| Comment Number: | OL-10509272 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 2:09:27 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:
I think the LMER proposal is very good. I especially like the concurrent timeline. Perfomance linked to pay bothers me only in the fact that we are trusting supervisors and managers to actually perform duties that they have always been ask to do and don't. CPACs will definitely have to increase their staffs to handle all the grievances based on the performance reviews. There also seems to be a preconceived notion that employees are not performing and need the pay for performance as an incentive to do their jobs. I disagree. What we need is extensive training of new supervisors before they ever spend one day supervising. Pay Banding may be a great idea but I really need to see what the pay bands are going to look like before I could give real feedback. Also what does Local Market Supplements mean? Is that similiar to the WG surveys we use to complete where we did a roll up of what the private sector paid in a local area? RIF by organizational entity how is that fair and equitable? I think the current RIF procedures are tried and true. I don't think we need to throw out the baby with the bath water just because we need to tweak and improve some of our processes that are out dated. I saw a lot of DOD may, what does that mean? I would have rather had an opportunity to comment on implementing guidance. Except for the LMER part this seems to be a lot of concepts and theory.