| Comment Number: | OL-10504796 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 10:46:10 AM |
| 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:
In general, I agree with the concept of pay for performance. However, there is no indication that our management will change. If the old-style management we currently have remains in place under the new system, then the new system will be a complete failure. To accommodate our current management, NSPS would have to have extraordinary protections for the workers built in. The current proposal does not. The current system already has a pay for performance component. That is our year-end rewards. Here at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard it is known as "shares" and "rocks". Currently, extra "shares" and "rocks" are given to those workers that talk bad to the supervisor about other workers. The supervisor assumes that everything said is true. He never checks the facts or confronts the employee being talked about. There is no opportunity for the accused employee to answer his accusers. Employees that work hard and do quality work but do not talk bad about others have no opportunity to receive extra "shares" and "rocks". The current reward system, then, is based not on what an employee does, but what he says. It does not encourage quality work, but immoral behavior. There are no checks and balances on the supervisor. NSPS, as proposed, will not only continue the same process, but put more money into it. At least with the current system, good workers get a rare step increase every few years. With NSPS, the step increases will be taken away from the good workers and given to the "good" talkers. For NSPS to be successful, our management must be replaced with people who can recognize good work and reward it. There must also be metrics in place so that quality and quantity of work can be measured. There must be a peer review board so that the supervisor's personal opinion is not the final word. There must also be an appeal process. Employees must also have a way to find out how the decision on their pay was reached. This must not be a secret process, as the current rewards system is. Another problem is the proposed pooling of funds among supervisors. What will happen in our case is that when our supervisor meets with the other supervisors in our pool, he will say that he only has 5 good workers (actually good talkers) (out of 30) and that he only needs enough to reward those 5. The other supervisors will say that all their employees are good and will happily take all the remaining money to reward most to all of their employees. In fact, their employees are not better than ours. There needs to be an overall review process to make sure that this does not happen. Another problem is the way in which information is distributed. We were told about NSPS at an informational session at Willett Hall in Portsmouth, VA. This session was completely insufficient. We were let off 30 minutes before the session. It took me about 75 minutes to get there. From the I-264 exit to Willett Hall was bumper-to-bumper traffic, clogged with people attempting to get to the info session. Many people just gave up and went home. I made it there, but I missed most of the presentation. There was an insufficient number of handouts for the crowd. Most people did not get a handout. This session should have been held onsite and at various times so everyone would have had a chance to attend. It seems that they purposely planned it in such a way that they could say they had it, and everyone was invited, yet still discourage people from actually coming. Also, the primary answer to audience questions was that NSPS is not yet fully designed and that we have 2 years before we'll feel the adverse effects anyway. This is not credible. This is not a good omen for the future of NSPS. A system that is designed to keep workers in the dark is a failed system. NSPS should not be set up for the benefit and enrichment of management, but to make the workplace better for the workers and to reward those who do quality work.