| Comment Number: | OL-10505831 |
| Received: | 3/11/2005 8:54:07 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:
The overview of this system is a hard read. Pay banding raises many questions. While according to the documentation no salaries will be decreased will those occupations that currently receive special rates of pay continue to do so? What becomes of those occupations which are interdisciplinary? There are many references to employees who don't perform at an acceptable level. Who decides what constitutes unacceptable? Who reviews goals to ensure that they are attainable for all personnel? In order for a rating system such as this to be fair, employees and supervisors would need to wade through a quagmire of back and forth. Anytime you tie someones money to the decisions of another person you are in for trouble. If an employee no longer automatically receives regular pay adjustments or increases, and those things are now tied to the decisions of a supervisor, who is only human and may lack the level of objectivity required to make such a system work, who decides upon the accuracy of an unsuccessful rating? Is the system able to adequately handle the number of grievances that will surely arise once it is place? If a supervisor's rating is overturned, how is the employee compensated? In my experience both as a supervisor and an employee rating times are a chore that are to be completed as quickly as possible. This is ingrained in the majority of supervisors. Unless this pattern can be reversed things will remain status quo. If that is so, then the impact of the change is greatly reduced. Either that or the less emphasized impact is the more important to the government. I can see ratings now being used as a means to attempt to control budgets. I also see positives with the system. Any goverment employee would have to admit that civil service is loaded with dead weight. Those employees who manipulate the system either to be disagreeable or just to avoid performing any substantive job duties. Those employees who stand as roadblocks to progress instead of performing their duties in the most helpful manner possible. Do I rate those employees as unsuccessful? Are they in fact doing their jobs correctly or do I just not like them or the way they do it? By rating them unsuccessful and freezing their pay and awards, am I forcing them out or forcing them to do better? Do I continue to rate them as unsuccessful during the year or more it could take to resolve the grievance resulting from the original rating? If so, did I continue to rate the employee in such a manner because I was upset with having to deal with the grievance when I have 10 million other things to do and no time to do them? The pay system needs to be revamped and hiring does need to become less complicated and more streamlined and removing problem employees does need to be simplified, but I don't think NSPS is the way to do it.