9:10 am, April 26, 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.

  • 14
       

  • Ratings
    Moderate
    In my agency they rate quantity over quality. How much work can you close? Therefore, if the issue is complex and takes a great deal of time, you are not encouraged to do it. They mouth the quality issue, but emphasize the quantity issue. Our work should be based on quality. Oh well, I am leaving in the not distant future anyway.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • What do performance ratings really measure?
    fedexp
    With how they are currently used, nothing. Its all just a game. If you dispute it, there is payback and abuse.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • My observations
    follyfrog
    I've seen the same worker get an average rating or outstanding rating depending on who their boss was, when they did more when they got the average rating than they did when they got the outstanding rating. A lot depends on if you are in the same group (women, men, older, younger, race, etc.) as the boss. How to make evaluations more objective is beyond me. In one instance I've seen an objective rating when an employee pushed for a better rating by going to union reps, who suggested they show a record of the work they've done, and insist on the higher rating, but instances of that happening are probably few and far between. I still am all for pay for performance, though, as right now its the only raise I'm getting, and I don't think its always negative, because, in some instances I've seen workers do positive things in order to try and get better ratings. Though there isn't as much incentive in that way now I suppose with the increases so low. Also, I've seen outstanding employees rewarded for outstanding efforts without having to go to unions. Instances of that outstanding effort have been observed by me not that often, but I've seen it. A lot of it has to do with who the boss likes and office politics, but sometimes those who can do that are also very outstanding workers. That's called life, I suppose.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • It's not about the ratings, it's about the money
    Little Professor
    There is only a certain percentage of money set aside by each agency for awards. The reason you have to "downgrade ratings" is because the appraisals are tied to that set pool of money. So, it your agency, for example, says everyone who gets an outstanding (O) receives $5000, and everyone who gets a highly successful(HS) gets $3000, do the math.If your entire agency feels they are an O or HS, you are going to run out of money quickly. If the powers that be try to increase the awards pool, they end up on the front page of the Post for the outrageous amout on money they are giving out in awards. There is no solution to this whole mess except to decouple the ratings from performance bonuses, and then the argument can be about what it truly is all about--money.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }