| Comment Number: | OL-10511199 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 2:29:28 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:
Sections 9901.321 (b) and 9901.332 (a) Both pay bands and local market supplements should definitely be occupation specific. When locality pay was implemented in 1994, the decision was made not to give special rate engineers locality pay until their special rate differential was wiped out. This was in spite of the fact that the comparability studies indicated engineers had higher pay gaps than average despite receiving their special rate differential. Most special rate differentials that existed from the 1970’s were gradually wiped out by years of reduced raises without any real justification. At the GS-11 level that some locations are still trying to maintain as a working level for engineers, there was a loss of 4 or 5 steps depending on the specific engineering discipline. The phasing out of the special rate differential for GS-11 engineers was equivalent to being demoted to a GS-9 engineering special rate had that classification continued to receive full locality pay. Entry level and developmental level engineers (GS-5, 7, and 9) had a 30% differential that is continuing to erode towards zero and that will greatly hinder recruiting efforts. As far as local market supplements, there should be a movement away from how the current locality pay system has worked. In 1994 when locality pay started, virtually all employees in Alaska and Hawaii were already receiving the maximum 25% tax–free COLA due to the high living costs in those areas. They have not received any locality pay and will not at any time under the current locality pay system. It is unfair for this to have occurred. The continued erosion of pay versus CONUS locations is already resulting in serious recruitment and retention problems that will just get worse over time. Overseas employees are also faced with the same issue of lack of locality pay. If the Rest of the US locality rate had been kept at zero and only locality adjustments over this base rate (for higher locality areas) were made, it would not have resulted in the serious erosion in pay that has occurred for special rate employees and for employees in Alaska, Hawaii, and overseas. Another alternative would have been for the Rest of the US locality rate to have been changed to a Rest of the World locality rate and to have extended this rate to special rate employees as well. This would have avoided the erosion in pay that these employees have experienced. The new save pay rules that will take effect on 1 May 2005 due to the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 should not be implemented. An employee who got promoted by going overseas can lose many thousands of dollars in pay when they return to CONUS. The employee loses locality pay when they go overseas. Under the new save pay rules, they will no longer get locality pay added back to their base pay when returning to CONUS. This can result in the loss of a few steps to as many as several steps depending on what the locality rate is where they are returning to. The higher the locality rate, the higher the loss in pay since their pay will be set at a lower step within their former lower pay grade. In addition, the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 will eliminate special rate pay whenever the locality pay exceeds the special rate. This results in an immediate cut of several thousand dollars in base pay for some special rate employees. This will affect their pay rate when the employee is promoted and would also affect the pay in the same manner if the employee were to take a job overseas. The NSPS rules should come up with a pay system that takes into account occupational differences and does not penalize employees who work in Alaska, Hawaii, or overseas.