| Comment Number: | OL-10501936 |
| Received: | 2/28/2005 2:15:27 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 do not like your ideas concerning pay pools. 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 describing 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. 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. 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 argument 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 register.