5:05 pm, July 13, 2014

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.

  • 33

    Okay, let's try and attempt to understand this idiocy. Back in, oh I don't know, 2002 maybe, Donald Rumsfeld determined we needed to update the GS Pay Scale and System due to the fact it was not "safe". So, after years and millions of dollars are spent, we get NSPS. Which gets shelved within the first couple of years in effect. Now - with furloughs and terrorism knocking on our door, it is time to SPEND MORE MONEY to implement another new system? Back in the day, working for the Government was the best job you could get. Like I said, "back in the day". Now, Government workers are whipping people and ATMs.........
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • NSPS
    worked well for me because I am (or was) motivated. It was a paperwork nightmare and that is waht killed it along with the Union. The GS system would work if it was implimented correectly. Now it is impossible to fire somebody, everybody recieves top scores. Managment needs to act more like the private sector, good worker keeps his/her job and moves up the chain, poor worker gets shown the door.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You ever work for the Federal government?
    I have worked for the federal government for 23 year. I have seen many people fired. I saw NSPS and the silliness it generated. The paperwork was not a nightmare. It required supervisors to actually supervise their employees, not to just attend meetings and pretend to direct work. Unions were not involved because wage grade positions were not part of NSPS. It required supervisors to actually explain why they were giving bonuses and had a panel review it. All the panels ended up doing was telling supervisors to cut their evals to meet the budget. Later they forced supervisors to have 2 face to face meetings with employees to discuss their performance and what they are rated on. I don't really consider that a nightmare of paperwork. I am not a fan of NSPS, but the goal of using objective measures to evaluate performance was a good idea. It just doesn't work so well when your job changes every couple of months and your boss has little idea what your job actually is. I found evaluations to be just as arbitrary, just better documented.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I Liked NSPS's Concept ... But it was "paperwork" intensive
    I too am a highly motivated person; and I liked the NSPS concept. My command was already on a Pay-for-Performance system ("Demo Project") before NSPS; and had been since just a few years into my Navy civilian career (30 years ago). We are now back to the "Demo Project", but it's now called "APS". I actually liked NSPS's requirement that my job objectives had to be TIED to the command's objectives/goals. It was during NSPS that I truly grasped just HOW I fit into the overall scheme of my command, and made some alternative career path decisions that have worked out well for me. But, compared to our old system, it was much more paperwork intensive ... now, under our current APS, they've kept some of the good things about NSPS but eliminated some of the arduous "paperwork".
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Government Employees are paid to do "inherently government work"
    Sunna W
    Per the Merit System Principles (5 USC § 2301): Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity. All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights. Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance. All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest. The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively. Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards. Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education and training would result in better organizational and individual performance. Just follow the principles and get rid of poor performers!!!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Can I have some of that stuff you are on? Ha ha! Good ideas; too bad they are dreams.
    The Original Joe S
    Affirmative action: I got to the back of the line every time. "Thank you, Sir! May I have another?"
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Joe
    You are almost correct. Affirmative action and UNION contracts, minority contracts, local contracts, GREEN contracts also drive up Gov spending.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Your forgot
    Don't forget small business contracts. When you are trying to hire a small business to perform $100 million in work, you know you are going to have problems. Most of the time they just take their 10% off the top and subcontract it to a larger company that can actually perform the work. We also have rules that require going to Native American contractors for some jobs and they get at least a 25% markup for "tribal expenses" on everything. There is also the HUB Zone contracts to support economically isolated communities.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I'll get a $20k raise
    if I get paid what my private market counterparts get paid in the DC area. I think politicians who really would like us paid a similar rate to the private sector will be surprised. The number of federal workers with advance degrees far outweighs the private sector. Of course, the politicians will spin any numbers they can get their hands on to make sure we all make less money.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • OPM no longer relevant in federal HR - Oversight Committee needs to take lead in 21st Century
