| Comment Number: | OL-10506343 |
| Received: | 3/11/2005 2:01:22 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:
9901.331-334 - Local market supplements - states "Locality pay would no longer be given equally to all employees in the same local area. Instead, DOD will decide which jobs should be paid more and which jobs it believes are already being paid higher than similar jobs in the same local labor market". Comment: DOD has not stated what it is using as a measure for similar jobs. Who is DOD to say your job is important you get more money (locality pay) - sorry your job isn't important you don't get the same amount. This will cause people to try and jump pay bands to get to a job that DOD thought was important/worthwhile to do. I could see these leaving wholes in the TDA's. 9901.341.342 - Performance payouts - states "NSPS would allow the supervisor to decide how many performance shares to give." "Means a supervisor could give one excellent employee 4 shares and give another excellent employee with the same rating 5 shares. The second employee will get a bigger pay increase than the first based solely on that supervisor's decision". Comment: To me the bottom line is not how well you do your job it's how well you kiss and suck. If anyone thinks that this is good for the employee moral they are wrong. You will see the good old boy's club come back, for just a choice few. You will see people stop helping other people - they might look good and take away from you or not give you credit. I’m not sure I would want to help a fellow person in my pay band get ahead/look good, less money for me might be the first thing that goes through my head. Today, we are all working for the guy in the field. Doing are very best. Our pay is secondary to what needs to get done. Tomorrow - first worry will be my performance and pay. Not the end result. Too much competition, back stabbing, rumors, to deal with. What a happy workforce we will have. 9901-409 - Challenging a rating - states "And, although supervisors will impact employees' pay both by the rating they assign and the number of shares they choose to give, there will be no accountability and no redress for those decisions. Comments: If a supervisor is proven wrong they are not held accountable. Looks to me like I'm being held accountable for my job and performance and my supervisor who is in a higher pay band is not being held accountable. This does not make sense. If anyone believes supervisors can be fair and impartial they are wrong. They have feelings, likes, dislikes just like everyone else and they can act upon them with ratings and shares. Not holding them accountable is just opening a big black hole with no way out. Comments: If a supervisor is not being held accountable for their actions, that mean they are open to being sued for maybe slander saying your not doing your job but you are; for giving everyone else two shares and maybe you only got one. If you can't grieve your case (maybe you and your supervision don't get a long) taking your boss to court may be the only resource you have.