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

  • IT Modernization
    shutterstock image By enzozo; photo ID: 319763930

    OMB provides key guidance for TMF proposals amid surge in submissions

    Deputy Federal CIO Maria Roat details what makes for a winning Technology Modernization Fund proposal as agencies continue to submit major IT projects for potential funding.

  • gears and money (zaozaa19/Shutterstock.com)

    Worries from a Democrat about the Biden administration and federal procurement

    Steve Kelman is concerned that the push for more spending with small disadvantaged businesses will detract from the goal of getting the best deal for agencies and taxpayers.

Stay Connected