The Post's Stephen Barr is the author of The Federal Diary, which runs Sunday through Friday in the Metro section. Steve has been a reporter and editor at The Post since 1979, including stints as Federal Page editor, congressional editor and a staff writer covering the federal bureaucracy. He takes the column live to answer your questions Wednesdays at noon ET.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
_____________
Stephen Barr: Thanks to all joining this discussion today. We're in the middle of a busy week. The anthrax incidents are a special burden for postal employees and Defense employees--a reminder that we've still got 9/11 issues to deal with in a more effective manner. The Pentagon, meanwhile, continues to say it is ready to go ahead with plans for a new personnel system that continues to cause some concern in the workforce. But enough of this--what's on your mind today?
_______________________
Germantown, Md.:
Congressman Wolf is trying to penalize the agencies which fail to meet the goal for telecommuting financially. If penalty of 5 percent fails to wake up the agenicies he would increase the penalty to 25 percent.
However, the mangers approving telecommuting requests are mostly opposed. They don't believe that the employees work when they are working at home or at telecommuting centers. They see it as perk for employees and approve it for only their favorites. They also don't want to do the extra work of assigning work and making sure that work is completed in normal time. Why have these unnecessary hassels when you can keep a watch over the employer as their desk in the office.
But I could not help share a story regarding the reluctance of the federal managers to be supportive of telecommuting. Few years ago then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson (now Governor of New Mexico) had an all hands meeting in the Germantown cafeteria where he expressed his support for telecommuting. On behalf of several fellow employees I asked Secretary Richardson if knew that many of his managers were opposed to telecommuting. Secretary Richardson asked me who these managers were. I stated that answering this question would be career limiting for me. We have had two Secretaries since then but the managers barely tolerate telecommuting even though DOE/NTEU collective bargaining agreement clearly provides it. With the pay for performance coming to agencies employees will not want to displease their supervisors who are opposed to telecommuting. So I guess DOE will be hit by penalty!
Any comment?
DOE Germantown
Stephen Barr: Thanks for this first-hand testimony. I'm the first to admit that telecommuting poses a lot of problems for managers. But Rep. Wolf has gathered testimony from corporations that shows there are payoffs in increased productivity and that it does indeed take cars off congested highways.
Studies also show that pay for performance works in the private sector. You raise the key point--if managers are reluctant to give telecommuting a try, how much energy will they put into performance ratings? Probably a lot more, because at Defense and Homeland Security their job ratings will be determined by how well they handle their staffs. They also might be willing to try some innovations at that point--surely, agencies will rate managers on how well they keep employees happy and how much they increase productivity?
Or am I in fantasy land here? Let me know.
_______________________
Washington D.C.:
I work for a federal agency, and spend at least two weekends a month on foreign travel. My colleagues and I were very excited about the new regs for getting comp time, but we haven't seen anything implemented yet. I've aske dour HR person, and she said there's no system in place, and until there is, we don't get comp time. I'm no worse off than before, but do you know what the status is for getting the comp-time-for-travel system in place?
Stephen Barr: The Office of Personnel Management issued regulations and guidelines in late January. OPM left it to each agency to set up a program. You might ask your HR person to look at the OPM web site or call OPM for assistance.
_______________________
El Paso, Tex.:
The comments and questions I've come across so far regarding the NSPS seems to skirt around this issue: it would appear this system gives supervisors enormous power. Human nature being what it is, how is this system designed to prevent covert abuse of power, whether it's favoritism, discrimination, personality conflicts, or any other form of adverse form of maltreatment directed towards subordinates? Some supervisors have elevated this type of abuse to an art and have very strategic methods of delivery. Thank you.
Stephen Barr: The Pentagon's plan for the National Security Personnel System does give management more leeway in setting pay and in rating employee performance. I suspect there is always a certain percentage of managers and employees who abuse their responsibilities or take advantage of their rights. The ones who do this now will keep on doing it, so the trick for the Pentagon is to take swift and corrective action when an employee lodges a valid complaint.
