| Comment Number: | OL-10504504 |
| Received: | 3/9/2005 3:15:54 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:
1. It is difficult to comment on the proposed NSPS system when so many specifics are undetermined and the DOD implementing issuances are not available. I have more questions than comments. 2. Classification (Subpart B). - Will new position descriptions be ready for reassigning employees when they are transitioned, beginning with Spiral 1.1, or will employees be transitioned on their current PDs? - Who is writing the new PDs? - Will competitive levels be standardized across Department of Army or DOD? This seems like the opportune time to do so. - How will FLSA be determined within the grade bands? - Will DA/DOD be exempt from applying new OPM position classification standards to positions that will be transitioned? (i.e. Will we be exempted from applying the new GS-0600 PCS for Professional and Administrative Work in Medical and Sciences Group when it is issued since MEDCOM will transition in the first spiral?) 3. Adjusting Rate Ranges and Local Market Supplements (Subpart C, and 5 CFR Part 9901.323 and 9901.334) - How often will these adjustments occur? Will there be annual adjustments, or will other specific time intervals be established? - If these adjustments will be automatic for everyone receiving a rating above “unacceptable”, will performance-based pay be in addition to these adjustments? - Will there be safeguards to ensure that base pay for DOD employees does not fall behind employees in other areas of Federal service? 4. Pay Administration (Subpart C) - The section under “Temporary Promotion” states: GS employees will be converted at their current rate of basic pay, including any locality payment, adjusted on a one-time, pro-rata basis, for the time spent towards their next within-grade increase. Does this provision apply only to those on temporary promotion, or does it have a broader application as indicated under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review? E.O. 12866 states: As has been the practice with implementing other alternative personnel systems, DOD expects to incur an initial payroll cost related to the conversion of employees to the pay banding system. This is often referred to a within-grade increase (WGI) “buyout” in which an employee’s basic pay, upon conversion, is adjusted by the amount of the WGI earned to date. The draft 5 CFR does not specifically address WGI “buyouts” under 9901.373. It should. Will all GS employees who are in a waiting period receive a WGI buyout? 5. Performance Management (Subpart D) - The first sentence in this section states that the current performance management system is burdensome. In comparison to NSPS, the current system seems quite easy. If your intent is to clean house of retirement-eligible supervisors, you just might succeed. 6. Performance and Behavior Accountability (Subpart D) - How do you propose to track and measure attitude? I think there is a danger that employees will not speak out about real problems and unpopular issues because they may be perceived as having negative attitudes, or not being teamplayers, or being uncooperative, designations which could impact their performance rating and pay. I agree that poor behavior and misconduct are issues that warrant disciplinary action, but in the NSPS system, the act of disagreeing with a supervisor or voicing objections to the “company line” could cause an employee to be negatively labeled, even when he/she is right. Employees’ rights need to be protected so that they are not afraid to speak up. 7. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review - Do you truly expect this system to improve DOD’s ability to attract and retain a high-performing workforce when it is expected that actual payroll costs under this system will be constrained by the amount budgeted for overall DOD payroll expenditures. If the intent is to establish and maintain a workforce in which each employee is a high-performer, do you anticipate paying each employee as a high-performer? If the performance rating bar is continuously raised so that even high performers receive only the equivalent of an “acceptable” rating, or if the budget is constrained so that excellent performers receive smaller than expected raises, you probably will not be able to retain high performing employees, and those that remain will probably have lower morale and higher stress levels. Already under the merit promotion system, we are supposed to be hiring and promoting the “best” candidates. Are these “best” candidates expected to be satisfied if their performance is judged as merely “acceptable”? Receiving lower performance ratings is going to be difficult and demoralizing for many employees who have long career records of receiving “exceptional” ratings. For some who truly feel they already are giving their best, this rating system may have the detrimental effect of causing them to give up and quit trying instead of inspiring them to achieve more. - In the lab demos and other alternative personnel systems of which I am familiar, the organizations involved are the wealthier, better funded organizations. The employees are generally happy with the new system because there is money to go around and they are all receiving higher pay, awards, etc. (Most are still receiving “exceptional” performance appraisals.) What will happen to the organizations that are not so well funded? I predict that there will be many perceived injustices, and many requests for reconsideration of ratings, grievances, EEO complaints, etc. 8. Personal Comments and Perceptions - The uncertainties of this new system are provoking a lot of anxiety among my coworkers with whom I have discussed the issue. There is a fear that employee rights are being eroded. This anxiety and fear is damaging to morale and could impact productivity. - There is also the perception that this new system will foster competition, perhaps even resentment, bitterness, or hostility, between and among employees which will be counterproductive and destructive to true teaming, particularly in the pay groups with tighter funding and less money to be paid in salaries. This will not be a rising tide that “lifts all boats”; this will be a seesaw where if someone gets more, someone gets less. - There is a lack of trust in the fairness of the system when human perceptions, subjectivities, and biases could impact an issue as important and personal as pay. - The way this system is being introduced to the DOD workforce contributes to the level of anxiety this change is causing. It seems that DOD either doesn’t know yet what they are going to do and are going to field another half-baked, ill-advised program, or the new personnel system is going to be so bad for employees that DOD is keeping it a secret from us as long as they can. Neither of the scenarios inspires trust and confidence in our parent organization. For an agency that gives lip service to the value, dedication, and contributions of the civilian workforce, many of us feel we are in danger of maltreatment. There is a lot more fear that we have something to lose than optimism that we have something to gain by the implementation of NSPS.