| Comment Number: | OL-10510382 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 9:17:22 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:
Federal Register/Vol 70/No. 29/Performance Management-Subpart D/Monitoring Performance and Providing Feedback/pg 7562: "One of the main objectives is to replace the culture for pay-for-longevity with pay for performance..." This statement is a slap in the face for individuals who have invested years in their career. I realize new hires want to advance quickly and not wait until they have the experience to move ahead. Having 20+ years should count for something. We have dedicated our lives to civilian service and value our career choices. We want to know that those years will protect us from RIFS and that we will not be pushed out by a younger less experienced worker. Performance evaluation is very subjective and based on personal bias by supervisors. Of course they would rather keep a younger worker who may not question why things are done. Those of us with experience often catch things and are more vocal about how and why certain tasks should be performed. It is natural that supervisors are more threatened by the older workers' experience and would prefer a younger, more carefree workforce. The older workers have family responsiblilities and often cannot join the golf league or softball league. We are not as "fun" as the younger generation due to our other commitments. By throwing out seniority the door is being opened up for class action lawsuits due to age discrimination.