TOPICS
TOPICS
House committee backs 3.5 percent military pay raise
A House panel on Wednesday authorized a 3.5 percent pay increase for members of the military and approved language that would significantly scale back a controversial personnel system at the Defense Department.
The House Armed Services Committee backed the portion of the 2008 Defense authorization bill containing the 3.5 percent increase during a markup session that lasted into the night. That figure, which is half a percent higher than the raise proposed by the Bush administration, likely will give federal labor unions an edge in pushing for an equivalent raise for civilian federal employees.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., hailed the approval of the raise Wednesday, and added that he would urge his colleagues to back an equal increase for federal civilian employees.
"In keeping with the long-standing bipartisan principle of pay parity, the 3.5 percent pay adjustment should also extend to federal civilian employees," Hoyer said. "Federal employees make significant contributions to the progress of this nation, and they too deserve a fair pay adjustment."
A separate portion of the authorization bill passed late Wednesday contains a provision to overhaul the Pentagon's implementation of its National Security Personnel System, which has been challenged by federal labor unions as limiting the collective bargaining and appeals rights of the department's civilian employees.
The bill includes provisions that would restore employees' collective bargaining and appeal rights and would require the department to bargain with unions before implementing changes to its pay-for-performance system.
In the 2004 Defense authorization bill, Congress granted the department authority to create a new human resources system, based on the notion that the current system was too rigid and outdated to allow the department to respond to modern threats of terrorism.
But the proposed changes spurred strong opposition from federal labor unions, which filed a lawsuit against the system last year. A federal judge ruled that portions of the system that limited employee collective bargaining and appeal rights were illegal. An appeal of that ruling is pending.
In the meantime, labor unions have been lobbying Congress to intervene in the labor relations and pay issues.
"Pay for performance is an idea that can work, but only if it is implemented correctly," said Richard Brown, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees. "We are afraid that if [Defense] is making all of the decisions on pay without input from the employees, the workers are going to end up with the short end of the stick."
The Senate is scheduled to take up its version of the authorization bill next week.
COMMENTS
- I'm not in management but if I were to put myself in their shoes, I could see where NSPS would give me more flexibility with a pay-for-work type mentality. In theory, this system should work but in reality it's the people involved in it that make it fail. Patricia Harth Posted May 18, 2007 6:12 PM
- I believe good intentions were behind the push to a new civilian personnel system, but I've also seen how this system being abused by supervisors with their own agenda. It does provide more flexibility, but people are working positions without the compensation they deserve. M. Long Posted May 18, 2007 10:42 AM
- The National Security Personnel System (NSPS) was designed primairly as a tool to hire youinger employees because older workers may retire. However, the effect I have seen is to subjectively give the jobs/tasks to younger employees and to promote the forced attrition amongst the older employees. How will older employees receive the NSPS job performance shares if they are reassigning the work to younger employees? Additionally, under NSPS, all supervisors are supposed to receive a higher salary because they are, in fact, a supervisor with greter responsibilities. This is NOT the case. Our agency is NOT giving a higher salary to supervisors. So how do you mentor an employee to become a supervisor if the pay will not be higher as originally stated under NSPS objectives? The good news is that, under NSPS, the DD form 2906 is a valuable tool to increase the efficiency of the civilian performance appraisal process. Charles H. Petron Posted May 18, 2007 8:50 AM









