| Comment Number: | OL-10500716 |
| Received: | 2/18/2005 6:23:42 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:
To dear NSPS reviewer, First of all let me tell you how happy I am to hear that there are going to be some changes regarding hard working, serious civilians. I myself have been working for 2 and a half years at the DLI and even though I came to this organization with prior 14 years of teaching, 4 years of teaching foreign language to young students and a full year of experience in teaching foreign language to adults, I was hired with a low salary because I was not familiar with the system and did not know the cost of living in Monterey. I found out later, that people with no proper English skills and teaching experiences, based on false information, negotiation skill and connection got hired with a much higher salary. Unfortunately, this was only the beginning of my disappointment like many others. At the end of the first year, I found out despite of all my hard work, good rating ESQ from students and even good mid year valuation from the chair person of the school, some teachers started talking negatives and opened bad mouth against me, to the point that some said that I was pregnant from the chair person of my department! To make the story short, I was first fired and then forced to a different department and was told that I have no chance to come back to the department ever. That year, I did not even gain one merit point and evaluation was written based on personal opinion about me and mal behavior with the whole employee at the school. I was told by my chair person that I had a different culture than the rest of my colleagues!! That was his reason to fire me. However, he was not willing to put any reason in writing. My complaint to union and later in a form of grievance to provost made the matter even worse. The Provost in spite of the office advisor and the union head did not change the rating and evaluation remained unfairly the same, but the chair person became a dean in another organization within the DLI, My merit points were given to those who talked bad against me and put their hands in to the supervisor’s hand. Do you think this is a democratic way of taking care of an employee’s legitimate issue? I will be happy if any one any time wants to open this old file and look at it and really listen to evidence and documents and argument. I told you my “personal story” briefly in order to make you realize where I am coming from and that I suffered from an unfair, bias judgment and unreasonable pay system. I do care and support any positive changes and federal laws that bring peace and justice to any existing organization and among its workers. My concerns and proposal related to pay and to appraisal are as bellow: • At the time of hiring wouldn’t be better to consider people’s related experiences and the type of academic degree, rather than the level of an unrelated degree or based the pay system on gender identity? • I support the idea that with changes of duties in daily performances and increase of responsibilities there should be an increase of pay. We should be differentiating between a hard worker, professional and a lazy, dead mind. • The evaluation at the end of each year should not be solely based on the supervisor opinion which could be inappropriately in favor on not favor of someone. Who and what document determine if an employee did or did not have a successful performance? What are clear criteria for a successful evaluation? Who is looking at these criteria? What if someone is so insecure with no prior experience in teaching or management and does not know the language of the local department which he is supervising? What if he was surrounded by some manipulative people that make a puppet out of him and influence his/her judgment? What is really important at the end of the year evaluation? • The supervisor should be appraised and evaluated by his/hers employees as well, the same way that he/she evaluates employees or the students evaluate their teacher. I don’t see why this can not be applicable. • In the labor relations it is mentioned that managers are not required to consider union consultations or view! Therefore, what and who would protect the poor employee who is new to the system and know nothing, but could be an asset to the organization/mission? • For negotiating grievances and serious consideration of the complaint, there should be a panel of professionals who know the system very well and are willing to listen and seriously consider every facts and evidence or documents even in details. Let the system work and let the employees stay and continue to contribute to the mission with peace, satisfaction and pride. • The period of taking adverse actions should be extended to 30 days. A new employee should be protected by given a longer time to find out the avenues and ways to take care of the matter. In some situations some authorities may be out for 15 days and the employee may not be able to consult the matter and make decision within that period.