| Comment Number: | OL-10000000 |
| Received: | 2/14/2005 1:49:46 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:
It seems to me that there is a pot of money that is defended, and therefore makes the NSPS a competitve system. This is clearly not fair or objective. Further, it falls short on descibing what objectives any employee is to meet for the sake of being flexible. It rewards and punishes individuals who are not team players, even if they do a stellar job. My three points are listed below. 1) If the incentives are competitive, and the person does a really good job, but every year the pool of money runs out when it's their turn to get the award, then the system falls short of what it promises. Therefore the system cannot be competitve. If everyone does a great job, one person should not be rewarded above anyone else. This is the "team work" that the NSPS tries to incorporate. However, it also seeks to reward the individual. If that individual is not a team player then there is a HUGE conflict in the language. 2) Although the language may seem to state the obvious as far a "bad" and "good" behavior and how it influences the work group, it is actually irrelevent. It puts to much emphasis on being a team player, and no emphesis on being a revolutionary and visionary loner. I'd rather work with someone who's a complete pain and hard deal with, as long as that person gets their work done and is passionate about the job. 3) The language in the register seems to imply that everyone get along, rather than everyone do their job. Although it seems the language finally takes behavior into account, it falls short because there is no way to regulate what is considered to be "offensive" behavior. It is also unconstitutional to try to regulate it. For example, if I got into an arguement with someone I liked and they insulted me, I wouldn't be offended. However, if it were with someone I didn't like, I probably would be offended. Therefore the offense is subjective. There is no way to remove someone's personal insecurity from the offense. And therefore there is no way to settle the matter fairly. Therefore, the language that tries to regulate behavior is flawed because it is subjective. The person who has the most power, specifically management, has the final say, even if management is involved in the above example incident. Therefore, any remarks about behavior should be removed from the registar. The system should not be competitive. And a person who is not a team player, but an outstanding indiviual should not be boxed in to be a team player if that person doesn't want to be.