1:40 pm, May 25, 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.

  • 31

  • It's discrimination not REVERSE DISCRIMINATION
    Discrimination is discrimation. It should apply accordingly towards the myriad of whites that are discriminated against everyday throughtout the federal government (how many agencies, unlike other ethic groups, have a white employees association?). Moreover, that's why awards are parsed out to spread them among more non-whites.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Wow
    There are racial goals, but it is not as blatant as you make it out to be in my agency. For the most part, if you cannot do the work, you will not get rewarded. I know of one exception.Is there gender discrimination. I cannot say for sure, but there are indications. However, I cannot accuse, because I cannot prove. However, your accusation is very strong. I hope you have evidence of this.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
    The quotas for appraisal ratings do exist, especially for the military. I have been witness to an above average soldier receiving an average rating because the above average quotas had been "used up" on those rated before him. This can be timing (who gets rated first),favoritism, or being at the wrong place at the wrong time. As no human is completely objective, managers who must adhere to these quotas should employ an unusual amount of objectivity when rating their employees (civilian and military). This is something that most managers don't do because they are too busy being action officers due to inadequate staffing, which is another story altogether.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Institutional discrimination
    I have long known that the agency I work for use evaluations to "control" people. The unfortunate thing is that higher ratings were given freely to those who were the "goof-offs" who were also the manager's "pets". Others who were the hard workers and often ignored or overlooked, got mediocre evals and never got awards. This does affect your career and your income. It does make it difficult to move on in your career. It is illegal to control workers with the piece of paper called an evaluation and it is discrimination that is concealed through a piece of paper called an evaluation. I would have rather been evaluated by the people I provide service to in my job than my immediate manager who is terribly biased based on her poor conception of who I am as a person and a worker. I get excellent service responses from just about everyone but her. Go figure.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Quota
    Robert E Dietrich
    In my last year of government service with the Department of Labor, my boss directed me to lower the appraisals of several of my top performers to conform to some predetermined distribution. I refused and suggested that he should lower my rating instead. I was not going to penalize those who were performing very well and made us all look good. I understand this happened the year after I left, and my successor complied. This action had a very demoralizing effect. RedBaron
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Quotas on ratings
    A few years ago, my agency at DOL was told that only 10% of us were "outstanding." Ever since, the tone at evaluation time is deadly, and morale has gone down accordingly. With a quota such as this, only the favorites get "outstanding." Each year I exceed in all but one area, a different area each time. This year I already know that I will not be exceeding in the "writing" area. My supervisor knit-picks everything and now tells me that my sentences are not sentences. (If a sentence has a subject, verb, and object, it is a sentence.) I now keep a file of all the criticisms, and have written a memo predicting my rating. Should be fun come September. I have also seen this quota system in other DOL agencies, having seen a matrix of the employee, the rating, and corresponding award two months before the rating year ended. Unfortunately, those who have access to these memos are afraid to come forward. This is not an isolated phenomenon.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Quotas
    For 2011FY, my branch chief was told by the division chief that he had too many 5's (highest rating) in his branch and that he had to lower some of the ratings. Fortunately, my branch chief did not fold to the pressure. He went to HR and the division was told he could not pressure branch chiefs to lower ratings. All in my branch that got 5s deserved them. It's all a game of politics. I'm sure the division chief had no problem with the high ratings his cronies gave. A few years before that (different division chief) their were to be no ratings lower than 3. What a crock.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }