| Comment Number: | OL-10504141 |
| Received: | 3/8/2005 2:33:31 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:
It is my hope that the NSPS system will reduce the inequities in pay and awards, the negative impact that the union has perpetuated between management and staff with frivolous complaints, and the abuse by some staff in actual performance (or lack thereof) rendered to the government. My great fear circles around the lack of real information contained in this document about pay bands, how employees performance is actually to be determined versus rated and by specifically whom, and the overly frequent references to the "Department will publish... and implement issuances" for all the concrete elements that should already be documented for paybands, and career groups, to mandatory removal offenses, actually just about every concrete element that an employee could grab hold of to know where they'll stand within this new system and just what those "basic employee rights" referenced on page 7574 are supposed to be (they're not clarified in this document). This serves to implement a system that is incredibly non-defined, and very ambiguous for management and staff when it comes to answering the question "What does this all really mean to me and my future with the government and how will I fit within this new system with my current management and will this put bread on my table?" regardless of which responsibility level you are at. Reading some of the comments by others, apparently, I'm not alone in this observation. The Federal Register article says that "the system will provide employees with greater opportunities for career growth and mobility within the Department", but no where in this document does it actually tell me how that will happen other than to say get "rated" a "high-performer", supposedly something good will happen, sometime. That's pretty difficult to get a good handle on for the better, let alone feel good about. I'm in agreement that it's a good idea to move to a smarter, high-performance, more cohesive team of workers that put national security first, and I believe that security is the job of every person that works for the government. However, this Federal Register document reads more like a "white paper" that serves to justify why this new system is necessary and certainly less like a document that explains how this system will really work to each government worker, both management AND staff. It most definitely DOES NOT answer the question in quantifiable terms "what's in it for me" to be a high-performer - bottom-line, other than being able to keep my job.... and maybe not get my pay docked 10%. And if I'm a high-performer, does that mean I could get up to a 10% RAISE or only a 10% bonus (because of some ill-founded difference in opinion with my superior) and still keep the same salary level until I retire. I never minded hard work no matter what it was and actually thrive on it, but this doesn't leave me with any warm-feeling of job security no matter how hard I work or what I do. I'd like to see how this system at least suggests the possibility that my salary could grow and to what level. At least I'd feel better about buying a real house with real heat and real water so that I could afford to retire someday - and that is indeed my BOTTOM-LINE!