    Mr. Issa, please stop squandering tax dollars/funding the GAO to conduct yet another study of which GAO knows nothing about i.e. ”identify the attributes of a modern, effective classification system and the extent to which the GS system is consistent with those attributes.” All GAO will do is produce yet another anecdotal report which will read more like an abstract of a graduate intern's dissertation paid for by our tax dollars. This report as with other GAO reports will be long on methodology, discussion & appendixes but short on technical insight. This is because the GAO DOES NOT HAVE the technical capacity to compile, interpret and conclude on what needs to be compiled and addressed based on facts and figures involving the second part of this assignment. The first part is easy, just dream away, think outside the box, the sky is the limit, just like they the free-thinkers of the OPM leadership group...don't worry about the technical aspects, let's just brainstorm... Remember these mindsets have been the project leaders of all of OPM's failed initiatives due principally to lack of technical oversight at the OPM. And if the federal HR experts at the OPM can't figure this out how do you expect the GAO to get this right? What a waste! This is why the substantive aspect of this assignment which the federal HR experts at MSPB and OPM have yet to figure out themselves but not knowing what data to compile and how to look at that data will result in just another ancedotal report from the GAO which will offer just another one of GAO's interns from one of their sweetheart graduate school to participate in so they can receive credit toward their thesis or dissertation. How about we let Avue or some other organization with practical knowledge and experience in federal HR give you and us some real insight! As a matter of fact Issa, how about you commission both studies, one from the GAO and one from Avue or some other federal HR expert private organization. It would be interesting to see how different the reports will be. This will give you a real sense of how real and different the disconnect is between the GAO and real HR practitioners to conduct these types of studies. By the way, there is NOTHING WRONG with current classification and pay but how these programs are mis-administered by agency HR which is now operating without technical oversight from OPM has/is producing inconsistencies govtwide. John Berry openly proclaimed OPM was no longer policing pay and classification matters calling the current pay and classification program "out of control." Yet neither he or his leadership team of federal HR experts at the OPM have come up with ANY plan to replace the pay or classification system. Despite no longer providing oversight of these HR programs, both OPM and MSPB are still funded to oversee these programs. Since neither of these agencies are no longer providing oversight of these HR programs shouldn't you and your committee really be looking a pulling the funding OPM and MSPB are still receiving to perform this oversight? We have some ongoing problems, issues, inconsistencies throughout each agency and they all LEAD BACK TO HR Offices trying to do their best. However, as CHCOs put it, OPM has failed them because OPM is not providing adequate training to agency HR staff. Yet the job descriptions of agency CHCOs described CHCOs as masters of federal HR program yet they themselves are not capable of putting on any technical training for the benefit of their HR Specialists conducting day-to-day technical processing. Much more than a study is needed now - government wide. Reorganizing OPM or withholding funding from OPM would be a major start in order to begin a sorely needed change i.e. to reorganize the OPM so they can focus on their new mission which is not HR. Times have changed and so has the OPM - they no longer have the capacity to carry out their federal HR responsibilities and obligations. Time for a change and reorganization away from OPM in order to provide an effective, efficient and much more consistent HR program administration and leadership in the 21st Century than we have now. Things are so bad and in disarray the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee should have its own federal workforce data sets for monitoring a wide range of federal HR actions without having to keep asking the GAO to do yet another anecdotal report. What it will take GAO to develop in one week, or two weeks or one month, can be compiled for presentation in several hours complete with ratios, metrics and colorized pie charts. This is not rocket science folks but I am amazed at how we continue to let federal HR, led by OPM to continue to operate as if we were still in the 20th Century. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee should already have a standing set of workforce data sets for pulling data, trends, pie charts on-demand instead of commissioning another pencil and paper review by the old stand-by of non-experts i.e. the GAO. Sounds like the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is part of the problem. This committee should have access to workforce data on-demand which already exists in the private sector specifically designed for federal agencies. It provides profiles government wide, by Department, by sub-department, by Office, by Bureau, by region, etc. Neither the OPM, BLS of the DOL, GAO, MSPB, EEOC, OMB or the CBO have this program although it was offered to the OPM, MSPB and the GAO who never responded to the proposal. Oh, and by the way, the Presidential Innovation Fellows program and the Pathways internship program were simply revisions of old and existing federal hiring programs. They ARE NOT NEW FEDERAL HIRING programs instituted by the OPM as mentioned in this article. I am also willing to testify before this committee if invited. Otherwise, it will be business as usual...more of the same....
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }