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 in this discussion today. I've just returned from a packed Rayburn hearing room, where the House federal workforce subcommittee is hearing testimony on the new pay-for-performance system planned for the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats expressed concerns about the new system, and the Republican chairman urged the department to move cautiously in making personnel system changes. With that, let's go to the questions. Thanks for being readers!
_______________________
Wilmington, Del.:
I took a vacation day Monday to drive down to Washington, DCto interview for a federal job. I left Wilmington at 6 a.m. for a 10 a.m. appointment and made it just fine, only to find out that the federal government was closed! How many millions did that cost the taxpayers? I don't think I want to work there any more.
Stephen Barr: Yikes! That is a long haul for a wasted effort. As one of the washingtonpost.com reporters recently wrote, Washington quakes when it sees flakes.
But I'm surprised the agency was not open for the appointment. The government was on unscheduled leave Monday--so "essential" employees should have been there. The rough estimate is that it costs about $90 million when Washington-area offices close for the day. I can't say that I blame your reaction, but you might give them a second look. I'm sort of surprised that no one followed up with an apology for the confusion--and wasted trip.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Why do we need a new Government pay system? What this looks like is private industry mumble gumble. Since the Bush administration has been in office, we have been dealing more with business profit marginals than big brother oversight. When will the real story be told about what is truly at stake here? Looks like we are headed back to the rich and the poor series of events in history. The rich get richer and the poor well whatever!
Stephen Barr: The administration and some reform advocates object to the current practice--Congress approves an across-the-board raise and almost everyone gets it, regardless of whether they are meeting job expectations. By most accounts, we're talking about a small number of poor performers, but their impact is clearly beyond their number. So the Bush administration is going for the big overhaul at DHS and DoD, and hopes to follow with a government-wide change. Bush officials also see too many errors and outdated practices in the government's technology and financial management systems, so you get the trend toward outsourcing as a way to update systems. The details do make a difference, and I think we're hard pressed to get a comprehensive overview of what is happening inside agencies these days. I welcome all suggestions on how to better write about these changes.
_______________________
Corpus Christi, Tex.:
Ms. Lacey was here at NAS Corpus Christi two days ago. She never mentioned that pay for performance would also involve "job importance" as a factor. Your article on NASA pay for performance demonstates that if your manager doesn't think your job is that important your pay will be less than those who have more important jobs. What happened to the "performance-based" pay system? Ms. Lacey never mentioned "job importance," she would have had a major problem with the audience if she had mentioned this tidbit.
washingtonpost.com: Complaints About NASA Raises Follow Switch to Performance-Based System (Post, March 2)
Stephen Barr: An excellent point. One distinction to make: the NASA example involves Senior Executive Service pay, and NASA took the position that executives with the most job responsibilities would be eligible for the highest executive raises this year. NASA also says it took job performance into account.
The Defense Department system, NSPS, uses a different framework. It hopes to emphasize performance by giving larger raises to outstanding performers and no raises to unacceptable performers. NSPS would throw local market conditions into the mix when setting pay.
Still, as you point out, this is a tricky area. One of the challenges facing DoD, DHS and other agencies is how to explain pay changes and communicate why they are in the best interests of employees and taxpayers.
_______________________
Germantown, Md.:
Pay for performance would replace current pay system in DHS, DoD and eventually for all of the civil servants. Bush Administration feels that current systems ties managers hands to get rid of the poor performers. In my 25 years at DOE I have noted that most managers are of lower caliber than the employees they supervise. These mangers have abominable people skills and have gotten their jobs by doing the bidding of the office directors. Administration feels that they can be trained to be better managers. But they have received training in the past without any improvement in their managerial skills. Isn't giving them ore power over employees seems like the wrong approach?
Stephen Barr: Superb observation. Managers could turn into the Achilles' heel of performance-based pay. I've heard from many employees that they are willing to try performance pay but doubt that their management team is up to the task. Bush officials insist they will "hold managers accountable," but I suspect that is going to be difficult to do in an enterprise as vast as the federal government.
_______________________
Quantico, Va.:
As a federal employee who joined after many years in private industry, I have a big concern about some of the accountability ideas being proposed. At least in a private company, the boss has a need, at the end of the quarter, to show a profit. There are very real consequences to keeping someone who is a drag on the company, and there is a matching disincentive to marginalizing a highly productive employee who's not in the right social circles. I'd be happy to have my performance fairly evaluated, but it's just not possible. It's putting too much power in the hands of managers not trained to use it.
Stephen Barr: Good points, thanks. I think you and the previous reader are on the same track. Private-sector bosses have a range of options, and face similar but different pressures, that are not available in the federal government. Will federal managers get the right training to administer the new systems--that is the big question.
_______________________
Potomac, Md.:
I joined the Federal Government about a year ago after holding several senior management jobs in private industry. I am very impressed with the quality of the workforce and sincere desire work for the taxpayer's interest. As a result, I am very suprised at the present administration's interest in adopting personnel policies which appear to be moving the government backwards. W. Edwards Deming, the late quality expert noted that management solely by performance appraisal suboptimizes the effectiveness of an organization because a worker is more concerned about their bosses perception than the overall goals of the organization. Where is this short term view of how to manage people coming from in the administration?
Stephen Barr: I would argue that it's a fact of life that some people try to get ahead by impressing the boss; others get ahead because they are smart and charming, and still others get ahead because they keep plugging away. Some companies are built around "stars" and "the talent"; others foster teamwork and networking. From my perch, I say the government needs stars and team players, but more importantly, it needs career leaders. I'm not sure that these proposed systems hold that as a high enough value.
