GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: First entrants to NSPS eligible for one-time pay bump

• 62830
  

  I was recently offered the position of battalion chief after a two day assessment board and fire chief interview. I am a GS 8 step 7 and will transition to the NSPS system. I am told I get a wapping 5% base pay increase and what appears to be a minimal buy in. Because of NSPS I will have firefighters making more than myself and getting numerous hours of overtime. The fire chief refuses to pay overtime to supervisors. Last year as a fire captain I made an extra $12,000 in overtime. NOT ANY MORE THOUGH. The system has made it so I dont even want to take the promotion but I am afraid of being singled out if I decline. The system is just plain B.S. to say the least.

  Jerry Daniels Posted November 11, 2008 6:33 PM
• 28859
  

  I am sorry I ever left Customs to come to DOD. This NSPS is illegal in my opinion. How can Congress throw out the OPM rules of civil service and tell federal employees "oh well, this is the way it will be." Federal employees should be grandfathered or offered a buyout. I will never see another raise. I am a 7, step 10 and have been over 10 years. I have 25 years in government and was finally coming out of debt. Guess I'll be going back in. As a single mom, I'm tired of working like a horse for less than I'm worth, but haven't been able to find any other position because "I'm too old in the government."

  DOD Employee Posted July 19, 2007 4:18 PM
• 16276
  

  For those who are at the end of the payband, and there already before the locality adjustment, how are we suppose to advance?

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 19, 2006 9:43 PM
• 16265
  

  I've had the same experience as others. I put the information into the calculator and lost money. My understanding is that was not supposed to happen??????? Typical of this administration -- if their lips are moving they are lying.

  Dave Posted April 19, 2006 1:34 PM
• 16263
  

  Tip,

  The other night I an across some notes I took during a June 2005 meeting of one of those organizations-of-which-I-dare-not-speak-on-a- government-machine. "Market-based supplements" are to replace the locality adjustment. They will be tied to the local wages for a particular type of work, so one person in City A may get 1 percent while another gets 12. More divisiveness! Also, for those of you who haven't heard about becoming "deployable assets" -- they want to be able to move anyone anywhere at any time on seven days' notice. You're in the Army now!

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 19, 2006 11:08 AM
• 16261
  

  I am a GS-9, step 10. I have been a step 10 for the past 20 years. I would have to move out of my state to take a higher grade to get any kind of a pay increase other than the yearly increase. With the new NSPS system, how is it that steps 9 and below will get a one time bump, but not the 10's. What logic are they using? Also, my supervisors are military that transfers in and out every three years. How will they be kept current on these performance standards for me to be paid what I'm worth?

  James Plaster Posted April 19, 2006 10:40 AM
• 16253
  

  Suggestion: Let your respective "elected officials" who voted to shove this down our throats know how you feel about this and, if that doesn't work, vote someone into office who is more receptive to your views and stated concerns.

  David L. Carroll Posted April 19, 2006 3:13 AM
• 16225
  

  I have to agree with Cindy on this one. I get a little pay raise, but not much more room to grow. My GS-9s have a larger window for future pay raises. Of course, it came from the NAF HRO office. Great system of notification there.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 18, 2006 5:56 AM
• 16182
  

  This adjustment to match the local economy sounds familiar. Many years ago, we were supposed to get "larger" cost-of-living increases to "catch up" with the market.

  By my memory (and calculations), this "locality adjustment" should be 30 percent to 35 percent or so...

  Now, that would make NSPS inviting.

  -- "Just another Silly-villain"

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 14, 2006 3:32 PM
• 16177
  

  Ok, I just used the newly published calendar. I not only lose pay, I have virtually no room to move up in pay. This is really sad.

  Cindy Posted April 14, 2006 10:36 AM
• 16175
  

  Is the initial "pay bump" to the base pay plus locality or just to base pay. If the bump is to base pay only, then it seems many will actually lose money. And with wages crossing into the next band, how is it determined which band folks in this gray area fit? I sent a similar question to NSPS and they never answered it.

  Cindy Posted April 14, 2006 10:22 AM
• 16137
  

  I am beginning to wonder if Henry works at the Pentagon, or at least has friends there.

  Maybe he can answer when we will get some more insight to the locality pay -- and how they guarantee it will be at least equivalent to what it is now.

  Henry, enlighten us, please.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 12, 2006 9:41 PM
• 16115
  

  My understanding of local market supplement is that it is subject to review and change from year to year. So one year you might get it, the next you may not. This constitutes a loss of pay in my book. It's hard to plan for retirement when you're not sure what your pay might be from year to year. Sorry, Henry, I realize you have to sell NSPS but most of us have read the rules and we're not buying.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 12, 2006 9:41 AM
• 16071
  

  As far as the pay bump, it isn't like anyone didn't earn it. We have. Especially those who will go to NSPS two weeks before getting a step increase.

  I'm anxiously waiting to see how the locality pay works out. I find it interesting that we've seen nothing -- yet isn't this disaster system supposed to begin real soon? How are we supposed to plan our finances with a conversion showing such a massive loss in pay?

