3:44 am, March 5, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 9
       

  • Fully Successful!!!
    Cindi
    Where I work "Fully Successful" is hard not to achieve, if you look at one's CJE's a person would have to really try to not achieve a fully successful rating.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Fully Successful
    Moderate
    when one is hired, it is expected that one will do the job in a fully successful manner. The CJE's in my agency reflect what is fully successful and one that exceeds fully successful. of course, most will be fully successful and many will exceed that. promotions are based on the evalustions. But it is expected that one will get the ratings and wigs. What is the problem?
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Not Fully Successful
    Linda
    If you're not Fully Successful, you should be on your way to being terminated. Dah! No wonder there are not many Not Fully Successful. That is a 3, not a 5 on the rating scale. If you are less than a 3 average, most are given a chance to improve or somehow booted out of there. Average usually isn't hard to do anywhere.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Fully successful
    Moderate
    It means at least a 3 on each of the critical elements. It does not mean average. And it is true that if you receive less than a 3 on any critical element, you will be given a chance to bring it up to a 3. If you cannot do so, you could be separated from service.-----------------Depending on what management wants, such as doing 50 hours worth of work in 30 with a quality job, it can be more difficult than you think. it also depends on whether your manager likes you or not.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Still Breathing? Here's Your Raise!
    Celtic Wolf
    You attain the step 10 and still are subjected to the archaic performance system that focuses on giving you a Within Grade Increase or Not that no longer is a viable possibility. The current performance system is primarily focused on subjectivity. The performance award is minimal, barely worth all the heartache and morale impact it causes. What is the true purpose of the federal performance system anyway? It is rarely for promotions, the potential for doing the job and who you know works more there. It is not truly for WGIs, because we all get them. It is not for firing, because we get fired for other reasons mostly and rarely for performance. This is especially true when we have the couched 'opportunity letters' to improve performance with. So what is the reason for a Performance System - to satisfy GAO? to appease Congress? The whole process is a joke, the mid year lies, the self assessments that get ignored, the awkward time spent with a manager that has little control over what you get due to budget, award pool amounts, and 'what have you done lately for the SESers'. So yes we are still breathing and now talking about another farce -- most likely another joke on us by Congress. Thanks Mike and the media for another story to break our hearts. We need an article soon on: the value of federal employees, or true statistics on our salaries and educational levels and spans of control. We need something upbeat - we need some joy in our lives while we read these articles for a change. Please?!?!
    Celtic Wolf
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • WIGs
    Retired from SSA
    Mike, I'm disappointed that you're jumping on the pound the feds bandwagon. Cmon--how about some statistics. How about mentioning how small the WIG is (as are the "bonuses" for the rank and file--it's only the execs that receive any significant amount of money). WIGs are withheld and employees are fired (usually the same poor performers are involved with both)--when I was a manager at SSA I did both. Just because private industry is ruthless, heartless, and scorns loyalty doesn't mean government has to be equally abusive to the workers. I thought you were on our side, but a story like this just inflames the already negative opinion of the public employees. I'm retired so it's too late to go back and start over somewhere else--I feel like a sitting duck for the know-nothings in congress. They want to nickel and dime federal employees while they continue to shovel piles of money to big oil, pointless wars, the already wealthy--well you see my point (or should).
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • pick one
    deployed decoy
    When I worked for BLM they had a 5 to 1 rating system. DoD has a 1 to 5. Both have 3 as fully successful. The big difference is in BLM, 90% of people got 3s while in DOD a 3 is all but a pathetic failure. This was the case in NSPS likewise. A 5 was to be a god like thing worshiped as role model by the flock, something 1/10 of 1% earned. But the truth is the average in my pay pool was 4.1. Thus a 3 was a failure in NSPS also. So it all comes down to annual performance awards. Again I knew exactly one person in 15 years in a compound of 500 people in BLM that got a QSI. With Army, if you donít get at least $1700 s year you are a failure.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Bonuses
    Tea Partier
    I remember my boss telling me one year that the managers were told to reduce the number of 4's & 5's on evaluations, because the agency didn't have enough money to pay the bonus awards to all the people who were getting them. After that year they raised the # you had to reach to qualify for an award from 4 to 4.4.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Lower evaluations
    Moderate
    You are right. I remember those times, except that we were not told that evaluations would be lowered. They just were.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }