Comment Number: OL-10508677
Received: 3/15/2005 9:56:52 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:

Concerns about NSPS – • The job classifications are to be broader. We are to compete. o How broad do the classes become? Do 2105s become 2100 or do 2105s become 2XXX? Great for opening the pathways to new opportunities, but who does one compete against?  Does a person compete against the people in his office?  Does a person compete against the people in his division?  Does a person compete against the people in his directorate?  Does the person compete against the people in his command, his higher headquarters, etc. o There are clear examples of the exact same positions at wing level being GS-10s while at Headquarters GS-11s. Or cases of Headquarters positions being GS-9s while the same positions at a Joint Headquarters are a GS-11. Does base level compete against Headquarters? o Who determines the competition group? Who determines who is most important to the mission? Every organ/part of the body is important, but not every organ/part is the heart? Is it the most important? What about the lungs or little finger? Is the little finger not important? Who does it compete with? Does it contribute to the successful outcome of the mission? Are its skills and contribution of the little finger considered to be less than the heart or lungs? o Alas, favoritism, cronyism, the old boys network and other abuse such as what happened in the Officer Evaluation system between the commands fighting for promotions can easily become part are parcel of the new system. Already, positions which many within civilian workforce have the qualifications to compete have quietly become “retired O-6 sanctuaries” or sanctuaries for other selected types. The historic civilian workforce is written out of the new job descriptions. Will the new system allow us to compete or will it continue to be “old boys network?.” o The system needs a combination of specific accomplish-ments/requirements and subjective judgments. • Pay banding. Potentially a great opportunity, except if you’re the guy that is the senior senior of a pay band with great experience, dedication and caught in “Catch 22” job – too old, and too much time in the position (you’re the history and depth of the office). With no real opportunity for consideration for a different position, is this person against a ceiling for earning potential? Is the top of the pay band flexible? • Within the AF, civilians makeup approximately 1/3 of the workforce. However, a majority of the workforce will continue to receive annual cost of living raises, incentives, as well as time-in-grade pay increases and promotions, the civilian sector will have no specific structure with regards to their income. Over the years, it has long been said that the military is not being paid competitive wages with the real world. Attempts have been made by Congress to move the military closer to the pay of the “real world” but they have not succeeded thus far. However, comparing the pay raises the military has enjoyed over the past 25 years versus the pay raises given the civilian workforce over the same period shows a consistent history of the military receiving a slightly larger pay increase. In doing so, there is an increasing gulf between the pay a 1/3 of the workforce earns in comparison to the others. Taking away “cost of living” would further erode any possible comparison between the pay of the military and the civilian workforce. I note that when talking civilian vs military pay. I only consider base pay, subsistence allowance and housing for the military, not the medical benefits, retirement benefits, pro pay, and other incentives.