| Comment Number: | OL-10506958 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 2:49:12 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:
Dear Sir/Mam: I am writing to express my concerns regarding some of the changes proposed with the NSPS system. My primary concern is the accountability portion of how outstanding performers are selected for pay raises versus the current fair and equitable system of across the board pay increases for all. Under the current system, outstanding performers are recognized by honorary, monetary, or time-off awards with all employees receiving longevity raises annually and periodic step increases. With the revised NSPS system, it is touted that managers and supervisors will be thoroughly trained in the new system. That statement will not make it a fair and equitable system for all. Even with the current appraisal system, many (military) supervisors don't have a clue on how to fill out basic evaluation forms in spite of frequent training and supposed accountability. How is the proposed revised NSPS system going to ensure every employee is treated fairly and will ensure basic fundamental rights and pay raises are adhered to. From what I can decipher, it will all depend on how management and/or supervisors evaluate and rate each employees overall performance and contribution to the organization. The proposed system is very subjective. Employees who are organizationally accepted, adapt and fit in will be substantially rewarded. The good ole boy syndrome will be reinforced. Employees who, for what-ever reason may not toe the line or who may upset mainline establishment or even a particular supervisor/management official for what-ever reason, can be easily black-listed. The impact of even one employee, not being treated fairly, is not worth the entire pay revision module that this system will make available to managers and supervisors. The proposed checks and balances still rely on management to make the determination, which if it is an award, rightfully so, however, pay increases soley based on performance is not a fair and equitable system...it is subject to human interpretation. Some supervisors are very fair and generous. Others are not and will never be. I could support system changes which will not impact the basic tenets of government responsibility to ensure employee basic rights are not infringed upon, however, the drastic cost cutting measures proposed will not settle well with many outstanding employees who have served the U.S. government very well and for many years. System changes are needed, no doubt about that. The Direct Hire Authority is one positive method of hiring employees in critical specialities and bringing them quickly on board. Expand that initiative and others to modernize and bring the government into the 21st century. These type of initiatives do not impact nor have the detrimental impact and consequences which may hamper employee team concepts nor the pay checks of those who are working so very hard to do the right thing every day. Why does this knee-jerk reaction have to result in a government system which will ensure those who can politic will in fact benefit greatly? My one recommendation is to leave the current system of automatic pay raises and longevity increases as is for current employees. It is the right, fair, and equitable way of doing business. If system pay changes are to be implemented as proposed, grand-father those currently working and establish these new incentives upon those who are newly hired into the government work-force. Thank-you