| Comment Number: | OL-10502916 |
| Received: | 3/3/2005 12:31:52 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:
Pay for performance seems to be a step backward in time. There once was a "good old boy" network that, in part, determined how far you would advance and how much money you received for the annual bonus. When I hired into the Shipyard, monetary performance awards were given based on the rating your supervisor gave you. There was a "bucket of money" each shop/code was allowed to give the personnel (including themselves). I observed senior managers play with the numbers so that some people would get as much as $1000 and some would get as little as $150; they would calculate and recalculate the percentages until the payouts were to their liking. The ratings were not in my opinion based on performance, but were based on whether you went hunting or golfing with so-and-so. A case in point is a supervisor who golfed with a senior manager was broken back to mechanic almost immediately upon the retirement of the senior manager. Obviously the newly appointed senior manager either thought the performance of the supervisor was inadequate (his ratings didn’t reflect poor performance) or preferred hunting over golfing. This person, to the best of my knowledge, 13 years later is still working swing shift as a mechanic. I don't see how any amount of training for employees or supervisors will prevent the good-old-boy network from becoming prevalent. I believe all workers should at least get a cost of living raise each year. I foresee employees leaving the government if they feel they their pay is being unfairly "messed with" because they don't hunt, golf or participate in whatever the current popular sport/function is.