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

  • Defense
    Ryan D. McCarthy being sworn in as Army Secretary Oct. 10, 2019. (Photo credit: Sgt. Dana Clarke/U.S. Army)

    Army wants to spend nearly $1B on cloud, data by 2025

    Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said lack of funding or a potential delay in the JEDI cloud bid "strikes to the heart of our concern."

  • Congress
    Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) at the Hack the Capitol conference Sept. 20, 2018

    Jim Langevin's view from the Hill

    As chairman of of the Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committe and a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rhode Island Democrat Jim Langevin is one of the most influential voices on cybersecurity in Congress.

Stay Connected

FCW INSIDER

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.