| Comment Number: | OL-10511249 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 2:43:37 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:
I would like to address the Summary Section of the NSPS Proposed Rule, "A Case for Action". I fundamentally disagree with many of the assumptions that are being put forth as the impetus for NSPS. The summary is filled with declarative statements that have no basis in fact (ie, To transform the way DOD achieves it's mission it must transform the way it leads and manages people who develop, acquire, and maintain our nations defense capability.) It follows with [I suppose] statements which are meant to support this declaration, but in fact are already an integral part of my organization - NAVAIR. For instance, we already anticipate the future and wherever possible, help create it. Navair already seeks to develop new capabilties to meet tomorrows threats as well as those of today. It then goes on to state how NSPS will create an environment where uniformed personnel and civilians think and operate as one cohesive unit. I don't see how changing my performance rating system and taking away collective barganing rights have anything to do with the warfighter and the civilian acting cohesively. We would not have become the most powerful military force in history if the warfighter and the civilian were not acting cohesively. My organization, NAVAIR, is constantly re-adjusting and transforming itself to meet the needs of the warfighter and we have a record of successes and increased efficiencies to show for it. Regarding statements on pg. 7553: First of all I agree that narrowly defined work definitions are outdated, but this does not justify throwing out the present compensation system. This could be fixed with an updating of the work definitions to more closely reflect present occupations. Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree that hiring processes are cumbersome and need reform. But again, I don't see how the present compensation system is part of that problem. Thirdly, it states that high performers and low performers are paid alike. This is not a function of the wage scale. In the GS system there are 150 different wage compensation levels. How can anyone honestly say that this does not provide enough flexibility to compensate the high performers more. I think the present GS system of compensation greatly contributes to cooperation among employees and limits the amount of favoritism and people trying to gain favor through surrepticious means (ie, by making a fellow employee look bad). I have worked with a person who spent a major part of their time chatting with the 'boss' and winning influence through flattery instead of just doing a good job. But that is rare, I believe, because of the GS wage system. Most everyone I have worked with in this system is highly professional and motivated to do a good job. And we don't have to worry about wasting time, asking the 'boss' about their grandkids. We are here to serve and support the warfighter. Oftentimes this means disagreeing with our team leader or supervisor. This give and take, exchanging ideas, negotiating best solutions is in my view the proper way to arrive at the best result. This freedom to disagree will be severely curtailed in the long run by a system that rewards the employees inequitably through the arbitrary discretion of a supervisor. This GS system of grades and steps was implemented precisely to avoid an environment of cronyism, and I believe it works admirably in achieving this. I will gladly overlook the rare case where an underperformer is given the same raise as me in exchange for an environment where I can concentrate fully on my job and I do not have to waste resources trying to gain undue favor with my supervisor. I believe I am compensated fairly for my work and I do not have to worry that my wage will fall behind inflation. I believe the NSPS proposal is a deceptive plan to reduce payroll in the long-run and remove employee bargaining power and rights. I also believe the result will be lower productivity and morale.