| Comment Number: | OL-10500529 |
| Received: | 2/17/2005 4:01:27 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:
I'm not certain that pay by performance is as good an idea as has been suggested. In my situation, for instance, civilians such as I will be governed by military supervisors that have very little clue as to just what the job includes. They are primarily Combat Controllers who have very little knowledge of the job I was hired for entails. If I don't meet what they think should be performance worth a raise, I'm out of luck. This could mean periods of no raise, and periods of a good raise based solely on point of view and personal perception as opposed to true consideration for a good job well done and worthy of a raise. Military people may not view their civilian co-workers as worthy of a raise simply because of disparities between the two work environments and expectations. The plan gives no obvious provision for personal opinion that could be "they are not worth a raise no matter how hard they work". If they aren'y military, they are not worth a raise could be all the reason a supervisor needs with very little proof the employee can give to prove this is what is going on. The reasons could include just about anything from differences of opinion over a sports team, not being in physical shape to a simple I don't like you. I think merit raises are good, in theory, but the openness of the plan can also lead to abuse that leaves the employee at a real disadvantage.