Should Government employeess pay be linked to performance?

[Socrates]

This article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1JeuMF4zlp71Kv0vQCM3t-yJbxwD98NUHVO0) from the AP contains a few interesting nuggets.

President Barack Obama will ask Congress to give shareholders a nonbinding voice on executive pay in an effort to link compensation to long-term performance rather than short-term gains, the official said.
How can you give shareholders a "nonbinding voice?" Why not give them a binding voice?

While the shareholder votes would not be binding, they would shed more light on skyrocketing executive pay and exert pressure on boards of directors. The administration believes the so-called "say-on-pay" plan will make directors more accountable to shareholders.
Shouldn't we make federal employees accountable to the taxpayer? We don't really have a voice in how the various bureaucracies operate but we are footing the bill. If accountability is good for business, why don't we do the same thing in government? Rush was reading my mind on this today.

Federal bureaucrats loathe the idea of being paid based on performance, long-term or otherwise. The idea of doing so got floated while I was working for the feds and the employees came absolutely unglued. The thought of having to earn pay raises instead of getting them just for showing up was utterly foreign and offensive to them.

Granted there are federal employees who do a lot of work but there is so much waste built into the system that a lot of effort gets expended doing worthless tasks that benefit no one. From the employee's perspective he's working hard, but few of them stop to think whether what they're working hard on is serving any useful purpose. There is no profit motive. There is no motive to improve efficiency because that would require, in many cases, acknowledging that one's own job is unnecessary.

So as long as there is so much waste in the government system, I think we should eliminate all bonuses, cash awards, step increases, budget increases and implement a freeze on hiring until the federal government is operating in the black.

[CrusaderFrank]

Either repeal the 16th Amendment or put Congress on Commission and please do so before a real civil war breaks out

[B' en Natuf]

Yes, and no elected official should be paid accept out of the excess of a surplus general fund... except in time of war.

[Socrates]

Yes, and no elected official should be paid accept out of the excess of a surplus general fund... except in time of war.

Pay for elected officials is a drop in the bucket and at least we have some say about them come voting time.

I'm talking about the career government employees. They don't deserve any rewards as long as the government is run as inefficiently as it is, but every year like clockwork nearly every one of them gets a raise. Many of them get bonuses and cash awards. Most of them accrue a whole day of paid vacation every two weeks. Entire reorganizations are conducted to allow good ol' boy executives to maintain their positions even when there is no need for them. They invent work to keep themselves employed at taxpayers' expense. It's a complete disaster how a federal bureaucracy operates. Running a private business the same way would land you in jail.

[B' en Natuf]

Pay for elected officials is a drop in the bucket and at least we have some say about them come voting time.

I'm talking about the career government employees. They don't deserve any rewards as long as the government is run as inefficiently as it is, but every year like clockwork nearly every one of them gets a raise. Many of them get bonuses and cash awards. Most of them accrue a whole day of paid vacation every two weeks. Entire reorganizations are conducted to allow good ol' boy executives to maintain their positions even when there is no need for them. They invent work to keep themselves employed at taxpayers' expense. It's a complete disaster how a federal bureaucracy operates. Running a private business the same way would land you in jail.If you have incompetent employees you don't withhold their pay... you fire them.

[Socrates]

If you have incompetent employees you don't withhold their pay... you fire them.
Good call. But you have to crawl before you can walk.

It's virtually impossible to fire a federal employee for being merely incompetent. In fifteen years I only knew of one guy fired for incompetence and he got rehired by the same agency in a different city. :))

[harumph]

This article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1JeuMF4zlp71Kv0vQCM3t-yJbxwD98NUHVO0) from the AP contains a few interesting nuggets.


How can you give shareholders a "nonbinding voice?" Why not give them a binding voice?


Shouldn't we make federal employees accountable to the taxpayer? We don't really have a voice in how the various bureaucracies operate but we are footing the bill. If accountability is good for business, why don't we do the same thing in government? Rush was reading my mind on this today.

Federal bureaucrats loathe the idea of being paid based on performance, long-term or otherwise. The idea of doing so got floated while I was working for the feds and the employees came absolutely unglued. The thought of having to earn pay raises instead of getting them just for showing up was utterly foreign and offensive to them.

Granted there are federal employees who do a lot of work but there is so much waste built into the system that a lot of effort gets expended doing worthless tasks that benefit no one. From the employee's perspective he's working hard, but few of them stop to think whether what they're working hard on is serving any useful purpose. There is no profit motive. There is no motive to improve efficiency because that would require, in many cases, acknowledging that one's own job is unnecessary.

