Search FCW


Subscribe Now!
Table of Contents
Sprint
Business
BPM
CXOs
Columns
Columnists
Defense
E-Government
Elections 2008
Enterprise Architecture
Funding
Homeland Security
Health IT
IPv6
LOB
Management
Procurement
Privacy
Policy
Program Management
State and Local
Security
Technology
Telework
Training and Certification
Workforce

More Topics
resourcecenter
Home
Letters to the Editor
Current Issue/Download
Print/Online Archives
Editorial Calendar
researchstore
resourcecenter
Communications for Continuity Operations

Oracle Resource Center
NEW - Data Center Virtualization
NEW - Air Force ELSG Contract Guide
NEW - Security Management
NEW - DOD and Security Guide
Networx Contract Guide
SEWP IV Contract Guide
Priority Report: Virtualization
NEW - CHESS formerly ASCP
New - SATCOM II

More >>



Latest News
ADVERTISEMENT





 

Federal unions attack pay-for-performance efforts

By Mark Tarallo
Published on August 1, 2007

Comment

Click here to comment on this article


Related story links

Defense unions seek legislative solution to NSPS

Unions on pay systems: No, but yes


Newsletters

You might also be interested in these FCW newsletters:

Daily

To learn more, click here.


Government employee union representatives attacked the Bush administration’s effort to move toward a pay-for-performance system and alleged at a House subcommittee hearing July 31 that initial efforts to implement the changes were dismal failures that would politicize federal pay.

In response, Office of Personnel Management Director Linda Springer defended the administration’s programs, saying that early attempts at pay-for-performance implementation have by and large succeeded.

The hearing on federal pay policies and administration was held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia Subcommittee. Some of the discussion revolved around the proposed performance-based pay system, which the administration’s hopes will be used governmentwide by 2010, replacing the current General Schedule system.

A few early pay-for-performance implementation efforts at selected agencies were rushed and ran into problems, Springer said. But over time, the change will be successful, she added.

"It takes a few years before you really start to see it take hold," Springer said.

But Colleen Kelley, head of the National Treasury Employees Union, disagreed. She said the early pay-for-performance efforts were  failures and that the new system had no record of success.

"There is no credibility with employees," Kelley said.

David Cox, national secretary-treasurer at the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, said the new system was based on subjectivity, and would give managers the ability "to discriminate and call it ‘performance.’"

"The Bush administration has been relentless in its effort to politicize federal pay," Cox said.

Both Kelley and Cox agreed that the current General Schedule system was flawed, but they said fixing it, not scrapping it, should be the goal.

"At this point," Cox said, "it’s the best system that we have."

Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.), the subcommittee chairman, said his panel would hold more hearings on federal pay issues.

"We need to know more about agencies’ experience with pay-for-performance systems and market-based compensation studies," Davis said.


upcoming event

Enterprise Architecture 2008 - Washington, DC
September 9 - September 10, 2008

Occupational Health & Safety Executive Summit - Arlington, VA
October 6 - October 7, 2008


 

head
fcw
issue
First Name State
Last Name Zip
Title Email