| Comment Number: | EM-023199 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 5:50:37 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: These comments are provided by the leadership of Local 400 AFGE regarding Docket Number NSPS-2005-001, Regulation number (RIN) 3206-AK76/0790-AH82. PART THREE (FINAL) Literature distributed by DoD during the comment period says that employees ?may? be credited for time they had accrued toward their next step increase, at the time of conversion to pay banding. The literature makes it sound like some will get credit, some won?t. It needs to be done the same way across the board. We would like to know more about the provisions on page 7581 about converting an employee who is in retain grade status. We do not know how this will affect them, other than no one?s initial pay should be affected. Subpart C, Pay and Pay Administration, Setting and adjusting rate ranges, page 7559, 7560. Section 9901.313 National Security Compensation Comparability. Again, why is it necessary to recreate an entire pay system and all the rules to go with it? What?s wrong with the current system? The proposed system seems aimed at getting costs down at the expense of those who do the work, and that is not right. Section 9901.313 is very disappointing. After having assured employees that NSPS would not adversely affect their pay upon transfer to pay banding, DoD includes a provision that ?to the maximum extent practicable? employees IN THE AGGREGATE will not be disadvantaged in terms of the TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAY AVAILABLE. We don?t do our missions ?to the maximum extent practicable.? Employees are held accountable for their work performance personally, individually, not ?in the aggregate.? You cannot balance the books or pay for the war on the backs of those who do the work of supporting our soldiers and their families. Section 9901.322 Setting and adjusting rate ranges. Basically this tells us that DoD will adjust pay as it feels necessary. We have heard it said that this is like in private industry. Well, the Department of Defense is not a private industry and it never should be. We work for America and our allegiance needs to be to our country, the taxpayers. That is why the GS/FWS system needs to stay. Employees need to be able to do their work free of financial pressure from their boss or even the Secretary of Defense. Letting pay be internally controlled is asking for abuse of power. Let us not lose sight of the fact that ?no raise? automatically equals ?pay cut?, due to inflation. Section 9901.332 Local market supplements. How much will it cost to set local market supplements for every occupation and pay band? Why does DoD need the ability to set aside current locality determinations, and where does it get the expertise to do a better job than the Department of Labor in creating locality pay regions? Where are those resources coming from? Please do not tell us that our pay will be determined by contractors, like in the DHS plan. One factor in determining locality pay under NSPS is ?availability of funds.? The budget was tight in peacetime. It is worse during war and will remain that way. That does not make it any cheaper for us to live. If it?s optional to pay locality pay, it most likely will not be paid. Employees in the same locality should be getting the same locality pay. What provision is made for adjustment of pay for DoD employees who transfer from one area to another? Under the GS system it is easy to determine pay fairly and consistently. Let us note that Employees rated ?unacceptable? do not get step increases under the current system. They do get whatever pay increase is awarded across the board to all employees. That is as it should be, because until and unless their supervisor removes them from federal service, nothing has been proven about the acceptability of their work. If they are truly nonperformers, they will be removed. Section 9901.342 Performance payouts. NSPS is not a pay for performance system. It is a system for controlling employees through their paychecks ? and this is dangerous, particularly in DoD. Our allegiance needs to be to our country, not to whoever is appointed to head the DoD by the currently prevailing political party. Our current system is a pay for performance system. It allows for high performers to be paid more, and it allows for within grade increases to be withheld for nonperformance. We already have a high-performance culture that supports mission accomplishment, or we would not be able to accomplish our missions with the personnel shortages we have. And we do more than accomplish the mission, we excel at it. We support active performance management. Those managers and supervisors who do not actively manage performance under this system are not likely to do so under a new, unfamiliar system that does not allow Employees adequate recourse when supervisors fail to state expectations, provide periodic performance counselings, or provide evaluations on time. What is the problem with the current performance management system? In our experience The Army Performance Evaluation System (TAPES) does everything with performance that NSPS is supposed to do. Our experience is that the only problem is when the regulation is not followed. In some cases this is because supervisors are not sure of the rules and they hesitate to take performanced based actions. So educate them. In other cases we have supervisors who have 40-60 direct reports plus a technical mission. How much effective performance management can they accomplish in a day, especially if they do have any employees with true performance problems? Under NSPS pay will managed via ?pay pools.? What level will the pay pools be managed at? Currently our pay is managed locally and Command has made intelligent and strategic use of the payroll funds available to them. They have managed to resource civilian pay despite funding shortages imposed by levels above them. For example, this installation won four commercial activities studies and has never been funded for the manpower we proved we needed in our Most Efficient Organizations (MEOs). If pay pools are managed above installation level, this will be another instance of NSPS not increasing managerial flexibility, as alleged, but actually taking away the ability of local managers to effectively