amount of "performance" money available to each agency will drive the performance appraisal system. Managers will be directed to adjust performance appraisals to insure that as may employees as possible derive some benefit under the system. That was certainly the case under the old GM series.
Stephen Barr: Does this mean the money gets spread too thin? If yes, does that mean, over time, that no one will care, since the rewards are not larger than the hassles of paperwork and justification?
RE: hiring practices:
Most (fed) places will run the job ads as internal candidates only or within that agency, etc. when they know they want to hire from inside. If no candidates, then they open it to the outside. I prefer this. I'd rather not have them dangle a possible job that they have no intention of truly considering you for. I would want my agency to promote within first as opposed to bringing in an outsider. Only fair. But they should be honest and advertise the hiring inside first, then outside if no viable candidates.
Another issue: I'm applying for jobs on the east coast and federal agencies used to be so good about sending out "reject" letters. At least you weren't left hanging. But over the past year, I've applied for about 10 jobs and gotten very few. What's up with that? It's all automated so not like they are hand typing them. U.S. Coast Guard is the WORST.
Stephen Barr: Thanks for your insight. Don't know what to say, except that every week I hear from readers who tell me they get exactly zero feedback after filing a job application. OPM has asked agencies to provide information to applications on their status, but it seems to be a mixed bag out there.
Jefferson City, Mo.:
This will get in too late.
I am a Federal IT employee who has been told my job will be outsourced due to OMB's outsourcing quotas under the (un)FAIR ACT and the OMB A-76 circular. 34 employees in my agency (which is located nationwide) have been targeted for this because we're Federal IT employees. Our jobs will be filled by contractors from SIGNAL Corporation which is located in, you guessed it, Rep Tom Davis' district, he being the big House pusher of this program.
What are my recourses to this? I've not been told I'm being RIFed, yet, but that's pretty much the way it looks.
Stephen Barr: Not too late, but you get the last word today.
Generally, employees often get a job offer from the contractor taking over the operation. Check whether this will be an option at your site. Some agencies also operate job placement programs, allowing you to transfer if you are willing to move. Check that option. If you have a union in the neighborhood, ring them up for advice. If worse comes to worse and you are laid off, the agency must go through a set of procedures written into law that often provide some rights. Best of luck in this situation.
Once again, we've run out of time. Thanks to all of you for making this a lively discussion. We'll be back next week to discuss federal jobs and how to get one. See you at noon next Wednesday!
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
