| Comment Number: | OL-10501951 |
| Received: | 2/28/2005 2:35:36 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:
The system changes sound good based on rewarding outstanding performance. However, several questions come to mind; such as how can you better link military experience with job qualifications with pay. For example, the Education & Training positions pay vary based on written job statement of work. Some are GS 7 pay positions while other (with less job tasks and responsibility) pay at the GS 9 rate. Failure to pay positions the private sector wages will reduce the availability of qualified workers. Many training positions, such as the group training position I am filling now, have broad unit and group commander assistance and advisor responsibilities. These do not pay well based on the present system. While a technical advisor on the other hand gets paid several pay scales above and nearly double what the group training advisors get. This is an example of the lack of pay equality within the present system. Several other higher paying GS positions have no requirement to advise and brief unit and group commanders on the status and improvements needed in their programs as training advisors must do on a regular basis. Nor do they conduct inspections and staff assistance visits as training management does accross the units. Having a degree, and over 20 years experience in both training technician and supervisory positions, still did not "qualify" for a simple GS 9 position or pay? This is a glowing example of why these positions are so hard to fill and keep filled by qualified individuals. I myself will seek a higher paying position as soon as possible as I also see this present position as a wrongly classified and over burdened position not recognized for the amount of resposibility it holds. We've all experienced the "back burner" attitude toward training as it is often a less emphasized postion within many orgs. Training can't be properly managed or conducted on the cheap. As seen with other programs and policies, the focus given by the command level leaders filters down throughout the various other levels. Suggest this be looked at during the functional grouping of the STEP bands. Many of these positions are now under the MEO program which should also be reviewed for change. Thank You