General Schedule system is inherently discriminatory

In regard to "Federal unions attack pay-for-performance efforts," I take issue with the notion that the General Schedule pay scale is fair and a pay-for-performance system is inherently discriminatory. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true.

Where is the fairness in marginal and poor performers receiving the same step increase as a superior performer? Where is the incentive to excel? I certainly don't know. How is it discriminatory for a superior performer to be given a larger increase in pay than a poor performer? Sounds fair to me.

Unions project a victim mentality, routinely implicating that management is "out to get ya." It appears that unions are always striving to protect the least productive among us, while they are not too worried about top performers. The article quoted the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO as saying that pay-for-performance was based on subjectivity, as if subjectivity is a dirty word. Subjectivity allows a manager to at least strive for fairness, whereas the GS scale is certain to be unfair to top performers.

Anonymous

Featured

  • Image: Shutterstock

    COVID, black swans and gray rhinos

    Steven Kelman suggests we should spend more time planning for the known risks on the horizon.

  • IT Modernization
    businessman dragging old computer monitor (Ollyy/Shutterstock.com)

    Pro-bono technologists look to help cash-strapped states struggling with legacy systems

    As COVID-19 exposed vulnerabilities in state and local government IT systems, the newly formed U.S. Digital Response stepped in to help.

Stay Connected