| Comment Number: | OL-10507470 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 11:24:17 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:
Having spent 5 years in AcqDemo, I am personally aware of the shortcomings NSPS presents, and do not believe it is going to do all that's being briefed. First, how do you speed up hiring when it's not the local staffing specialists that are the bottle neck, but AF Personnel Center. AcqDemo did little to speed up the hiring process, nor the firing process (still a labor intense process...as maybe it should be). Second, briefings lead you to believe that managment will be able to do all kinds of things with pay to select and retain high performers. In reality this just is not so: a-you can only pay what the payband for the position allows...high performers in lower pay bands won't stay...just like now, they move on. b-pay can only be adjusted once a year, during appraisal time, and then there is a limited award pot, with a 10% perm. pay cap (to exceed requires higher authority, and documentation) c-If you don't bring new employees in at the top of the pay band, they will never gtt there due to the politics of the pay pools. Third, everything is about honesty and no secrets. Wrong...employees will be provided a bunch of statistical slide presentaitons that do not answer the question...Why, if I'm performing, am I not seeing it in my pay? It doesn't take employees long to figure out it is about visabilty, plum assignments, and favortism...How do you weed out the poor supervisors? Forth, the appraisal process and pay pool process is extremely labor intensive, and then everything the supervisory has tried to accomplish can go right out the door during the pay pool deliberations, with the supervisor never knowing fully what happened. That makes it tough on the supervisor to explain to the employee when the pay pool comes back with "you do a very good job, and perform very well, but there were other employees that performed better." How? What's the criteria? That is never fully explained. Accountability at all levels? I don't think so. Fifth, Locality pay should not be part of the award pot. Sixth, How does the system ensure credibility and trust...you have too many people involved for that to be true!!! Implementing rules/guidane is already being written by the Air Force before the FedReg is even closed out...that instills a lot of confidence and trust!! Sounds like the decisions have already been made. Seventh, where are the focus groups held across DoD to solicit stakeholder input. Who was my representative. Was never made aware of such groups until now that it's time to implement..Full partnership? I don't think so. Credible & Trusted? I don't think so. Employee-centric with broad collaboration? I don't think so. Eighth, Regulations vetted through the Federal Register process...that's just great...Unfortunitately, the devil's in the detail. Until employees see the implementation, they have no real idea what is in store!!! How about some vetting opportunities after the implementation rules/regs are published.... Ninth, I see nothing thus far that tells me DoD is doing any better with this bitter pill than they did with AcqDemo Finally, why do I sense there is an ulterior movtive here? Acq Demo produced little in way of a better work force...retained same good people at a discount!!! Now that's a good reason to welcome this with open arms!!!!