| Comment Number: | OL-10501962 |
| Received: | 2/28/2005 3:04:41 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:
Performance Pay Pools: Once the rater recommends the rating the paypool panel merely functions as a "rubber stamp" to validate a process which is filled with favortism and cronism. The reason being is that the members on the paypool either don't know the empolyee and MUST goalong with the rating that the supervisor gives. An example of this is this: I work in an organization that has 14 Transportation Specialists who technically performs the same mission in different Army bases, but because of world events several of them work on bases where the OPTEMPO is higher than the others. The 1-2 that work at the lower OPTEMPO bases and I suspect very stronger it is because the Manager likes them more than the others, receive more performance monies than the ones who are actually doing the vast amount of work, To further add cronism and favoritism to the mix, Them ones in the high optempo have found out about the disparty in bonuses but dont want to "rock the boat". This is just one example of the inherent problems that can/will occur. The whole issue of pay pool is ridiculed with favoritism and cronism and to ask the paypool manager to be fair and unabiased is like asking the president to serve as the paypool manager of the whitehouse personnel. This regulation allows the supervisor to "punish" an employee for behavior that impairs task/job performance. This is the "kiss of death" because it opens the door for this same individual to punished twice. One when the incident occurs and again and the conclusion of the performance rating period. $ 9901.715 Opportunity to reply; The "atleast 10" requirement is not enough time allowed for the employee to adequatley reply to an aqdverse action. This can be contrued as nothing more than a "smoke screen" to get rid of the employee. The employee does not have enough time to adequatly present his / her defense to this action. The issue of providing 5 days " for which a sentence of improvement MAY be imposed is assinine. Who would make the determination that the person will go to imprison. the supervisor?? and then to have it run " concurrently " with the Short NNotice period?? Reaps of double jeopardy... This policy is not for a democractic country - maybe in Russia or the former Soviet block- but certainly not here!