Patterico's Pontifications

5/27/2014

Everyone Is A Winner!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:57 pm

[guest post by Dana]

It’s come to this: A government agency, believing employee ratings are too discriminatory, has opted to eliminate the process altogether. As a result of the decision, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will award all employees a gold star – regardless of their performance reviews.

The CFPB, which oversees transactions in the financial sector for the federal government, decided to no longer conduct employee reviews because there were just too many apparent “significant disparities” between the races, ages, and locations of its employees.

According to American Banker, this new policy is set to cost over $5 million dollars, as it will now pay employees as if they received the highest evaluation score. The previous system ranked staff on their performance from a scale ranging from one to five, with five being the best score a CFPB staffer could receive after a review of their work on the job.

One wonders about the timing of such a decision involving such a costly change in procedure.

This development comes right before the agency is scheduled for a Wednesday hearing to investigate allegations that it practiced retaliatory actions towards certain employees. News reports have circulated that the alleged “discriminations” were race-based and that the CFPB implemented their new policies to alleviate that problem.

Apparently, the belief is that only racism can explain any disparities in employee evaluations.

It should be noted that CFPB Director Richard Cordray justified the change in procedure, saying there were broad-based disparities in the way performance ratings were assigned.

“These differences indicate a systemic disadvantage to various categories of employees that persisted across divisions, offices, and other employee characteristics.”

–Dana

18 Responses to “Everyone Is A Winner!”

  1. isn’t this Elizabeth Warren’s ugly bastard child?

    papoose I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  2. Yes, feets. That’s Warren’s CFPB socialists– More social engineering. Everyone’s a Winner being used to more “fairly” redistribute assets and spare feelings of the losers.

    elissa (550033)

  3. This is the kind of logic that could only eminate from the government.

    JD (e5a0fa)

  4. apparently the US government is deeply, incurably, inherently racist

    it’s practically a hate group

    I expect a full report from the southern poverty law center

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  5. all comments on this thread are, inherently, racist.

    i denounce you all.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  6. We’re going to need a bigger boat (demotivator)
    two facepalms won’t cut it,

    narciso (3fec35)

  7. Participation gubmint. Yay!!

    Gazzer (554004)

  8. BTW: this story does NOT reference Congressman Wiener, as much as that might disappoint some of you…

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  9. It should be noted that CFPB Director Richard Cordray justified the change in procedure, saying there were broad-based disparities in the way performance ratings were assigned.

    I know of at least 40 veterans formerly patients of the VA who would think it’s Cordray’s job to do something about tightening up standards. Instead of doing away with them altogether.

    If they were around to ask, that is.

    Steve57 (3cdbc3)

  10. Who knew that the CFPB’s offices were situated in Lake Woebegone where “all employees are above average”.

    Look I know that employee evaluations are (a) inherently subjective; (b) and depending upon the eye of the beholder sometimes lead to “unfair” results. But they do have a purpose and the idea of tossing them out altogether is ridiculous.

    Skeptical Voter (12e67d)

  11. The Democratic preoccupation with race is pathological.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  12. In intelligently run public bureaucracies, bar uniformed services, recruitment and promotion is handled through examinations to which a dollop of discretionary selection is appended. Candidates are interviewed in the rank-order in which they placed, full stop. Also, discretionary dismissal is permitted, subject to quick review by hearing examiners to inspect any claims by dismissed employees that some impermissible motive has dictated their dismissal (as would be the case were the supervisors punishing a whistle-blower or a political dissident). (Of course, public agencies seldom run this way). The utility of evaluations is to document problems in real time as food for thought in making discretionary decisions on an employee’s promotion or dismissal.

    Performance bonuses are a dubious bit of business in the realm of public administration as there are seldom the sort of operational measures of competence utile for calculating such bonuses; and if you reward people for the number of arrests they make, the number of convictions they secure, or the amount they clawback with audits, you are asking for abuse of power.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  13. It’s a bit of a tangent, but this is a price some private firms are paying as well. It’s a challenge for we Gen X’ers to manage the millennial generation, who received trophies for “participation” and were told how great they were since they were two years old. In some of the cube-farm type companies they have “director of celebration” positions where they award an “employee of the day” every day, complete with confetti and stuff. I could see that type of logic affecting employee evaluations. How could it be “fair” to rate employees when high schools are eliminating class rankings? :|

    carlitos (e7c734)

  14. As an NCO (in an AF in a Galaxy far, far away, in an age long ago), part of my evaluation was how I evaluated those that reported to me.
    Apparently in the current clime, evaluating the evaluaters is not just unnecessary, but verboten.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  15. Just another reason why this unconstitutional creation should be consigned to the dust-bin with the proverbial stake through its Frankenstein-heart, and then buried in a salt-cave along with Fauxcahontus.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  16. “These differences indicate a systemic disadvantage to various categories of employees that persisted across divisions, offices, and other employee characteristics.”

    A sign of poor, and inconsistent, management Richard; and you, as Director, should be held responsible – Oh, BTW, here’s your bonus check.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  17. It probably helps that the CFPB isn’t answerable to Congress. Yes, really.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  18. I don’t think their concern is race; I think it’s about keeping everybody’s mouth shut.

    This agency, under the Fed and not Congress, was designed to be a private kingdom but it’s not working out so well.

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/cfpb-director-told-whistleblower-to-back-down/

    Patricia (be0117)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1708 secs.