Workforce

Is there a future for the General Schedule?

question mark

Scandals involving career officials at the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs have contributed to a push for changes in the way public employees are hired and fired. But a wholesale overhaul of the General Service system, in place since 1949, will require focus and political will, witnesses at a July 15 House hearing made clear. Designed for an era when government jobs involved more manual labor and clerical work, the GS doesn't match well with the highly specialized and often technical roles in demand by government agencies.

"It's complicated, and it has to be addressed systemically," said Robert Goldenkoff, director for strategic issues at the Government Accountability Office. The preliminary findings of an ongoing GAO review of GS classification indicate that the Office of Personnel Management could do more to make federal employment and compensation more equitable, transparent, flexible, simple and adaptable. "We're driving a Studebaker, when we need smart cars," Goldenkoff said.

The use of the GS system to classify and compensate more than 80 percent of the federal workforce ignores the reality of the current labor market, said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), chairman of the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Census Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Reform Reform panel. "It's no wonder we continue to bear the burden of inefficient and unacceptable and unaccountable federal government."

Katherine Archuleta, director of the Office of Personnel Management, asserted that the GS system has been adapted to the modern workplace, and functions as a tool to reward employees for good performance. Archuleta, who is in charge of implementing the GS, said her job involves "making use of the flexibilities that the current system already provides us, and developing new innovative, cost-effective solutions when needed." These solutions include using social media to recruit the next generation of federal workers and developing government-wide strategies for IT workers.

Complaints notwithstanding, a proposal to replace the GS was not on offer from either witnesses or legislators -- though the Partnership for Public Service and Booz Allen did publish a report in April calling for a civil service overhaul. That report was highly critical of the GS, nothing that "statutory distinctions between ... classifications represented by the 15 General Schedule pay grades are arbitrary and arcane." The authors called for a radical rethinking of GS, with five classification systems that chart overall career levels, from entry level to senior manager. Pay would vary based on occupation, with high-skill and high-demand posts commanding higher salaries.

Federal employees have heard much of this before, and some have experienced efforts to change the system with the brief but memorable National Security Personnel System, a plan to give managers in the Department of Defense more freedom to promote, reward, and dismiss individual civilian employees. Patricia J. Niehaus, president of the Federal Managers Association, who worked under NSPS, said that while the program was well-intentioned, "implementation failed to follow design." Niehaus backed changing the GS system to reward performance over longevity, but she cautioned that a transparent performance rating system was critical, along with a commitment to implement a new system with adequate and ongoing training.

For many feds, the problem is not the need for big picture reform, but the consequences of politicians using the federal workforce as a punching bag. J. David Cox, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, stressed that point, and said that government salaries and benefits serve as "a convenient ATM for budget agreements."

President Obama has in the past called on Congress to establish a Commission on Federal Public Service Reform to take a hard look at federal employment. Former OPM Director Donald Devine, who served under President Ronald Reagan, agreed with the need to "look big at the whole fundamental thing." Rethinking civil service for an age of budgetary constraint is a perennial topic, and the hearing was preceded by a July 11 panel that examined the viability of the Senior Executive Service. It remains to be seen whether these workforce inquiries in Congress lead to specific legislative proposals.

About the Author

Adam Mazmanian is executive editor of FCW.

Before joining the editing team, Mazmanian was an FCW staff writer covering Congress, government-wide technology policy and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Prior to joining FCW, Mazmanian was technology correspondent for National Journal and served in a variety of editorial roles at B2B news service SmartBrief. Mazmanian has contributed reviews and articles to the Washington Post, the Washington City Paper, Newsday, New York Press, Architect Magazine and other publications.

Click here for previous articles by Mazmanian. Connect with him on Twitter at @thisismaz.


Featured

  • Cybersecurity

    DHS floats 'collective defense' model for cybersecurity

    Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen wants her department to have a more direct role in defending the private sector and critical infrastructure entities from cyberthreats.

  • Defense
    Defense Secretary James Mattis testifies at an April 12 hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

    Mattis: Cloud deal not tailored for Amazon

    On Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sought to quell "rumors" that the Pentagon's planned single-award cloud acquisition was designed with Amazon Web Services in mind.

  • Census
    shutterstock image

    2020 Census to include citizenship question

    The Department of Commerce is breaking with recent practice and restoring a question about respondent citizenship last used in 1950, despite being urged not to by former Census directors and outside experts.

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.