It’s an interesting concept called collective bargaining.  Readers at “The Forum” know about the battles with the U.S. government and federal unions over adoption of new rules to govern how employees are evaluated, paid, promoted, demoted, and otherwise affected in their daily jobs.

Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers told DHS that they would not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court recent lower court rulings about this controversial personnel system.  Instead, DOJ essentially told the principles in this matter – government agency and unions – to sit down and work things out themselves.

As reported today in Stephen Barr’s column, everyone seems happy.  That’s odd.  Why wouldn’t they have done this before if it was such a great idea?  Do the words perverse and stubborn come to mind?

The Freedom of Information Act (commonly known in government circles as FOIA) was designed to allow citizens and the media much greater access to government files, deliberations, etc.

The following two articles, as well as other additional articles identified in these items appearing at govexec.com, show that further access to government information was recommended by a Senate panel last week.  Terry Kivlan’s September 22 article reports on the Open Government Act, a bill co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Cornyn (R-TX).  Daniel Pulliam’s August 28 piece talks about efforts to improve the FOIA process governmentwide.

Here we go again.  The neverending saga of performance evaluations, pay-for-performance, cronyism, etc., continues unabated in a world handicapped by imperfect, biased beings:  humans!

We’ve discussed this issue many times at Understanding Government.  Yet, it’s worth hammering home the point that we humans have these inherent faults, and biases, and bizarre perceptions that preclude development of a universally-accepted employee rating system.

Lest you feel that I’m totally cynically and call for an end to such discussions, allow me to explain.  We must continue to address this problem, if for no other reason than the phenomenon of prejudice may ease somewhat as we move forward.  I believe we’ve seen this occur in the area of race relations.  I think we can make similar improvements in devising and executing better means of fairly evaluating employee efforts in the workplace.

How can I be sure?

Because of a very close friend of mine.  If I were his employee, I’d never get the highest evaluation in my workgroup simply because he knows me.  He’s so sensitized to possibly showing favoritism that he would never allow himself to annoint me as best among the best.  Of course, he’s rather unusual, but if he can act this way, others may respond likewise.  Many probably are today.  Perhaps we focus too much on the negative.

As the attached article from James Colvard in Government Executive astutely states, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a system that works 100% of the time.  However, he offers an interesting alternative approach based on the military model.

I’m not saying performance appraisals are a hopelessly lost cause.  They simply represent one aspect of the human experience which we all must examine and consider very carefully.  I believe most people do, whether they are the evaluators or the evaluated.  We can hope that even more people will become increasingly mindful of the quirkiness – and danger – of sloppy implementation of such an important workplace process.

Here’s an interesting item from Government Executive about how much talking and interacting is too much.

A U.S. Senator in particular, Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), is concerned about the high costs associated with federal employees attending “conferences.”

As a former fed, I’ve seen or heard reports regarding my former agencies spending “X” number of dollars on certain seminars, meetings, or conferences and wonder:  “Was that necessary?”

What’s your experience?  Are expenses for conferences, travel, and out-of-town meetings, mostly justified?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

There’s been a lot of consternation about the government’s impending performance evaluation system, commonly referred to as “pay-for-performance.”  For sure, there will continue to be considerable coverage and discussion about this. 

Why?

Simply because it represents change — not only mere change – and alters (to an undetermined degree) how people receive money to put food on their tables, clothes on their backs, and shelter over their heads.  This is big stuff, and will remain so for quite a while.  So, sit back, and stay tuned to the numerous articles that will be coming your way in the next several months (years?).

Today’s offering describes how those in the Senior Executive Service (SES) view this system.  Surprise!  They don’t particular care for it either.  Some of this may be due to the fact that many details haven’t been completely – and perfectly – worked out yet.  Of course, they’ll never become perfect.  Today’s performance evaluation systems are far from perfect, too.  Ask any government employee.

Government execs (members of the Senior Executive Service, SES) were among the first two years ago to be placed on this system.  Karen Rutzick’s article in Government Executive uncovers some foibles of the new system, which closely resemble evaluation and compensation issues that have been long-standing in government, and in overall society, for that matter. 

You’ll find one particular comment amusing.  An executive laments that his decision to financially recognize one subordinate was overridden by his boss “because it just wasn’t his ‘turn’ to get an outstanding” rating.  [I don’t cite this case to mock one of our higher-ups.  I mention it to expose the inherent shortcomings in any pay system.  During my federal career, I heard that excuse many times, either affecting my pay or that of one of my workers.]  Officially, that executive’s manager ‘was not supposed to’ withhold an award for that reason; however, we know, and this is the “real” problem, that people don’t always do what they are supposed to do.

Read Karen’s article, and tell us what you think.  Can anyone devise a universally accepted performance evaluation system?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

Here’s a thought:  a greater percentage of government employees belongs to unions than do their private sector counterparts.

Much has been written over the past few decades about the declining roles of unions in American life.  This has dealt primarily with the private sector.  People don’t usually think too much about government workers joining unions, as many are prohibited from engaging in the most visible and powerful aspect of such membership:  The Strike!

So — Is this a good thing?  Does it matter?

Karen Rutzick’s article from Government Executive lays out the issue.

This article follows in perfect juxtaposition to yesterday’s posting about pay-for-performance being here to stay. 

True, Ward Mannering’s article in Government Executive by  is rather cynical, but I believe a careful reading would be enlightening and beneficial.  Ward’s on point about ineffective systems, window-dressing approaches, and empty solutions.  At least, that’s my take on the world.

