| Comment Number: | OL-10500389 |
| Received: | 2/16/2005 4:31:06 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:
My questions are based on the recent NSPS fact sheet distributed. The local market supplement will be based on market conditions related to geographical and occupational factors, and may differ from one occupation to another in a given locality area. Upward adjustments to local market supplements will not be given to unacceptable performers. My question is; in the “local market” where I work, as a Quality Assurance Specialist (1910) my job requires certain hazardous duties (flight deck operations and landing and taking off via COD aircraft or helicopter from deployed aircraft carriers) whereas the same job (1910) at other locations doesn’t require 1910s to do this. Would this be considered an ‘occupational factor/s? Would local market share be higher in my area of work Vs a less hazardous area? For retention of good personnel this is an important consideration. Additionally, under the existing system my job is categorized as the rest of U.S 11% whereas Houston TX is 24%. Under the new plan will that market share be more fairly distributed because of hazards associated with duties at my location Vs duties at another location because of cost of living? If this is the case, then I perceive this new system as being fairer than the previous. How will supervisors be accountable for exercising their responsibilities under NSPS? The flexibilities proposed in the NSPS regulations bring with them an increased need for accountability. This includes employee accountability for performance, as well as supervisory and managerial accountability for the proper exercise of the authorities in NSPS. Extensive training will be given to supervisors and managers, with a focus on improving skills needed for effective performance management, such as setting clear expectations, communicating with employees, and linking individual expectations to the goals and objectives of the organization. Supervisors and managers will be held accountable for how effectively they use the tools provided by NSPS. They will also be subject to the pay and performance provisions of the system, and their pay will be affected by how well they perform their duties as supervisors and managers. How will they be measured? One perception I have of this new system is that Military Officers will be immune from pay penalties whereas civilian supervisors are subject to pay performance penalties. Is this fair? In my current civilian job I have seen military supervisors come an go. Some have been effective leaders who manage people well. Some have been not so effective. When mismanagement or abuse of power occurs what recourse do civilians have for reporting abuses of power. In the past, a civilian could file an informal grievance without fear of reprisal. Under the new system it seems very one sided in favor of the military supervisor. Is this fair? Does it lead to good moral? Civilians are a good check and balance for the military especially if the civilian is also a retired military service member. Thank you for entertaining comments on this new personnel structure.