Comment Number: OL-10505293
Received: 3/10/2005 4:56:47 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:

Managers & Personnel (HR) were/are the ones who have made the job descriptions complex and rigid. Usually it was done to help save certain employee’s from being affected from RIFs. Union’s have never been afforded the opportunity to negotiate classifications. Management does not need this in order to have flexibility. They have the right to assign work and detail employees to different functions. You are going to end up with a generalized workforce and no one will be a specialist in anything. You are not providing any details about “pay banding.” I cannot make any informed comments when you are leaving me in the dark as to your proposal. It should be equal pay for equal work, not who is the manager’s favorite employee. This will only going to cause hate and discontent within the workforce. You can simplify job descriptions without NSPS. This could cause an involuntary demotions depending on how the pay bands are set up. This could take me from the top of my current grade to a lower position in the established career group, which would cause an adverse effect on my pay. With the broad range of duties, I will not know what is really expected of me. I could be performing one set of duties one week and who knows what I’ll be doing the following week. I have not seen nor read any rationale from DoD of why you need these changes. I cannot understand how my classification or pay has affected national security. I expect that when this is all said and done, everyone will have a job description that states “deployment.” This is only an attempt to expand my duties and responsibilities without any extra pay. Training would be a major part to change the classification. I cannot receive any training now. It’s either because of a lack of funds or time. Our pay has always been based on our performance. If my performance is not up to expectations, step increases could always be held back. Management has always had the option of not promoting me if I was not doing what was expected of me. This is going to have a huge affect on my retirement. If I’m not going to receive any more raises, why should I care or keep working for DOD? Management has always been able to reward high performers with a monetary award, time off award, QSI, etc. We don’t need NSPS for this! You are not providing any details concerning this so it is difficult to comment when I am not sure what you are proposing. Teamwork will go out the window because this will pit one employee against the other. This will only hurt the mission at a time when the soldiers need us the most. Instead of everyone helping one another, they will do everything possible to make everyone else look bad. There will only be so much money to go around that will be placed into the pay pool. The end result could be that even the high performers will not be compensated. Nobody is going to want to work for DoD because I expect to be treated like a human being and not some sort of robot. You will see mass retirements when this is implemented. We will have a two-tier pay system – maybe even 3 or 4 tiers. I can foresee where a new employee will be paid even more than I am with my 30 years of federal employment. This will not be of any benefit to the mission, employees, morale, or teamwork. There is no guarantee that I will not lose pay as a result of conversion to NSPS. I don’t receive my performance appraisal on time now. The proposed regulation does not make it clear to ensure that I will get appraisals on time and receive a pay increase if my appraisal is at least acceptable. There are no assurances that pay pools administered at the Department of the Army level (if that is where they will be administered from) will ensure monies at the local level. It would be unfair to withhold a pay grade or step increase from employees for a situation they have no control over.