Comment Number: OL-10508008
Received: 3/14/2005 4:35:27 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:

With the countless numbers of grievances and EEO complaints which are directly connected to disparate treatment and hostile work environments with Manager to subordinate relationships being the primary problem in most cases…..why would a system be implemented which gives more power of Managers to impact the receipt of due recognition and now even financial compensations? If these were not documented facts as recorded by Union and EEO statistics…..this might make sense. In light of the documented fact that these reasons serve as the most documented reasons….this proposal, if not fairly implemented, has the potential to be organizationally suicidal as far as morale goes. In informal extensive conversations with concerned GS employee's world wide, I have yet to meet anyone who is comfortable with the twist the financial compensation justification is taking in this new proposal. Under the old system, even when you had a Manager who didn't recognize your contribution….for whatever reason….you knew that your satisfactory progress would equate to with-in grade increases. Under the new proposal, an employee is at the mercy of positive perception from the Manager. In a perfect world, we'd like to think that fairness and equality would prevail…but we know that orientation is not easily changed and this places the employee in a very awkward position…not to mention a major blow to morale which is already at an all time low. Why does the proposal paint the picture of a portrait which ensures that the "un-deserving" are not rewarded and the "deserving" are rewarded comfortably? Under the current system…."with-in grade increases are ONLY given to persons who are performing satisfactorily." The Performance Awards are ONLY given to those who have, in the opinion of their Supervisor" gone over and beyond in their call of duty. This clearly differentiates between the performers and exceptional performers. With all of the violations of the law in the area of age discrimination…why would there be a proposal to allow Managers to determine who should go …and…who should stay in the event of a rift or cut down? New employees come with fresh flames and fresh electricity..this comes with the newness of any situation. Is it fair to even compare a "fresh" 2 year employee….with fresh aggressive brain cells…against a 20 year solid performer who has consistently made it happen but who may not exemplify the visible eagerness, vitality and vigor. Not only does this appear unfair…but for those of us who have given the best years of our life to support this mission….it' feels like a blatant slap in the face for our faithfulness. Not to mention…..most of the incoming workforce members…have no commitment to longevity in anything. Why does the proposal not address the reality and MAJOR role personal perception ALREADY plays in the reward of awards, recognitions and cash bonuses? Whether it be Civilian or Military….how many outcries have we heard through the years where "positive perception picks" constantly and consistently received the awards and recognitions…and the "unpopular" …..despite their work and worth….get invited as spectators and never participators. Why would this be termed as a "proposal" when implementation dates have been given, groups have been assigned..and money pots possibilities are being created daily? Does the parties that be…... not realize the "appearance" of a done deal and the appearance by employees of "feedback" as a formality toward what is already is a forthcoming reality. I think there's tremendous concern in that area alone. Most employee's are not publicly speaking out because it "appears" that our comments are more of a pacifier than a real possibility to seriously impact a final decision. I truly appreciate the opportunity to raise questions and share concerns on a process which will reshape a system that directly affects our careers as tenured employee's. It is my hope that the concerns of those who have been the cornerstone of the civilian workforce……NOT fall on deaf ears…and that serious ear and actions be given to alternative options and concrete reconsiderations.