| Comment Number: | OL-10509400 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 3:04:54 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 have two areas that I would like to touch on; Pay for Performance and the Annual Cost of Living increase. First I would like to mention that I have been visiting this site often and to this date, 15 March, 2005, the specifics on the Pay banding structure has not been published. I would like to know how the affected population is to submit comments on an item that is not fully being presented. It is not enough to present a concept without presenting a structure. PAY FOR PERFORMANCE: The concept is there, however, there are factors which will have an affect on this area, one of which is budget restraints. Understanding that the proposal states that the same amount of money will be put into the pool as is now, I would like to provide a specific example of how this ideal will render itself useless. FY04 I performed well, meeting and exceeding expectations and working beyond my scope of work. In turn I was strongly recommended for a monetary award for my performance by my chain of command. The command fought for nearly four months to gain appropriate level approval for my monetary award ( pay for performance ), however, strictly due to budget constraints I was given a time off award instead. Since I am located overseas at an isolated location the time off award is not something that would be beneficial to me and therefore renders no incentive or reward and to top it off it is time sensitive, if not used within a certain time it expires. The real issue is that during this time of denial to mine and several other awards, the regional authorities had authorized Quality Step Increases for themselves. The pay for performance system will be plagued with; Budget Restraints, Monetary awards not reaching the lowest levels, and Supervisors that are either not properly attentive or not open to rewarding their performers. ANNUAL COST OF LIVING INCREASE: A cost savings to the budget in which will have a detrimental impact on the affected employees. The annual increase was purposely left out of the new pay structure and as explained, will be compensated by Pay for Performance concept. This is an unacceptable substitute. Since the new pay system is leaving the distribution of Monetary awards to the supervisors and chain of command, is the rate of inflation also at the discretion of these supervisors. This is not something that can be levied to a supervisor in which the idea of stellar performance, in which their own monetary award may be based on, is managing a responsible budget. Further more it should be pointed out that several areas of commerce adjust to offset the rate of inflation such as; the Department of Labor, the minimum hourly wage is routinely adjusted. Annual cost of living increases should not be a part of pay for performance, nor should an employee be subjected to the perception of the Chain of Command or the Fiscal budget in order to keep up with the cost of living. I will close on the note of "what is good for one is good for another" Once again the upper class policy makers are not subjected to the policy they wish to implement. From the SES level on up, this policy making population continues to reinvent programs and Fiscal decisions in which will not affect their specific population. There must be a legitimate reason for their exclusion. Please be so kind as to publish this rationale on your web page.