| Comment Number: | OL-10509932 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 9:14:48 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 wish to briefly address the concept of paybanding. I manage a human resources system where paybanding has been in use for many years already. While it sounds good to propose pay increases based on performance - stellar performers will be rewarded with pay increases and average or less-than-average performers will simply not receive pay increases - the reality does not reflect this ideal goal. In reality, even when they themselves are held accountable for properly applying performance standards to their subordinates, supervisors do not do an adequate job of rewarding their best employees. Nor do they adequately evaluate their average and less-than-average employees. The reality is that many mediocre employees receive undeserved advancement, pay increases or rewards, and many superior-performing employees do not receive recognition or compensation. Paybanding allows supervisors to indulge in favoritism, ignorance [such as: 1) paying a family man more than a single man because he has a family to support, completely disregarding the concept of equal pay for equal work; 2) ignoring what equivalent jobs in the private sector are paying and so failing to keep pay rates in line with the current market; 3) failing to supervise well enough to even recognize differences in job performance between employees; 4) illegally discriminating against some employees (a set payscale with built-in pay increases prevents this); and 5) the mistaken idea that, in order to be fair, everyone must be rewarded equally rather than by actual work performance], sheer laziness, or actual inability to grasp and apply the policies and procedures. To assume that supervisors will themselves perform properly when given the responsibility of setting and tracking employee pay is just deluded. Some supervisors will do well with this. Many will just fail to apply the principles correctly, for a variety of reasons. This is not speculation. This is witnessing years of federal paybanding at work. If you have a great supervisor and are yourself an excellent employee, you'll do all right. If you are an excellent employee with an average supervisor, you may not be properly rewarded. If you're an excellent employee with a lousy supervisor (yes, they exist in surprisingly large numbers!), you'll be held back and be no better off than a poor-performing employee. On the other hand, if you're a mediocre employee with a bubbly personality and an easily-impressed supervisor, you might advance rapidly! Paybanding does not work! Not as it should. The reason is a whole litany of human frailties. Unfortunately, there is no way to remove operator error from any human system. Better to allow undeserved pay increases for a few mediocre employees than to institute a new system run by subjectivity and manipulation that has the potential to screw over everyone it touches. I can't say it strongly enough - paybanding is a very bad idea and a giant step backward!