So as long as there is so much waste in the government system, I think we should eliminate all bonuses, cash awards, step increases, budget increases and implement a freeze on hiring until the federal government is operating in the black.

Can we fire the head guy, first?

[Kegler300]

Many federal employees fall under the National Security Personnel System which is a performance based evaluation and pay system.

[Socrates]

Can we fire the head guy, first?
That's a different problem altogether.

No matter who you elect in his place, the beast I'm talking about will continue to gobble up more and more of your tax dollars.

[Socrates]

Many federal employees fall under the National Security Personnel System which is a performance based evaluation and pay system.
More of them don't.

[LouC]

"Should Government employeess pay be linked to performance?"

Oh dear that is a serious thread title but I read it and went into a fit of laughter that is still echoing through the building.

I would love to see that policy implemented, but as we all know people forcefully laboring for free went out of vogue in the 1860's.

[Getty Girl]

Good call. But you have to crawl before you can walk.

It's virtually impossible to fire a federal employee for being merely incompetent. In fifteen years I only knew of one guy fired for incompetence and he got rehired by the same agency in a different city. :)) its true my friend works for the gubmit, he said there is a guy who shows up for work drunk on a daily basis and its been going on for years. pathetic.

[Trinka]

Yes...and judging their job performance lately...they owe us big time!

[penner01]

If you have incompetent employees you don't withhold their pay... you fire them.Well, you know it's not that easy to fire a federal employee, but even a performance measurement system would take years to have an impact. Those non-producers are managed by people that got promoted to non-producing manager of non-producers. Realistic adherance to a performance pay system means the people at the top have to have a firm grasp on true quantifiable measurements and be willing to use it.

[nunyadb]

They won't pay us to show up, no matter how much they should.
Their performance is abysmal, their incentive to do better nonexistent,
and their "give-a-damn" doesn't even show up on the scale.

The best way to do it would be to simply go in and fire 50% of the beauracracy
right out the gate, then tell the remainder that if they can't keep up, they're next.
And then hire people who can do the job and you can get them for one whole
hell of a lot less.

[Socrates]

Well, you know it's not that easy to fire a federal employee, but even a performance measurement system would take years to have an impact. Those non-producers are managed by people that got promoted to non-producing manager of non-producers. Realistic adherance to a performance pay system means the people at the top have to have a firm grasp on true quantifiable measurements and be willing to use it.

The primary goal of every federal manager is to increase the number of people under him whether they do anything useful or not.

[LouC]

its true my friend works for the gubmit, he said there is a guy who shows up for work drunk on a daily basis and its been going on for years. pathetic.

I have not known but perhaps two Government employees personally that did not deserve to be fired.

I have not dealt directly with a Federal Government employee that was competent with the exception of one many years back in Dallas.

I have had extensive contact with many IRS and SSA employees and not one, not one, was competent in their positions.

Many State Government employees were no better with a few wonderfully surprising exceptions, again in Texas, in Houston actually.

My wife worked for the Federal Government in the DoD in Massachusetts and Texas, I met quite a large number of her coworkers, there were many of them that had obvious alcohol on their breath at all hours of the workday.

At least twice there were coworkers arrested for drunk driving during working hours, one in a Government vehicle.

[Socrates]

its true my friend works for the gubmit, he said there is a guy who shows up for work drunk on a daily basis and its been going on for years. pathetic.
We had one like that. Didn't have the required degree but demanded the promotion anyway. Showed up drunk quite often. Intentionally made a nuisance of themselves. When they finally fired the person they sued the agency and won a massive settlement because the lawyers didn't want to fight it in court.

[Socrates]

I have not known but perhaps two Government employees personally that did not deserve to be fired.

I have not dealt directly with a Federal Government employee that was competent with the exception of one many years back in Dallas.

I have had extensive contact with many IRS and SSA employees and not one, not one, was competent in their positions.

Many State Government employees were no better with a few wonderfully surprising exceptions, again in Texas, in Houston actually.

My wife worked for the Federal Government in the DoD in Massachusetts and Texas, I met quite a large number of her coworkers, there were many of them that had obvious alcohol on their breath at all hours of the workday.

At least twice there were coworkers arrested for drunk driving during working hours, one in a Government vehicle.

Don't get me wrong, there are some good people working for the federal government, people who put in a lot of hours and take pride in what they do. The problem is that many of their jobs are simply unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. It's a bloated mess.