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.:
Regarding telecommuting, there are employees who are "slugs" while at the office. Just imagine what they would be like if allowed to work at home. They would be the first to go to their union if the supervisor imposed the "show me what you did on your telecommuting day" rule.
One of the ladies in our office used her telecommute day to take her daughter to dance school and was upset when the supervisor gave her LWOP for that time period when he found out.
Stephen Barr: Good point. I would hope managers could separate out the slugs and get them focused. Advocates of performance pay, by the way, claim it encourages the slugs to move on and work elsewhere.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Steve, how do you think Defense is doing on the NSPS? Thanks.
Stephen Barr: The framework, in general, looks okay. But you have to worry that the rollback of union rights could backfire, and you have to worry that the training money won't show up in time, and you have to worry that managers will not be able to provide a consistent message that inspires folks. At a Senate hearing this week, I came away thinking that Defense needs to do a better job of selling this to employees. Navy Secretary Gordon England is a gifted communicator, and Defense should get him out on this more.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Do you believe the new system will hold managers/supervisors accountable for accurately rating and rewarding employees? If yes, what controls do you see in place to "enforce"?
Stephen Barr: It's not about the system, it's about the leaders. Will DoD and DHS leaders do this every day, day in and day out? I'm no expert, but GAO thinks steps can be taken to create a transparent process for ratings and pay raises. Upper level management will have to act as enforcers when supervisors fail to perform and do right by employees.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
From the comments or feedback you have received, would you say a greater or fewer number of rank-and-file employees are in favor of pay banding than the current 15 grade position classification system? Is the same true for managers?
Stephen Barr: I'm not aware of any reliable data that would answer your question. My guess, based on what I've heard, is that most managers will like the system because it gives them greater leeway in setting starting salaries. I think most employees will like pay bands, since they can get faster raises without having to compete for promotions. But once you hit the top of a pay band, you may be stuck with lump-sum payments that don't count toward base pay, and so I think some older employees may be more skeptical.
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.:
What is your opinion on whether or not that employees trust their supervisor completely on the matter of a performance rating? Some offices give out Outstanding ratings or Highly Satisfactory to everyone while others truly believe that an employee has to be walking on water to deserve more than a Satisfactory.
Stephen Barr: Some surveys show that a majority of federal employees feel their managers fall short in numerous ways. Trust is a big factor here, and DoD and DHS are assuming that their managers will spend more time talking to and counseling employees on goals and projects than happens now. Publishing the ratings on an internal Web site might help, since employees could figure out where they fall in the ratings.
_______________________
Dale City, Va.:
I am lucky enough to work for a progressive boss. I work at home two days a week. Our division has several employees (about 20 percent) who telecommute. However, there are two other divisions in our agencies. None of their employees can get approval to telecommute for even one day a week. This seems very unfair and short-sighted to me.
If an employee is not going to work when they are offsite, the odds are very high that they are not producing when seated at their desks either. If a manager does not see what their employee is contributing they should act on that lack of production whether the employee is in the office or offsite. Why should an employee who shows up everyday but does nothing get higher marks than one who accomplishes more but isn't in the office?
Stephen Barr: Great comment. I think we all know how to answer your question.
_______________________
Mechanicsburg, Pa.:
My concern is that some of us are not in control of what work we have. On any given day there may be some people with little or no work to do while others have an overabundance of work. We are project driven which derives another inconsistancy in performance awards. Few people are put on hot projects that generally are awarded very favorably. Others that do the mundane every day processing are not awarded as much. It is NOT someones choice to do the regular tasks for the command. How will this new personnel system take that into account?
Stephen Barr: Tough question. The new system will mean that employees have to get in the boss's face and point out that they have the skills needed for this or that project/job. How this plays out is a big unknown. But you raise a good point, which I've heard from others.
_______________________
Gaithersburg, Md.:
Our agency is considering a proposal to OMB which includes barring any COLA for poor-performing employees. I say, YES! DO IT!. It's about time that poor performers are held accountable for their actions (or lack of actions). It's bad enough that they are still earning paychecks!
Stephen Barr: This is a controversial area. Does this proposal imply that a person is worthy of holding a government job even when they are not worthy of a pay raise? Is this the right path to holding people accountable? Help me out, folks.
