|
TSA gets raises, complains about confusing rules
LINK
Read it and weep, friends. :( More than three-quarters of workers under the Transportation Security Administration's pay-for-performance plan soon will receive a performance-related raise, according to an internal report. But federal employee unions are claiming TSA's method of determining the pay hikes was arbitrary and confusing. Seventy-six percent of employees under the agency's Performance Accountability and Standards System will receive pay boosts or bonuses, based on the quality of their work in 2009, the report said. ... According to the report, about 17 percent of employees fell into the top performance category in 2009, earning a 4 percent boost to their base salary and a $2,500 bonus. About 32 percent were in the next tier and will receive a 2 percent raise and a $1,500 bonus. Twenty-seven percent will receive a 1 percent raise and $1,000 bonus, and nearly 24 percent will receive only a $500 bonus. A small portion (0.02 percent) of employees will not receive any raise or bonus other than the cost-of-living increase, which everyone will get. Gale Rossides makes a guest appearance defending the system. Surprise, surprise. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 12870522)
When I studied math back in the dark ages, 17 + 32 + 27 + "nearly 24" = "nearly 100%". All but 0.02 percent also equaled "nearly 100%". So how can they claim that "76% ... will receive raises or bonuses". More to the point, why do I even expect the TSA to be capable of 2nd grade math?
|
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 12870522)
LINK
Read it and weep, friends. :( Aww, arbitrary and confusing rules. Poor little things. That must be really, really frustrating. ;) When I studied math back in the dark ages, 17 + 32 + 27 + "nearly 24" = "nearly 100%". All but 0.02 percent also equaled "nearly 100%". So how can they claim that "76% ... will receive raises or bonuses". More to the point, why do I even expect the TSA to be capable of 2nd grade math? Gale Rossides makes a guest appearance defending the system. SISrprise, surprise. :rolleyes: There is much left out of this article. Yes, it covered the pay increase and the "pass" bonus, but left out the other possible bonuses: one for dual certified employees, and another for our Image Mastery/PSEs. If someone does very well, their bonus coukd reach close to 5k this year. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 12870786)
The link you post is to an article not written by TSA. So why are you critical or TSA for the bad mathmatics, and not the author of this article?
There is much left out of this article. Yes, it covered the pay increase and the "pass" bonus, but left out the other possible bonuses: one for dual certified employees, and another for our Image Mastery/PSEs. If someone does very well, their bonus coukd reach close to 5k this year. "You're doning a heckuva job, Brownie." :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 12870821)
Perhaps because the number the author got came from TSA? @:-)
If "very well" permits having 80%+ failure rates, I'd hate to see what stellar and acceptable are. :td: "You're doning a heckuva job, Brownie." :rolleyes: And no, if someone did that poorly on their test they would not receive the additional bonus, nor would they receive much of a pass bonus if at all. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 12870880)
Or is it possible that the author misquoted the TSA report?
And no, if someone did that poorly on their test they would not receive the additional bonus, nor would they receive much of a pass bonus if at all. |
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 12870917)
Possible, but it's also possible the author didn't considering how accurate a lot of TSA's other statements are.
I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about despite TSA's rigorous "testing" where screeners can pass with a high score, TSA still has an abysmal failure rate when it comes to detecting threats in the real world. Read the GAO report. Edit: oddly enough, to better catch and pass such "test", TSO would have to do what Trollkiller calls "illegal searches". |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 12870786)
The link you post is to an article not written by TSA. So why are you critical or TSA for the bad mathmatics, and not the author of this article?
On the other hand, gov't reports typically have an Executive Summary for the people who don't have time for the details. These phrases from the article sound like the headline sentences in such a summary, and they're attributed by the journalist to the report: More than three-quarters of workers under the Transportation Security Administration's pay-for-performance plan soon will receive a performance-related raise, according to an internal report. Seventy-six percent of employees under the agency's Performance Accountability and Standards System will receive pay boosts or bonuses, based on the quality of their work in 2009, the report said. |
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 12871075)
On the one hand, it's possible that the TSA report just had the individual figures (17%, 32%, etc) and the reporter did a poor job of summing up.
On the other hand, gov't reports typically have an Executive Summary for the people who don't have time for the details. These phrases from the article sound like the headline sentences in such a summary, and they're attributed by the journalist to the report: Nevertheless, I find it amazing that only 0.02% of the TSA workforce was incompetent enough miss out on bonuses completely. Note that 0.02% of 45,000 is 9 people. Those are pretty low standards. We could probably count more than 9 people (by position/airport, if not by name) who have been called "bad apples" by Blogdad Bob this year alone. However, one reason the numbers are so low is that a handful of employees are fired or forced to quit (they are given the option to resign, or be fired). If these employees had maintained their employment with TSA that number would be somewhat higher. And yes, I know for a fact, once someone resigns or is fired, they are no longer in pass. |
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 12870917)
Possible, but it's also possible the author didn't considering how accurate a lot of TSA's other statements are.
|
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 12871151)
I do agree that there should be more strict standards. Customer service should play a role, what role I do not know (there are legitimate complaints, and not so legitimate).
|
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 12870925)
I have read the GAO reports and put very little faith in those red team or asi testing.
Edit: oddly enough, to better catch and pass such "test", TSO would have to do what Trollkiller calls "illegal searches". |
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 12870821)
Perhaps because the number the author got came from TSA? @:-).....
now i'm wondering.....if a tsa employee fails to achieve the expected performance rate, does their salary get reduced by the same percentage? ;) |
Originally Posted by goalie
(Post 12872079)
^ yup, just like all the other "numbers" they give us. you know, the weekly body count, the number of suspected ter'wrists caught, the number of pax detained for something other than being suspected up transporting wei's thru the checkpoint, the number of times they failed open book (oops, i meant red) tests, etc., etc, etc......:rolleyes:
now i'm wondering.....if a tsa employee fails to achieve the expected performance rate, does their salary get reduced by the same percentage? ;) |
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 12871075)
Nevertheless, I find it amazing that only 0.02% of the TSA workforce was incompetent enough miss out on bonuses completely. Note that 0.02% of 45,000 is 9 people. Those are pretty low standards. We could probably count more than 9 people (by position/airport, if not by name) who have been called "bad apples" by Blogdad Bob this year alone.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.