| Comment Number: | OL-10510181 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 7:29:54 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:
On paper, the NPS plan sounds ideal and just. Add in the human element, however, and the plan becomes a farce and just another method for management to give more money to their pets, which, by the way, is taken from those who actually do most of the work. Today is March 16, 2005. I can already name the majority of those individuals who will receive an A rating for this year. These will be primarily the same individuals that received an A rating in 2004 and will receive an A rating in 2006. If the scope of work that these individuals perform is not enough to rate an A", the criteria are changed. Likewise, if other individuals, not a part of this favorite group, happen to meet or surpass the criteria for an A, the criteria again changes. I was told in July, 2004, not to expect an A in 2005. We were also told (for 2004) that there would only be a few A ratings (say 10 or so) and that these were already taken. This does not give workers any incentive for performing better. It does give a stimulus for the better workers to find other jobs, thus taking the best workers from the institute. The proposed NPS plan does nothing to rectify this problem. Management will always deem who gets the A. With the current system, management has less power over the shifting of funds. Both the PDP and the NSP systems are far from merit pay nor are they systems that pay individuals for their work. As such the plans are extremely biased and unfair. The current play was at least tolerable because individuals could depend upon getting the cost-of-living and locality pay. In this sense, the inequalities in the inane rating plan (i.e., Merit Pay) were minimized. By including the cost-of-living and locality pay in the lump sum, you will be giving to the select few and not rewarding those who perform actual work. As mentioned previously, this plan is not conducive for keeping the best and brightest. Those individuals, who are not a part of management's special group, will not be able to afford to work for DOD and will look elsewhere for employment. The result will be a mediocre workforce, not a high-quality workforce. If you have to change the current system, please implement changes that do not harm the employees. Leave the cost-of-living and locality pay for the workers. Do not give these "pots of money" to management. Do not make the system worse. Thanks you for your consideration.