4 ms·

It would be great if actually needed, demanding government jobs could pay a market rate. And even better, we could somehow pay better people more. And even even

It would be great if actually needed, demanding government jobs could pay a market rate. And even better, we could somehow pay better people more. And even even better - fire poor performers. The more-less lockstep pay scales across the US government are bizarre, as well as government unions, negotiating with politicians. As FDR said: > All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. > Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. > … Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.” - FDR, 1937 https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-resolution-federation-federal-employees-against-strikes-federal-service https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-resolut...

duxup 1y ago
The limits on government salaries seems entirely counterproductive. I am all for evaluating things in an effort to establish more government efficiency. But that means you need smart people who understand that domain evaluating, and you need to be able to bring smart people on board to do the work…. not artificially low wages/ arbitrary cuts…
- jedberg 1y ago
  The limits are there to limit corruption. If managers could set arbitrary salaries, the employees could just agree to cut their manager in on 10% of their raise. This probably happens outside of government, but it's just the private org who loses money, so it's up to them to stop it. But in the case of the government, it's the taxpayers who lose.
  - duxup 1y ago
    I don’t think managers (even without limits) could just set salaries… it’s not like they all just pay the max at manager discretion now.
    - jedberg 1y ago
      Government salaries are based on objective measures today -- years of service and job role. There is no "merit" part or anything subjective. To move to a system where "good people make more money", someone has to decide who the "good" people are. That person is susceptible to corruption. Moreso than in a private enterprise and with wider consequences, because government is not a business. So overpaying people doesn't have the same consequences as doing it privately.
      - Jtsummers 1y ago
        NSPS was an attempt to push towards something more merit based (still pay band structured, NSPS bands spanned 2-3 GS grades). NSPS was rolled back in 2010 or so because the requirement was that everyone had to be on it by 2009 (early 2010?) and that didn't happen. There are various *demo (lab, acq, I think some others) that are basically the same as NSPS (in principle) and ostensibly merit based. But they're also capped because of the correspondence to GS grades. Pay can increase much faster, in theory, than under GS but also you can be denied any raise except the general pay increase (below inflation, so a real pay cut even if a nominal pay raise) if your performance is poor.
      - ThunderSizzle 1y ago
jltsiren 1y ago
Easier firing would increase the market rates for every role. At least unless combined with generous unemployment benefits, as in Denmark. It could make the government more efficient in the long term, at the expense of higher spending (and therefore higher taxes) in the short term. Which many voters would not like. The issue with unions negotiating with politicians is mostly a consequence of an excessive number of political appointees. Many things would be cleaner with more career civil servants in top positions. Top officials would have fixed-term appointments, and they could not join unions or be fired without a criminal conviction. They would run their departments, while political appointees would only set the goals and directions with little direct control. And then the rest would be more like ordinary employees who just happen to be working for the government. Government employees are a mostly irrelevant category anyway. Depending on the time and place, the exact same job can be performed by an actual government employee, outsourced to a private contractor, or done by an employee of a company fully owned by the government. What the employee can or cannot do should depend more on the actual role than on the administrative structures above them.

duxup 1y ago

The limits on government salaries seems entirely counterproductive. I am all for evaluating things in an effort to establish more government efficiency. But that means you need smart people who understand that domain evaluating, and you need to be able to bring smart people on board to do the work…. not artificially low wages/ arbitrary cuts…

jedberg 1y ago
The limits are there to limit corruption. If managers could set arbitrary salaries, the employees could just agree to cut their manager in on 10% of their raise. This probably happens outside of government, but it's just the private org who loses money, so it's up to them to stop it. But in the case of the government, it's the taxpayers who lose.
- duxup 1y ago
  I don’t think managers (even without limits) could just set salaries… it’s not like they all just pay the max at manager discretion now.
  - jedberg 1y ago
    Government salaries are based on objective measures today -- years of service and job role. There is no "merit" part or anything subjective. To move to a system where "good people make more money", someone has to decide who the "good" people are. That person is susceptible to corruption. Moreso than in a private enterprise and with wider consequences, because government is not a business. So overpaying people doesn't have the same consequences as doing it privately.
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      NSPS was an attempt to push towards something more merit based (still pay band structured, NSPS bands spanned 2-3 GS grades). NSPS was rolled back in 2010 or so because the requirement was that everyone had to be on it by 2009 (early 2010?) and that didn't happen. There are various *demo (lab, acq, I think some others) that are basically the same as NSPS (in principle) and ostensibly merit based. But they're also capped because of the correspondence to GS grades. Pay can increase much faster, in theory, than under GS but also you can be denied any raise except the general pay increase (below inflation, so a real pay cut even if a nominal pay raise) if your performance is poor.
    - ThunderSizzle 1y ago

jltsiren 1y ago

Easier firing would increase the market rates for every role. At least unless combined with generous unemployment benefits, as in Denmark. It could make the government more efficient in the long term, at the expense of higher spending (and therefore higher taxes) in the short term. Which many voters would not like. The issue with unions negotiating with politicians is mostly a consequence of an excessive number of political appointees. Many things would be cleaner with more career civil servants in top positions. Top officials would have fixed-term appointments, and they could not join unions or be fired without a criminal conviction. They would run their departments, while political appointees would only set the goals and directions with little direct control. And then the rest would be more like ordinary employees who just happen to be working for the government. Government employees are a mostly irrelevant category anyway. Depending on the time and place, the exact same job can be performed by an actual government employee, outsourced to a private contractor, or done by an employee of a company fully owned by the government. What the employee can or cannot do should depend more on the actual role than on the administrative structures above them.