The DoD proponents propose undemocratic, unfair, and dictatorial pay-for-performance policies that betray the democratic republic foundations of the country. In addition, the DoD proponents should never forget that the employees are also United States citizens and permanent residents and taxpayers and that agencies have authority through the consent of U.S. citizens and residents.
Furthermore, the expectation of constant availability without compensation is thoroughly abusive. Amazon does not perform it service for customers for free; thus, Amazon should not expect overtime without compensation. The “salaried” designation is being abused, as low salaries are diluted every minute beyond a 40 hour work week.
I have reviewed a report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Federal Reserve Board (Board) [The Board Can Enhance Its Diversity and Inclusion Efforts, Audit Report 2015-MO-B-006], and I am disappointed with the weakness of investigatory probing in the part of the report discussing the Board’s performance management policy. Specifically, I question the independence of the OIG when the OIG is following the Board’s performance management policy, yet the OIG does not describe the program in its audit report.
Moreover, the position of the Board’s Chief Operating Officer, Don Hammond, does not inspire confidence. Rather than addressing any signs of unfair and inequitable workplace practices, he makes arguments to defend the status quo. A status quo that includes Artis v. Bernanke (or Yellen) and Robert Auerbach’s observations.
Dick Grote has authored another article on “rank and yank,” “What to do when you think your performance review is wrong” (published in the Harvard Business Review (March 7, 2017)). This time the defense of the system is indirect—informing the recipient of a “C-Bucket” rating to accept it. Indeed, as Grote states in the article, nothing the employee argues against the rating is likely to change it.
Because of the calibration meeting, where managers rank employees, changing a rating means changing it for others, given that rank and yank is a rigid, inhuman, and employee-abusive system.
This report is like a recipe of planning destruction in an organized way (creating a transition plan; checking that the employee is not fired on a birthday, shortly before a pension is vested, and so on) making it seem normal, but the effect of the employee losing his or her livelihood and income stream is notably absent. The immoral notion that human beings can be acquired, used up, demeaned, and then thrown away pervades the report. The notion that management persons are perfect by virtue of their position alone is illogical.