Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've worked on hiring technical people. HR has zero ability to evaluate skills and experience. They're the worst. They fought with me once because they didn't understand a clearly-written OPM requirement for an occupation that was in an announcement. One of the only tools we had in trying to get good hires was being able to salary match to some degree.

This, this, this!! A race to the bottom is the exact right term. HR is in no way qualified to make salary determinations based on a resume.

Anonymous wrote:I've worked on hiring technical people. HR has zero ability to evaluate skills and experience. They're the worst. They fought with me once because they didn't understand a clearly-written OPM requirement for an occupation that was in an announcement. One of the only tools we had in trying to get good hires was being able to salary match to some degree.

Anonymous wrote:There is already so much about the federal hiring process that dissuades candidates with strong options. Yes, announcements get lots of candidates, but that doesn't mean those candidates are qualified. This is more everything bagel liberalism, where instead of focusing on doing one thing well - hiring qualified candidates and giving ourselves maximal flexibility to do that - we add on requirements and limitations in an attempt to solve problems like pay equity, even though it makes the core problem we're trying to solve harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cant say I understand the move. No two employees are exactly alike and I’d argue external experience is *more* valuable than fed experience in many cases.

If this is a cost saving exercise, congrats. You saved very little over 30 years. Maybe stop spending so much on blowing up brown people in foreign lands.

Uh, Biden is the one who got the US out of Afghanistan once and for all, so good news for you, no more blowing up brown people in foreign lands!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

It’s equity in terms of dragging everyone lower. Is that really a benefit to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cant say I understand the move. No two employees are exactly alike and I’d argue external experience is *more* valuable than fed experience in many cases.

If this is a cost saving exercise, congrats. You saved very little over 30 years. Maybe stop spending so much on blowing up brown people in foreign lands.

Uh, Biden is the one who got the US out of Afghanistan once and for all, so good news for you, no more blowing up brown people in foreign lands!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

It’s equity in terms of dragging everyone lower. Is that really a benefit to you?

Isn’t that the purpose of equity? For everybody to sink to the bottom?

I’m not a fan of nominal “equity”, but I think it makes sense that a job is worth what it’s worth, and the salary that a candidate previously earned should have no bearing on their offer for a new job, whether that’s in government or elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:Has this law passed yet?

No way I’m taking a massive pay cut in today’s economy to work for the federal government.

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’m a minority woman who has been underpaid in the nonprofit sector my entire career. This benefits lots of underpaid workers and is a HUGE step forward towards pay equity. It’s not about saving the feds money, it’s about valuing the job and work experience above salary history. It’s about time!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cant say I understand the move. No two employees are exactly alike and I’d argue external experience is *more* valuable than fed experience in many cases.

If this is a cost saving exercise, congrats. You saved very little over 30 years. Maybe stop spending so much on blowing up brown people in foreign lands.

They aren't say external *experience* isn't taken into consideration. They're saying *salary* is
So if you've been underpaid historically at your corporate job, despite having a ton of experience and doing a fantastic job, then it won't hurt you when being hired by the fed.
And if you've been overpaid at your corporate job, you aren't going to get an automatic boost because of it when becoming a fed.

I don’t understand this. Why would the government choose to tie their hands in this way? Would it be better to give themselves more flexibility, and say that they can consider experience to negotiate salary up, instead of prohibiting themselves from using a private sector salary at all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cant say I understand the move. No two employees are exactly alike and I’d argue external experience is *more* valuable than fed experience in many cases.

If this is a cost saving exercise, congrats. You saved very little over 30 years. Maybe stop spending so much on blowing up brown people in foreign lands.

They aren't say external *experience* isn't taken into consideration. They're saying *salary* is
So if you've been underpaid historically at your corporate job, despite having a ton of experience and doing a fantastic job, then it won't hurt you when being hired by the fed.
And if you've been overpaid at your corporate job, you aren't going to get an automatic boost because of it when becoming a fed.