| Comment Number: | OL-10507425 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 10:56:48 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:
I have 26 years with the federal government. During the last five years our installation has implemented pay banding under a DEMO plan. At that time I was leaning against a change in the existing GS system. Here are my observations since that time. In general, fifty percent or more of the employees receive higher yearly raises, about 2 to 3 percent without COLA. This is in contrast to the previous GS plan when no pay increases would occur until the employee had completed his time in grade. The pay increases for the average employee are equivalent to one half of one Step Increase/year. That is, if your branch chief designates a bell shaped curve on the performance ratings and you operate at an average level, you will receive a step increase every two years. There is a greater emphasis on the employee to sell themselves. We must provide a two page write-up twice a year on our work. The best I can tell, the supervisor does not read these write-ups, and it is on the employee (not mandatory) to read the write-up during a 15 minute meeting with the supervisor. The meeting with the supervisor is mandatory. Some people under this system have advanced far beyond the limits of the old system. You’re rated on a scale for 1-5 here. As I understand it, there is a paradox to the system; if you are rated low (below a 2.5 I believe) you can not move out of the branch (lateral). So if you and your Sup do not get along you may be doomed to remain within the Branch because you are not rated high enough to get out Under this system, there is (or should be) pressure on management to give technicians and secretaries higher performance ratings. This has to do more with the math, a 3 percent raise for someone who is making 40,000 a year is not the same as a 3 percent raise for someone making 80,000 a year. I am not sure why there is not one BIG pay band encompassing GS 1 – GS 16. There is a significant hurdle between pay bands. More managers who have successfully made the hurdle between pay bands. There is pressure on management to create a bell shaped curve, to have an average rating of 3.0 – 3.1 (remember those high school days). So hope you manager knows how to use a spread sheet and do frequency distribution charts, if not he will lean on a fellow employee to help, who in turn will have direct control over his own rating and others in the branch. We look for this in the next generation of Dilbert comic strips In general, pay for performance, has been good to me. After this commentary it may change. If I ever try to compare my rating to other peoples ratings, I get a bit demoralized. Hope this helps.