| Comment Number: | OL-10507710 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 2:12:17 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:
Supplementary Information: Somehow the issue of pay for performance got confused with a flexible workforce. When a civil service employee wants mobility, they put in for a job for the area they wish to go. This plan calls for relocating an employee, as you would a military member, with what does not appear to have any added benefit to the civilian workforce. The benefit of the civilian workforce working with the military is the stability with the civilians left when the military rotate. Military members get special housing allowances as part of their salary, opportunities to live in base housing, base privileges, they sign on the dotted line knowing they will rotate out every few years. What are you offering the civilians? The opportunity exists for pay reduction every time there is a reassignment and they slide into a different pay band. Process: The process for design and implementation of NSPS did not include Labor input. Pay and Pay Administration – Subpart C: Adjusting Rate Ranges: How often will these happen? With the way our medical costs rise, what kind of impact will that have since the potential for no raise for some employees exists? Performance Based Pay: I see some positives in this, the negative is in the panel concept of someone not your supervisor who really doesn’t know you has the authority to deny your share of a performance award, or change it to a one time share vice a share that affects your true pay. Your retirement suffers even though your salary increases in a given year. Allowing DOD to create a control point for an employee to achieve the highest performance rating? Don’t ya’ll have enough to do? Setting and Communicating Performance Expectations: Supervisors could not deal with Pass/Fail….Seeing them actually monitor employees throughout the year, setting and adjusting these performance expectations, monitoring and providing feedback, documenting what they find plus communicating what has to be done in order to increase your pay will be interesting! The kicker will be SOMEONE CAN SAY NO above the supervisor. Someone above the supervisor can ignore all that supervisor's hard work and that employee get nothing anyway due to funding, another supervisor had better documentation, or whatever, and that employee still deserved the raise or performance award! How is that going to improve morale for the employee or the supervisor? It seems like a potential promise that cannot be kept, if you dangle a carrot, you had better have a carrot to give! Authority: The Secretary has too much sole Authority. There does not seem to be much checks and balances. He does not know anything about civil service. 9901.352: Setting pay upon reassignment. In this age of reorganizations, having the authority to lower someone’s pay by the statement you can set their pay anywhere within a pay band when they are INVOLUNTARILY reassigned is wrong! They had no unacceptable performance, they did not volunteer, and they were just reassigned, for DOD’s convenience! 9901.514: Non-citizen hiring. In the absence of a qualified U.S. Citizen, on the one hand you state you want to send us anywhere to meet the critical need for this Country’s safety, and then later on you want to hire just anybody to have a body. Again, you have confused flexible workforce with power to do what you want, when you want for your convenience. If the objective is truly to get rid of non-performers, then state that and move forward. If it is to keep the Engineers that we need, that we train, and then they leave to work on the outside, then pay them, but don’t tell me the average civil service employee who makes sure the military have housing to live in when they are home has a whole lot to do with the security of this base.