| Comment Number: | EM-023015 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 12:17:36 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
March 16, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: 1. Figure out what?s broken, and concentrate on fixing those things. Yes, it takes too long to hire new personnel. Labor will be happy to work with professional and even political management to improve the hiring cycle. Nobody wants rapid hiring authority as badly as the people working in understaffed agencies affected by longstanding hiring freezes. 2. Government workers and their unions are also patriots. We will cooperate in solving any problems that genuinely impact national security. We understand the need for our government to have the flexibility to meet developing emergencies. That?s one reason we strongly resist the ruinous experiment in privatization. (Who?s going to best respond to your immediate request ? someone who works for you, or someone who works for somebody else?s company?) The GS- schedule is simply not a national security issue. 3. Is there really a problem in motivating federal workers to perform well? We haven?t heard any real articulation of dissatisfaction, certainly not from the commanders of large civilian workforces. 4. If you ask the workforce, they will tell the horror stories that mirror Dilbert ?s commentary on the private sector: too often the best workers are passed over for promotions and awards, while a manager?s fawning ?pets? are given the plums. [Lesson: always tell management what it wants to hear.] At least we all have the certain knowledge that our basic pay and ?steps? are secure. But certainly, if managers? judgment is sometimes flawed, how is that condition cured by giving those same managers unlimited control over basic salary and raises? 5. There isn't going to be sufficient money in the pay system to support pay-for-performance. If you assume that people are motivated by money, then you have to conclude that everyone -- or 90-95% -- may be motivated to excellent performance in the first year, but there will only be a small amount per person to reward that performance. What will be the motivation in the second year, and the third? 6. Under the existing schedule, I am motivated to seek challenging assignments and advanced training in order to compete for the next GS-14 vacancy. But soon there will be no GS grades. I will supposedly be motivated to take on the responsibilities of what is now a GS-14 position for no guarantee of increased pay, and the hope of just a small increase after the passage of a year. Who will want to assume the burdens of team/branch leadership for a speculative pittance from the pool? 7. We?ve been told that ?pay for performance? could take the form of a cash award rather than a salary increase. This means that one?s salary in Year One could be the base for one?s entire career, regardless of awards received. For example: Year 1 salary is $50,000. Award for excellent performance is perhaps as much as 5%, or $2500. Year 2 salary is not $52,500 but still $50,000, so another bonus award of 5% is again $2500, not $2625 ? and so on. My own manager predicts that there will be strong pressure from program executives to limit costs in exactly this way. 8. Shortchanging the workforce on salary increases not only fixes their earnings for the present, but also impacts their ?high three? earnings on which retirement benefits are based. Cash awards are never counted in calculating our annuities. 9. There are lots of theories on how to motivate a workforce ? or for that matter, to win a voting bloc. One thing is certain: the way to achieve a negative response is to take away a longstanding right or reward. Federal government labor and management have a long record of cooperation and mutual respect. These proposals really push it to the breaking point. Before the top-level political managers destroy the bridge, they should think very carefully about motivation, morale, responsiveness, attraction, retention, rewards, employee security. . . and yes, national security. Sincerely,