| Comment Number: | OL-10510833 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 12:17:38 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:
Sir or Ma'am, I am excited about the new system we are trying to implement, although I have reservations about a couple of aspects. I have always actively discussed my performance with my supervisors. Therefore I'm not worried about my end of the deal when it comes to the yearly performance reports. I worry about my supervisor. I understand that training will be provided on how supervisors should write performance reports but someone will always have the "worst" rater. I want to be sure that there are avenues I can use to address the issue if I think my raise hasn't been sufficient compared to my contribution for the year. I want it to be easy and in the employee's favor. I see how firewall 5's are infiltrating the military rating system now...there will always be raters that unfairly give an undeserving person a great rating. Then the outstanding workers are diminished because they can't be recognized. Whether the raters are knowingly perverting the intent of the performance report; or they simply don't understand how it needs to be done. The fact remains that I see great workers getting...frankly, screwed... every day just because the system isn't standardized. In the GS system we will need strong checks and balances. Make sure all the raters are using the same scale of excellence to rate everyone that will be dumped into the same raise pool. Not only initial training is needed, but continuing training, to make sure the system remains on-track. Maybe there is a way to develop a spot-check system so one person (who is savy on the way ratings need to be done) can sample performance reports to find questionable issues. Finally, I am worried that employees who have sub-par supervisors will lose out on possible raises simply because the rater doesn't write well. This is why I think it needs to be very clear how an employee can challenge a suggested raise amount. I worry that this system will make for a lot of time spent on challenges. I know I plan on getting what I can (I work very hard and am proud of the extra time and effort I put in). I don't want a lazy worker possibly taking away something I deserve. I don't know exactly how the system specifics will work, but I would want proof that anyone who got more than me (in my pool, or payband, or whatever) truly did do more than me. I suspect it may be hard to divide raises up fairly, especially when they cross through more than one job type. Quantifying some job descriptions is tough to do. Good luck. I hope my comments help to further develop the NSPS.