Comment Number: OL-10506101
Received: 3/11/2005 11:33:33 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:

REFERENCE PAY BANDING: Our organization has been under pay banding for 5 years. No one's pay has been decreased due to non-stellar performance. Since I am a Performer my pay has increased much more than it would have under the GS system because I was topped out at my old grade, but under pay banding started in the middle of the band--I am now topped out under that pay band as well. The three issues that I see we have had the most problem with are: (1) Some bands are too wide, or rather, not divided in the right place. Based on our experience, a better place to divide would have been between GS12s and GS13s. (2) The second issue is one of education. Employees just don't get the fact that with a pay pool, there is only so much money available. It is virtually impossible to give employees truly accurate ratings because it has to relate to the amount of funds available. As it turns out, 3.2 is the average rating for a decent performer. Less than that for people who just show up to work. More than that for people who go above and beyond. 3.2 is not a bad rating, but when the top end is 5, the perception is hard to take. (3) The last issue is banding for admin. At our organization, the branch admin is now in the same band with the division admin. Where is the incentive to move up in the organization? When the division secretary retires in 5 years, the branch admins will be making the same amount of money and be in an office where they are comfortable. We will have to hire from outside. The banding needs to be such that there is still a different level of band for the different levels of responsibility. REFERENCE JOB DESCRIPTIONS. We used to joke that a secretary's job description should just say Other Duties As Assigned and be done with it. That is now a reality. The position descriptions are virtually useless. REFERENCE TRAINING RATERS under new system. We had a lot of training for the supervisors so they would understand the new system. We had no training for the employees. This set the supervisors up for failure. All initial training needs to be for supervisors and employees so everyone is hearing the same thing.