| Comment Number: | OL-10511473 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 3:41:15 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:
While I'm in favor of having a system that rewards performance over longevity, I'm concerned about the NSPS. I don't think the NSPS system as it is written has adequate safeguards to ensure fairness. In fact it enables the "good old boy" network. At least with the current system, the pay is posted publically and everyone knows the general range of pay for the work assigned. The NSPS makes it very difficult to focus on performance only. How well you're liked or the type of work you do will weigh heavily on your evaluation and percentage of the pay pool. I agree with having flexibility to assign tasks without having to generate personnel actions but not having a clear set of objectives between the supervisor and the employee is only asking for grievances at the end of the rating period. Most supervisors have never given much thought to the civilian evaluation. For most of my career it has been an after thought. I think the regulation should at least specify the minimun payout. Leaving it up to the individual organization will cause problems especially when the budget is cut. I don't care how well your performing when the water runs out the well is dry. Will there be an independant audit done to ensure fairness across the board for women and other minorities? Where is all the money coming from? I understand the theory of the best will get the money and the lower performers won't but that's assuming these people will be in the same pay band and pay pool. What if they are not? We start most FY's with a shortfall of labor dollars. The information in the federal register talks in terms that are far too general to make any real sense of what needs to be done to successfully implement the NSPS. Leaving something of this magnitude to the masses to figure out is unbelieveable. The FERS retirement system is virtually non-existent now. The NSPS appears to be an attempt to keep base pay flat, thus reducing retirement benefits and has very little to do with being able to recruit and retain quality individuals. I know a lot of quality government employees. Those organizations that have poor performers is a reflection of the current management. There are ways to remove poor performers under the current system if management did what they needed to do to do it. Don't put it all on the poor performer. When the budget is cut the first thing to go will be the "pay pool" pot of money. How will people be able to keep up with the health insurance premiums when there is no increase in salary? What happens when the Army is bankrupt? We don't budget for war. If responsive recruitement is the problem why not look for ways to improve it?