manage the resources allocated to their mission. We have some experience with pay banding because we represent employees at the Army & Air Force Exchange Service. We have seen top ratings from supervisors be lowered by someone higher up the chain so that the Employee missed the level that they needed to earn an award their supervisor wanted them to have. We have little faith in objective ratings, and less if employees lose their current ability to challenge the ratings. Section 9901.343. Pay reduction based on unacceptable performance and/or conduct. This amounts to reclassifying positions based on temporary situations involving the incumbent. The mission is not going to change based on a performance or conduct issue. If a person stays 20 more years with the government, will they continue to be punished in their paycheck for something that happened 20 years ago? Section 9901.344. Other performance payments. What does the current pay system not allow employees to be paid for? ?Provide for other special circumstances? is a wide open door to abuse and cronyism. It really does sound like a ?friend of the supervisor? pay system. Section 9901.345. Treatment of developmental positions. We have this now, in the form of internships and upward mobility positions. Section 9901.361 Premium pay, general. We have seen supervisors abuse and misuse employees by working them very irregular, unpredictable schedules. Even under current rules, some supervisors tell employees they must take comp time (in lieu of overtime) and then try to tell them when they will take the comp time off. We do not know why it is necessary to change the current premium pay rates. We believe they are being changed to benefit the Employer, not the employees. This is short sighted and will not result in attracting and keeping the best and the brightest. Subpart D, Performance Management. Section 9901.401. We already have a system that supports all this. Without the implementing issuances, this section is all empty promises. Section 9901.405 Performance management system requirements. We support the need for an active, effective performance management system. However, we do not believe it is necessary to create an entirely new system. We already have a performance management system (The Army Performance Evaluation System) that provides for most of what is listed in this paragraph. Could it be a little better? Sure, any system can be improved upon, but that doesn?t mean we should throw the whole thing out and start over. We realize there are problems with how some managers and supervisors use TAPES. But the problem isn?t the tool, it?s how it?s used. If someone doesn?t know how to drive their Chevy, building them a new Ford isn?t going to make them a better driver. (Especially if the Ford turns out to have bugs of its own.) Section 9901.406. Setting and communicating performance expectations. Subpara (a) says that performance expectations will align with mission, strategic goals, organizational program and policy objective, performance plans, and other measures of performance. What do they think managers base performance standards on now, thin air? Employees, to include supervisors and managers, are always accountable for demonstrating professionalism and standards of appropriate conduct and behavior, such as civility and respect for others. The current system allows supervisors and managers to address conduct effectively. We do object to including behavior under conduct. Behavior is more subjective. An employee may be too quiet, too loud, too aggressive, too passive to suit different supervisors, but until and unless this affects job performance it is primarily a matter of personal taste. Section 9901.408. Developing performance and addressing poor performance. Nothing in the current system obliges supervisors to tolerate poor performance. They have a responsibility to develop staff members, and if performance doesn?t improve it can lead to removal. When we ask why something hasn?t been done about a poor performer, we are often told ?the union won?t let us.? That is a weak excuse for failure to do the job the supervisor was hired for. If performance actions are taken in accordance with the rules, the union is not going to have a problem with it. We have never seen anyone deliberately perform their job poorly, nor have we ever heard of such. If there are such cases, the table of penalties does allow supervisors to bring anyone up on charges who deliberately doesn?t do the job. Poor performance is not deliberate. It makes no sense to give an oral warning, reprimand, or adverse action or reduction in pay if a person is not able to do the job. These actions are tantamount to standing over them, waving your fist and yelling, ?Do it right!!? If they knew how and were able to, they would be doing it right in the first place and saving themselves the aggravation of having you yell at them. No amount of punishment is going to be effective in performance management. Provide resources for training. Convey expectations clearly. Allow for some errors ? The best leaders know that the only people who never make mistakes are people who never do anything else, either. And if someone is hired into a job and it turns out they can?t do it, place them elsewhere if you can use them productively, and if you have to remove them do it humanely. Performance management should not be a game of ?gotcha.? We do not approve of supervisors who ignore performance issues, because that means either the job isn?t getting done or some other employee is taking up the slack for someone whose performance needs improvement. In those cases where an employee gets a bad performance rating and comes to us for help, it is common for us to find that every prior evaluation is outstanding and no performance counselings have been done to let the employee know their performance needs improvement. We have seen supervisors approve a step increase (only authorized if work if of an acceptable level of competence) after initiating valid action to remove an employee for poor performance. We have proposed stronger performance management in contract negotiations but were unable to convince Management to commit to a strong system supporting high performance and mission accomplishment because our proposals put the responsibility for performance management on management. Sincerely,