_______________________
Clifton, Va.:
Part of the problem with US Federal govt employment is to keep competent people you had to promote them. Many were promoted into management becasue that is the only way to pay them more. They had no desire to be managers but were forced to so they could earn more money. Any personnel system should be dual track one for managers and one for subject matter experts.
Stephen Barr: A good point. Hopefully, these "occupational clusters" that DHS is talking about will make that happen.
_______________________
Springfield, Va.:
Pay for performance is a great idea... if you are an EEO lawyer! Just wait and see how much management time we devote to responding to complaints from everyone who does not receive the highest possible raise.
Stephen Barr: A number of readers make similar predictions. It will be interesting to see if grievances shift from the union process or the MSPB process to the EEOC. I assume that such a shift would lead to an increase in settlements, which will include confidentiality clauses and never show up as a cost of business.
_______________________
FedLand, Washington, D.C.:
Stephen,
Over the weekend the news story about the "stolen" er "lost" Bank of America Visa card tapes broke. Even with the cover of an ongoing Secret Service investigation since December, why is this getting so little news attention? The million of us who may have lost our social security and other privacy data is an order of magnitude greater than the Choicepoint victims. But for the government to force us to use these credit cards, then for the banker to "lose" the tapes is terrible. There are many conflicting stories on which agencies were affected; my own sent us a short note about the incident Monday and nothing since then. And Bank of America who regularly harasses us by phone at work and home if a payment is late due to the usual agency bottlenecks in reimbursing us seems to have forgotten our addresses--I am checking my mailbox daily for their letter on this matter. I would appreciate seeing more daily updates in your column and the Post on this vitally important issue. Thank you.
Stephen Barr: Yes, this is a big deal, and I guess embarrassing to the bank and to the agencies. I give the Pentagon high marks for posting information on its Web home page and a friendly Q&A for employees. Other agencies, including GSA, did not move as fast. Now, officials told me they do not think any employee has had his/her personal information compromised. Officials also think these tapes are hard to crack, since you need special software to make sense of the data. Still, it is most worrisome. I'll be alert for new developments. Thanks for giving me the nudge.
_______________________
New Orleans, La.:
Is there any evidence that the missing employee data was actually stolen or just fell off the truck or plane? If this were a targated heist of the data then I am very concerned. But shouldn't there be some evidence of that. If not, I am less concerned but it doesn't speak well of BoA and the commerical carrier? How was this being shipped?
Stephen Barr: Congressional aides, who asked not to be identified, told reporters, including me, that the data was stolen off of a plane. But that's all I know. We'll keep looking for more details.
_______________________
Norfolk, Va.:
Any news about what the NSPS pay bands will look like?
Stephen Barr: There are no details on how employees fit into a pay band. You can look at page 7559 of the Feb. 14 Federal Register to see an example of what a pay band looks like.
Basically, it appears that DoD employees will be put into occupational groupings, then put on at least three pay schedules: entry level, full performance, and senior expert. Managers would be placed on a separate schedule.
I've no clue as to how DoD plans to crosswalk the 15-grade General Schedule into, say, three pay bands per occupation. I think a lot of this has yet to be designed.
_______________________
Richmond, Va.:
FAA employees who have topped out in their pay band have complained that their annual raises come in a 'lump sum' which are not included in 'high-three' pension calculations.
Is this same provision included in the new personnnel system for DoD and DHS? Is anything being done to address these complaints by FAA employees?
Stephen Barr: I don't think I've heard Bush officials directly address this issue for DHS and DoD employees. But it seems that the choice is to expand the top of the band or pay lump sums. FAA is studying the issue, but I'm not aware of any steps to satisfy employee concerns.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Raises for top performers at the FAA have not kept pace with COLA increases for the rest of the government. Isn't this just a stealth pay cut by the Bush administration?
Stephen Barr: Another tricky area. FAA employees believe they are not keeping pace with the GS system; FAA officials claim they are actually ahead of where they would be under the GS.
I would venture that if the new systems work as planned, some employees will be winners and some will be losers, probably more because of their occupation than their job performance. But that is only a guess by me.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
My payroll office did not charge me for my medical insurance for the first year I was working for the government. (Yes, I should have realized it, but didn't). Now they want me to pay back a years worth of health insurance in a ridiculously short amount of time (3 months), which is going to put a fairly big economic burden on me. Do you (or does anyone out there) know if I have any recourse to renegotiate the pay back time? (If I was in the private sector, I just would argue it was their mistake and try not to pay it, but I suppose that wont work with the feds.)
Stephen Barr: Simply amazing. I don't always check my pay stubs or pay records--this is a good reminder to all of us to never assume that things are as we expect them to be.
Sounds to me like you are stuck, but I would certainly argue that this pay back should be stretched out in a way that financial harm to you can be minimized. I think I would also check with a lawyer to see if there is a way to negotiate through this.
_______________________
Beltsville, Md.:
In response to Wilmington, Del., the Federal government was not closed on Monday. Employees were authorized to take unscheduled leave. I made it to work at my government agency as did many other employees. Some of us made the choice to leave early (taking annual leave). Not sure what government agency that was but all the reports were unscheduled leave...
Stephen Barr: Thanks for making this point.
_______________________
Stephen Barr: Looks like we've run out of time today for this discussion group. Thanks for joining in and taking the time to read this transcript. See you back here at noon next Wednesday!
_______________________
