Talk:General Schedule (US civil service pay scale)

dede

The article General_schedule is much more expansive in terms of content than this article, however, General_schedule should be merged into this article as this article bears what should be the proper name of the article.Cvieg 17:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone-in-the-know, please add cite.php capability to this page. Might help the referencing problem. Until then I will just manually add my citation to the references section. Juxtapos99 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Prior Military Service

I'll check periodically to see what people say about this. Does having prior military service count toward a higher starting step on the GS pay scale? (i.e having 5 years of military service in Intelligence....instead of starting out as a GS9 Step1 or GS10 Step1, you could start out as a GS9 Step4 or GS10 Step 4)

Not that I've ever noticed. However, it can help qualify you for a position in lieu of or in addition to college. (Ever read a Government job announcement? According to many of them, a PhD is required to qualify for a GS-9 position! I got a GS-10 with an AA and 11 years in the Army.) The hiring authority is allowed to start you off at better than Step 1, but they have to justify it with my limited experience. Dan 139.139.67.70 14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When I requested a Step increase Civilian Personnel said that I would have to provide 3 pay statements showing that I made more money than the step they wanted to put me at. They also said that Military Leave and Earnings Statements were not acceptable. I was able to negotiate my annual leave based on superior qualification. Instead of receiving 4 hours per pay period I got 6.

Wikipedia is not a forum. --Kraftlos (Talk)(Contrib) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be able to find specific references on the OPM website, but as a hiring official I have always been told by the HR folks that prior military service may in some cases impart "veterans preference" to an applicant, meaning a veteran should be hired instead of a non-veteran if s/he is on the "best-qualified" list. A genuine personnelist with a Federal agency should be able to find the correct citations for inline references. As a rule, military service counts toward time in service and thus toward eligibility for Federal retirement (as does Peace Corps service, for example), but again, that's something a personnelist could run down best of anyone. Amustard (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Pulled these references off the page, I was hoping whoever placed them here could use the proper citation templates and place them as footnotes. The other references need to be cited properly as well, though the footnotes are already in place.

• The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guide on step increases.
• The General Schedule for calendar year 2008 (including locality pay charts) is available here.
• Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 1000.1, Table 4.1 contains a table listing rank and grade equivalencies between U.S. military ranks and GS pay grades.
• Official version of DoD Instruction 1000.1, 30 January 1974; Administrative Reissuance Incorporating Change 2, 5 June 1991 This the source document for the above abridged table 4.1.
• Army Regulation 420-1, Army Facilities Management, 12 February 2008, Table 3-4 contains a table listing rank and grade equivalencies between U.S. military ranks and GS pay grades.
• U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps/GS grade conversion contains the grade equivalencies between US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps officer ranks and federal civil servant GS grades.

Thanks --Kraftlos (Talk)(Contrib) 09:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Prior military service is counted to adjust your Federal hire date that is used to calculate certain benefits such as your leave category. However, if you receive military retired pay your military time is not used for this. Depending on the job posting and your VA disability rating, one can receive hiring preference but not increased steps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buldawg (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Original research & POV

I added many tags to a section that seems to be almost entirely comprised of original research. Once the OR is removed, remove the tags. ask123 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the items you tagged don't strike me as original research, but rather the common experience of everyone I know who was hired into Federal Service and came up the ranks of the civil service. It probably didn't take any research :-) Perhaps some issue of "Government Executive" or another professional journal has something citable on the typical career path of a GS employee. Amustard (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The language could be slightly altered to make it less firm, and thus less objectionable. [Maybe?] I don't see how many of the tags are 'original research,' although I agree with a few. Jed (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see the OR, what is your NPOV objection?Richard Manion 17:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickManion (talk • contribs)

Since there isn't an NPOV discussion, or any NPOV complaints in the discussion page, I removed the NPOV tag. Richard Manion 01:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickManion (talk • contribs)

NSPS Conversion

This article says that all NSPS employees are going back to the pay system they came from, but that isn't true; see http://www.cpms.osd.mil/nsps/faqs.html Jablomih (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

General Schedule (US civil service pay scale) → General Schedule – The disambiguator "(US civil service pay scale)" is not necessary, General Schedule redirects here and there is no other General Schedule article. Relisted: notified original mover. DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 87.78.139.251 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree that the current name is not ideal, but the proposed name is far too vague and ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity with what? What other "General Schedule" might this be confused with? A more specific natural title would be no problem, but that is not what a parenthetical disambiguation is for: It only exists to disambiguate topics within Wikipedia. Therefore, the current title simply cannot stay. It's either General Schedule (which already redirects here), or some other natural title. Any suggestions? --87.79.47.181 (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:CRITERIA states: A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics.... Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic. General Schedule doesn't satisfy that criteria, it's far too vague to the average reader. Zarcadia (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—Well yes: recognisability. Tony (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – ambigous, lacks precision ("Name an article as precisely as is necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope" [1]); this is not the only "general schedule" that appears in decades of US regulations; see [2]. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Hm, per WP:NCDAB, "If there is a choice between using natural and parenthetical disambiguation, such as Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics), there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other. The choice between them is made by consensus, taking into account general naming criteria (e.g., consistency with the pattern used for similar articles)."
  If General Schedule is too generic/vague/ambiguous, how about General Schedule pay scale instead? Imho the parenthetical is a poor choice because by common usage it implies the current existence of other "General Schedule" articles, i.e. on-wiki disambiguation as opposed to mere specifity. --87.79.178.85 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)