| Comment Number: | OL-10504813 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 11:07:00 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:
Having worked in both the NAF pay for performance system and the General Schedule, I have seen pros and cons to both systems. As a current GS employee, I feel frustrated by the fact that I have continuously been rated a superior performer and can't move up in rank but once per year, if I am lucky enough to find an opening and be selected. The GS system is very slow to promote superior performers. The GS system also does a very poor job of evaluating non-federal work experience and equating it to federal ranking systems. Also, many commands only support training and education if paid for by another authority while the only higher education any other authority will pay for is the kind where it takes employees away from their jobs for days or weeks in addition to the costs to pay for that training or education. If they would offer tuition assistance for off-duty education, employees could still work their job and achieve higher education on their own time. I thought this new system would address both of these issues that many of my fellow federal co-workers and myself face, but it is not clear that this new system will address any of these issues. Furthermore, having worked in the NAF pay for performance system, I am concerned about how the new system will address the subjectivity of rating by supervisors. In a previous NAF position where I was continuously highly rated for my performance, I spoke out against my supervisor who was acting unethically with a contractor and that one time event affect affected my performance appraisal, which also meant no pay increase. The circumstances for that appraisal did not meet the requirements for a formal grievance, therefore, I just had to accept the manager's opinion of my performance. I fear this will be the way of this new system. Another issue not clearly addressed in this new system is how the money to award pay increases will be set aside to cover such increases. In many instance within the NAF system, I was rated as a superior performer, but the funds to award such performance wasn't available. How will this new system ensure that funds will be available to continuously cover pay increases? I hope before implementation of Sprial 1 that all of our concerns will be addressed not just considered.