| Comment Number: | OL-10510694 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 11:23:15 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:
These performance payouts will be stifled by too many requirements to get a pay raise. What are the control points going to be? If it is a market value, then when a person meets or exceeds the market value, there won't be any more pay raises for a long time for that person. If the payout is a fixed dollar amount per share, the higher grades will be cying because they will get the same increases as the lower grades. If the payout is a percentage of salary, then the higher grades will get larger amounts of the pay pool and gobble up the available amount of money. For instance, a 15% increase in salary for a GS 13 could support two and a half 15% increases for GS 5s. As the higher grades get the higher appraisals generally, deserved or not, then they receive higher bonuses and salaries. Isn't thier higher pay already supposed to be compensation for their jobs? One of the problems is that the lower grades always have to be rated under a forced distribution system. Only so many may get exceptionals, highly, etc. But this rule is rarely applied to gs 12s, 13s, 14, 15s, and we definitely know it isn't forced upon SESers. If colleges can rate and rank people, if law schools can rate and rank people who had A undergraduate GPAs, if graduate schools can rate and rank people who had good undergraduate GPAs, then why can't the managers be rated and ranked also? Someone should have to come out on the bottom just like the rest of the employees.