| Comment Number: | OL-10500021 |
| Received: | 2/14/2005 3:44:04 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:
Classification of employees and Pay for performance. 1. Classification of employees grade should have been and should forever be protected. In other words, when a new employee arrives on the job site, they should not have to be burden with questions such as "What is your grade? For me, there was no problem, but for others with a smaller grade can be made to feel inferior. Those with a higher grade are treated most often in the beginning with some degree of hostility. For example: A GS-11 journeyman can arrive and truly be a journeyman in the field they came from. Because they have limited knowledge of processes and programs in the new job field they can be treated as if they know nothing. Supervisors or those acting in charge can demoralize a person by constantly reminding them that they have not reached the journeyman's level and have a long way to go. This has personally happened to me, but not by my supervisor. I think that classification should be eliminated completely or it should be prohibited for anyone to question a new employee on the job about their grade and experience except what they wish to reveal out of mutual conversation. Of course their supervisors should know, but then maybe they shouldn't. Perhaps it could be kept at a higher level. This way there would not be any discrimination based on grades. I have also been informed that a GS-11 journeyman coming into a positon outside of government is usually not welcome by most GS-11 counterparts. 2. Performance for Pay. I personally know a person who works for the Unified Port District of San Diego, CA. The Port District has over 500 employees. They tried the Performance for Pay for about 3 years and it did not work. The reason it did not work was because they found out that the money that the "good performers" had received was only a few pennies on the dollar more than the ones who were getting a cost of living raise. They found that the reason was there is only x amount of money in the pot. Many deserved raises, but there was only so much money. It was calculated that the money came out to be around (I quote approx. because this info was given to me) 20 to 21cents on the dollar. When you look at this and the cost of living raises given to the "non good performers" it was not much of a raise for the "good performers". I personally am for "Performance for Pay", but really can it work and where is the money going to come from to pay all the good achievers. There will be those who will work harder and improve and there will be those who don't care. There is still the problem of having subjective supervisors or managers. How do you objectively rate an employee when they have preference with the supervisor and this is common in the most workplaces. Thank you for reading my comments and "GOOD LUCK".