| Comment Number: | OL-10508840 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 11:03:12 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:
To Whom This May Concern: I have worked under the Pay Banding System before and I submitted a response to the Federal Register at that time and everything in my response happened as expected. I believed the system would only work as good as the managers managing it and therefore, the results were not based on PERFORMANCE and it happened over and over again. For example, I intentionally remained at my old agency through the end of the rating period, submitted my performance assessments, but accepted a job else where prior to payout. The Director put out an email stating the payouts were based on rewarding those who remained employed at the agency and those who left would not be rewarded. The Federal Register said the payouts would be based on performance, it didn't mention anything about having to still be working at the same agency. Funny thing is, I received a VERY HIGH rating that year but the money didn't reflect a high score simply because I had to move. Please believe me when I say I fully understand the system and how the payouts should work but in some cases, management has figured out how to sway the votes in the direction they want them to go and many times it is totally obvious the results had nothing to do with performance. I grieved to no avail. That was just one realistic example of how Pay Banding is not best for ALL AGENCIES especially those with high turnover or grievances. My suggestion for improved performance - POOR management is the fuel behind poor performance. Begin a training program for managers similar to the huge campaign that was put out for Sexual Harassment. Ever since that campaign began years ago, the numbers of cases has reduced because people know there is no tolerance and that management knows how/and has to handle each occurrence instead of overlooking it. If workers know their managers are being trained on how to properly train, manage, and fire poor performers, workers will begin taking their work seriously, more work will get done, you will get better quality, and the money saved will help fund the marketing of this new strategy. If management couldn't/wouldn't deal with poor performance under the current system, they will use the same habits under the new system and poor performance will continue and tax payer dollars will still be wasted. Thanks for the opportunity to respond. Respectfully, Monica L. White Contract Specialist