House conservatives want to reduce federal employees by attrition - that's too little, too slow. It's not a bad idea, and they should do it. But that doesn't go far enough.
The problem is, it means waiting on people to retire, quit, or be fired, which is difficult for federal positions. It also means that the very bureaucrats who cost the most to retain are the least likely to attrite out. Sure some of these top-earning civil servants will want to retire, but I seriously doubt enough of them will do so to make a difference.
I think that Congress needs to push a federal retirement buy-out. After the committees figure out how many employees have more than 20, 25, or 30 years, they should choose a gate (all employees over 28 years, for example) to offer the initial round of buy-outs to, and authorize a number of follow-on rounds to reduced gates if that doesn't reach the desired number of retirements.
The bottom line would be how much money we'd save on payroll. If the target amount requires retiring X number of employees over 28 years, and only 70% take them up on it, then how many employees with 26 years should be offered the chance? Keep it up till the target is reached.
But that's not all they can do. When AT&T did this back in the 80's, they rated their installers from 1-5, with 5 being the highest and most experienced. They bought out most of their level 5 installers, reworked the pay-scale, and advanced everyone a pay-grade. So everyone got a pay raise, but not as big as it would have been before the change. In fact, the level 1 installers now started at minimum wage.
We could save a significant amount not only now, but in the future that way. No-one is hurt, but it resets the pay-scale downward, reducing payroll costs for years to come as well.
Finally, we re-evaluate the pay-grade requirements for every job. If a job description calls for a GS-14, is there a valid reason it can't be done by a GS-12 or even a GS-10? Any GS-14 doing the job stays in his pay-grade (it wouldn't be fair to demote him or her), but new personnel in that position start at the newly reduced grade.
So, tell me what's wrong with this scheme if you can.
The problem is, it means waiting on people to retire, quit, or be fired, which is difficult for federal positions. It also means that the very bureaucrats who cost the most to retain are the least likely to attrite out. Sure some of these top-earning civil servants will want to retire, but I seriously doubt enough of them will do so to make a difference.
I think that Congress needs to push a federal retirement buy-out. After the committees figure out how many employees have more than 20, 25, or 30 years, they should choose a gate (all employees over 28 years, for example) to offer the initial round of buy-outs to, and authorize a number of follow-on rounds to reduced gates if that doesn't reach the desired number of retirements.
The bottom line would be how much money we'd save on payroll. If the target amount requires retiring X number of employees over 28 years, and only 70% take them up on it, then how many employees with 26 years should be offered the chance? Keep it up till the target is reached.
But that's not all they can do. When AT&T did this back in the 80's, they rated their installers from 1-5, with 5 being the highest and most experienced. They bought out most of their level 5 installers, reworked the pay-scale, and advanced everyone a pay-grade. So everyone got a pay raise, but not as big as it would have been before the change. In fact, the level 1 installers now started at minimum wage.
We could save a significant amount not only now, but in the future that way. No-one is hurt, but it resets the pay-scale downward, reducing payroll costs for years to come as well.
Finally, we re-evaluate the pay-grade requirements for every job. If a job description calls for a GS-14, is there a valid reason it can't be done by a GS-12 or even a GS-10? Any GS-14 doing the job stays in his pay-grade (it wouldn't be fair to demote him or her), but new personnel in that position start at the newly reduced grade.
So, tell me what's wrong with this scheme if you can.
No comments:
Post a Comment