Thirteen years ago, I wrote an essay prescribing management essentials.  My article addresses more steps than Mr. Mannering’s, but he and I are largely on the same wavelength.

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

Question: How do you turn a $100,000 per year job into one earning $80,000? 

Answer:  …by working harder and longer.

At least that’s the message today for attorneys working at the Department of Justice (DOJ).  For years these high-powered, intellectual types were “expected,” presumably as salaried sorts, to work more than the average bear.  Thus, 40-hour workweeks were unknown.  More was better.

For years, DOJ lawyers have been petitioning for proper recompense.  As noted in Stephen Barr’s article today, a federal circuit court said:  Nope, no overtime (OT) for the overworked barristers.

Why not?  OT was neither requested nor approved in writing.  This is another example of the classic oral agreement not being worth the paper it’s written on. 

Even though OT was culturally expected in this organization, it was not official, at least not per the standing rules of the road.  Thus, these well-educated folks, many of whom may still be paying off college loans for their high-powered legal degrees, are out of luck. 

Rather than being high-flying, elites in the organization, they have been financially demoted and now probably earn very close to what some lower-grade fellow employees are paid. 

How does this happen?

It’s the new “Pay” math.  If you work 50 hours a week – a mere pittance for attorney types – but are salaried based on 40 hours, your effective hourly rate is only 80% of the stated amount.  By extension, your annual salary is 20% lower, too.

Of course, if you wish to get really into this, and consider the financial impact of your average workaholic, then someone who’s working 60 hours a week for a position worth $100,000 annually effectively makes $66,666.67.  An eager eighty-hour a week worker pulls down a numbing $50,000 annually. 

So, make sure you understand this “new” math.  The more you work, the less you earn.  It’s simple.  Anyone can do it.  It’s up to you.

Fred Apelquist

Wondering if pay-for-performance is here to stay?  Wonder no longer.  The system is already entrenched, even though more road tests need to be conducted, and legal challenges to this new system in mega-agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense remain to be resolved.

Karen Rutzick’s govexec.com article tells a tale that is not unlike a visitor who stops by for a cup of coffee and winds up living in your basement for two years.  She chronicles the key features of the impetus for pay-for-performance, the Working for America Act, which suggests that pay-for-performance has worked its way into government service.  It’s just a matter of time before everyone recognizes that it’s here to stay.

Clearly, most people support the concept of compensating workers for working effectively.  No longer will the public accept reports of under-performing public servants who can’t be easily demoted or terminated.  Unions, of course, wish to protect members from their supervisor’s arbitrary and capricious actions, which all fair-minded people also support.  Yet, the next task is to iron out the kinks and craft the rules and regulations of an effective personnel management system. 

As Karen writes, there many ongoing demonstration projects in various agencies and these numbers continue to grow.  As more and more real-life experiences are being garnered, the more likely the final product can include fair, realistic, and effective procedures that will protect agencies, employees, and, most important, taxpayers.

It’s difficult to imagine many Americans who are unaware of today’s ominous anniversary.  Most around the planet probably know of its significance, too.

Five years may not seem like a long time to some, but to suffering Americans, bred on the 30-minute TV episode or the 4-hour mini-series, anything in the world should be accomplished within such a lengthy span as a half-decade.  Already the domestic waters have filled with those proclaiming that the Iraq War has gone on longer than World War II.  Of course, the inception of the War on Terror from the American perspective, goes back at least to the latter 1980’s when the Marine Corps base at Beirut was bombed.  The time between that event and today certainly has also taken longer than the conduct of World War II.

Such comparisons, of course, are specious.  Pardon the slight exaggeration, but the Allied and the Axis forces essentially faced each other is a locked-cage encounter.  Battles were mostly confined to well-defined prescribed geographic areas where the method of combat was well understood and generally adhered to by both sides.  Such scenarios don’t exist in today’s War on Terror.

Politics aside, and that’s almost impossible as Election time nears, both parties want us to believe that they can “win” or “stop” this conflict in relatively short order.  My first reaction to them is, going back to the long five years portrayal, why have you waited so long?  Why haven’t you eradicated this threat by now?

We know that the answer is because the task isn’t that easy, although we wish it were, as we’ve been raised to believe all such problems are easily and quickly resolved.  Our national ethic is that we need only apply ourselves.  This conflict doesn’t fit into our current paradigms, and it’s now hard to conceive of an actual “end,” i.e., a full and complete cessation of hostilities.  With this new enemy, all that is required is one disillusioned warrior, who would be more than willing to step up to the nearest food market, airport terminal, or school yard, and blow himself and others to smithereens.

How will we combat this long and enduring threat?  Regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats control the administration or the Congress, whether they work independently or in a bi-partisan manner, whether they pursue some bold new creative means to fight this war, the one sure bet is that those in the trenches will be Executive Branch employees.

As we remember those horrid events five years ago, we recall the firefighters, police, and other first-responders who put their lives on the line to help their fellow citizens.  We also recognize the many civilians who, as responsible, compassionate citizens, pitched in to aid in any way they could.

So, as we move forward in this fight, government workers will be at the forefront.  Whether it’s the Special Ops soldiers hidden in the wilds of Afghanistan or the intelligence analysts in Langley, Virginia, all folks will be pulling together to achieve the ultimate Mission:  Peace.

There’s no doubt in my mind of the outcome.  We shall prevail.  The only question is how long it will take.

Fred Apelquist