_______________________
RE: Slugs moving elsewhere:
I think pay for performance will make a lot of people, not just the slugs, move elsewhere. This is particularly true in the professions (accountant, attorney, etc) where they could be making a TON more money in the private sector. One of the reasons to stay with the gov't (especially early in one's career) is the guarantee that if you do your work, you'll get a grade increase each year for the first few years.
In my dep't, one or two slugs didn't get their grade increase and stayed (so, that kills you "slugs will leave" thought). How is this different than pay for performance? I did well and got my grade increase. Someone else didn't and did not receive his/her grade increase. If the managers can't implement the GS system correctly, why should we believe they can do better with "pay for performance"?
Stephen Barr: Good point. As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, I don't think systems make all that much of a difference--it is the leadership that counts. I sometimes fear that DoD and DHS are over-promising--the administration may be surprised to learn how many top performers it has, and then may find it does not have enough budget money to meet their expectations.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Regarding the proposal by the agency to withhold COLA for poor performers, I think that sounds like a good idea as a FIRST step in either encouraging the poor performers to improve (maybe the COLA withholding will go hand-in-hand with a Performance Improvement Plan) or in getting rid of the poor performer. As we all know, getting rid of poor performers in the government takes a lot of time.
Stephen Barr: Well said. Thanks.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
RE: COLA. Though no federal employee receives a COLA (that's a term for pensions), barring any kind of raise sounds like a dangerous idea. I think in my office it would be appropriately applied (only to the poorest nonperformers), but our managers seem to have the apportionment of bonuses down correctly. I fear that power in hands of managers who are not well trained and/or conscientious.
Stephen Barr: Training will be a key. Thanks.
_______________________
New Cumberland, Pa.:
The proposed NSPS rules (Federal Register/Vol 70 N0.29) Para 9901.910 Management Rights (a)(2) states Nothing in this subpart may affect the authority of any management official or supervisor of the department: To hire, assign, and direct employees in the Department; to assign work, make determinations with respect to contracting out, and to determine which Departmental operations may be conducted; to determine the numbers, types, pay schedules, pay bands and/or grades of employees or positions assigned to any organizational subdivision, work project or tour of duty, and the technology, methods, and means of performing work; to assign employees to meet operational demand; and to take whatever other actions may be necessary to carry out the Department's mission.
Would this be interpreted to include what is now know as "deployability" for DoD employees - assignment to other duty locations, including overseas?
Stephen Barr: Defense officials tell me that the goal is not to send employees overseas but to more easily shift them around at their facility--say from one part of a shipyard to another. But you raise a good point--this provision is making lots of folks nervous.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Oh, great -- according to Wheaton, telecommuting is bad because it gives working moms the opportunity for being "slugs". Shame on her for not reporting her time properly, but was it necessary to pick on her? What about another "slug" who might be spending time instead sipping lattes at Starbucks and perusing the Post? For that matter, how is that different from the "slug" buying latte and bringing it back to his desk to read the Post online at the office? I'll bet more productivity is lost to the latter than a mom taking her kids to dance class.
Slugs are problem, telecommuting or not. Don't bring down telecommuting because manager can't supervise their employees adequately.
Stephen Barr: Good points. (I'm biased, of course. Keep reading The Post and coming to washingtonpost.com)
_______________________
Maryland:
Pay for performance -- until judgment is taken out of the final decision process, there will always be concern from employees on the issue of favoritism. The problem with performance appraisals is that each supervisor interprets things differently -- there is no concrete way to evaluate across all programs and all positions because of this.
In regards to telecommuting, it's a great idea, but many jobs do not lend themselves to telecommuting. Supervisors jobs become more complex when employees telecommute. If all employees were honest it might not be a problem. Remember, supervisors have to apply policies fairly and sometimes its easier to allow no one to participate rather than risking getting complaints.
Stephen Barr: Good points, Maryland. Consistency is a key to creating the sense that performance pay is administered fairly. It could be tough to pull off at DoD and DHS, since the field commanders will each put their stamp on the HQs guidelines.
_______________________
Clifton, Va.:
Problem in DOD is many of us work with info that is either protected under the Privacy Act or is at the very least FOUO if not classified. This makes telecommuting costly and difficult because you need a secure system and storage.
Stephen Barr: Good point. As an earlier person noted, telecommuting should be a case-by-case decision. Still, every few weeks I see someone reading what appears to be a classified paper on the Orange Line here.
_______________________
Laurel, Md.:
Isn't this new pay system just a form of "Union Busting" by the Bush Admin.? If this program is put in place, do you think that the two or three largest Federal/State unions will have to merge? e.i AFGE, AFSME and TWEU.
Stephen Barr: Unions will tell you that the new labor-management procedures, which scale back bargaining on important issues, is where the so-called union busting will take place. I don't expect any union mergers in the short term, but who knows over the long term. NSPS may encourage more people to join unions. Hard to forecast here.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
I'm trying to find out why all Dept. of Labor
employees must go through airport-like security every day while other goverment workers at EPA, GAO and FTC just have to show there employee badges. What do you think of this practice? To me it is an aggrevating waste of time and money. There are often very long lines around 9 a.m. and after fire-drills when they make eyeryone go through security again. Thanks for your help!
Stephen Barr: Perhaps Labor has not invested in new equipment for scanning badges? Perhaps management perceives higher security risks, since Labor is near Capitol Hill? You are right--everyone does security differently, it seems.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.:
I understand the NSPS will also change retirement computations for Federal retirees...from the current "High three years" to "High five years" instead. That would permanently lower pensions for Federal retirees retiring following implementation of NSPS... which has nothing to do with the advertised intent of NSPS and should NOT be part of nor included within the scope of pay-for-performance and expedited hire/separate processes by NSPS.
Stephen Barr: NSPS will not change the retirement formula. In theory, if you get a series of lump-sums that don't count toward base pay, then perhaps your high-3 would be lower. I think we need more details before jumping to conclusions here.
_______________________
Orlando, Fla.:
Mr. Barr:
What can you tell us about the current situation at the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)? It is my feeling that Scott Bloch sees himself as being there to shut down the agency and dispose of cases. I would appreciate hearing your insights on this situation and any thoughts you have on legal due process for civil servants.
Stephen Barr: Mr. Bloch is conducting a reorganization and it appears that he has had problems selling the reorg to his employees. I'm told some are leaving for other federal agencies. OSC is a reminder that agency leaders need to build consensus inside their shops before launching reorganizations. Hopefully, Sens. Voinovich and Akaka will come through on a promised hearing and see if Mr. Bloch's decisions are good for the taxpayers.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Interesting article on bonuses yesterday. For comparison purposes, I was wondering if you could post a link to the article from about a year ago that discussed 2002 bonuses -- I can't find it on the Web site. I think it also had a separate chart that broke down bonuses by agency. Thanks for all your great reporting!
washingtonpost.com: OPM Reports Increase in Spending on Performance Bonuses (Post, March 15)
Stephen Barr: Thanks much. Here's a link to what I think you are seeking:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/fedpage/
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Re: "They also might be willing to try some innovations at that point--surely, agencies will rate managers on how well they keep employees happy and how much they increase productivity?"
Sorry, you are in fantasy. Agencies will rate managers much as they do now, not on keeping employees happy, but on how the level one managers keep the level two managers happy and so on. Innovation is in short supply at the managerial level in gov't (at least in my experience), and long in strong reluctance to change (ie telecommuting).
Stephen Barr: Darn. Oh well, I'll keep trying to get in the real world.
_______________________
Travis AFB, Calif.:
Who were the final appointees to the Base Realignment and Closure Commision, and what is the address to send them input?
Stephen Barr: The names were posted on the Pentagon web site this morning. Check 'em out at www.defenselink.mil. The commission also has set up a web page, according to the announcement.
Once again, I've run out of time today. Thanks to all of you joining in, and all of you taking the time to read this transcript. As usual, there were more questions rolling in than I could handle. I'm off for spring break next week, so we will resume our discussion on March 30. Best to all!
_______________________