  I'd also like to know how we are supposed to know we are being treated fairly? My organization has favorites, and often those "favorites" get credit for what the real workers do. In my many years, it has always been the bosses looking after the bosses - politics, if you will. So, I don't see that as working any different than it already does. Another thing is that those who will be making the decisions as to my pay have never done my job, or even have that skill.

  Just like FERS vs. CSRS, this system is not in the worker bee's favor. Those who believe it is -- I'm afraid are in for a real rude awakening.

  Remember why the GS system was created in the first place.

  I think they should offer VSIP and VERA before going to NSPS, especially for those with more than 30 years of dedicated service.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 10, 2006 7:58 PM
• 16016
  

  Henry, NSPS needs to stop the lies about nobody losing pay. If the current locality pay is not locked in, we all lose. When it is 12.52 percent of your pay and suddenly DOD can play with it at its own whim as LMS, I hear a sucking sound from DC to pay for your million dollar one bedroom. Wake up and smell the watered-down coffee.

  Ray Bielicke Posted April 7, 2006 4:56 PM
• 15957
  

  Guys, read the regulations and go to training!

  Under NSPS there is a thing called "Local Market Supplement" which is paid in addition to base pay expressed in the paybands. This is the amount that brings our total pay up to local market conditions. Like the current locality pay, it is unique to each area.

  Henry Posted April 6, 2006 11:19 AM
• 15928
  

  We love our country but can't trust our government.

  Trish Posted April 5, 2006 6:09 PM
• 15890
  

  Ladies and Gentlemen,

  For all those who may be wondering about the locality rates, I'm afraid I know the answer.

  If it is based in the terminology, then I ask "What is locality pay?" While we normally think of it as a cost-of-living adjustment based on economic and geographic area, it's actually intended to adjust our income to be commiserate with that which the local market would pay for an individual doing that work with that level of expertise and skill.

  And if the new performance pay is based on what the local economy/job market would pay for those same skills ... then that would include the locality pay within the base pay. Wouldn't it?

  Which means it would go away, doesn't it?

  Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

  Tip off.

  Tip Posted April 4, 2006 3:59 PM
• 15885
  

  Hey Rummy,

  Focus your pay for performance on DOD's management and leave the workers alone. Maybe if and when you get a handle on their ability to work within a set of 25-plus year old rules, and newer management styles that change with the wind, then we can talk.

  So, when are you going to decide what the local market supplements that will replace locality pay are going to be?

  Mark Gibson Posted April 4, 2006 1:53 PM
• 15872
  

  Taxpayer, give it a rest. Personally, I dread the pay for performance and paybands due to the politics (both macro and micro) involved. But get off the military.

  1. We are one of the few militaries in the world ran by civilians. That is most evident by determining who pulled us out of Iraq the 1st time. Was it George the 1st, Colin Powell, or Gen. Schwarzkopf?

  2. Is the Joint Chief of Staff forcing all the changes on the military or is it Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld?

  3. Those civilians running the DoD are proposing to change the military pay to a performance based system using Wage Grade Increases, while removing ours for another performance based system.

  Now, even the military aren't dumb enough to say it's good for the goose but not the gander on that count. Double-speak is not a prerequisite skill set for green-suiters as it seems to be for the Beltway Bosses.

  The only loss in the checks-and-balance system is between the executive, judicial, and legislative systems. You've got to give Dubya credit -- he can do that little side step (please read "misdirection") with the best of them!

  Tip off.

  Tip Posted April 4, 2006 10:06 AM
• 15855
  

  Mary Lacey said it best "the change that will hit workers in the pocket book." No locality and no special rates of pay in NSPS, states their Web-based primer.

  Read on and find out that local market supplements can be decreased for a number of reasons and will apply across the pay band in spite of performance.

  12.53 percent is the minimum amount that locality affects salaries. And last time I checked, the law allows the president to split any general pay increase between base pay and locality. Under NSPS the locality split ordered by the president then becomes discretionary funding in DOD salary accounts.

  Ain't life grand?

  Mark Gibson Posted April 3, 2006 3:31 PM
• 15847
  

  There is no mention in the article about the locality pay.

  Here is the question I sent to NSPS regarding locality pay. I have sent two e-mails, but get just auto-replies so far.

  To NSPS: Please answer my question. If we will not lose any money in the changeover to NSPS, where is the locality pay in the calculation of the conversion? It is not in the base pay and the local market supplement goes up or down at the whim of DOD. So, where is the 12.52 percent locality pay? If it is not locked in on conversion, this is a grave deception on your part.

  If you ask the same question, perhaps the truth will come out. Go to this website and ask them.

  http://www.cpms.osd.mil/nsps/contact.html

  Ray Bielicke Posted April 3, 2006 11:47 AM
• 15823
  

  There is some good news and it is this. For three years I've been working in an agency that is using a DoD demonstration project that is very much like the proposed NSPS except that it has retained all of the employee protections afforded under the current GS system. It has worked very well for me and some of my colleagues, but not so well for others, because we work for a manager who truly manages. Good work is rewarded and below standard work is not. I've gotten much larger raises in this system than were ever available under the GS system. Others have seen the handwriting on the wall and have moved on or are trying to. Unfortunately, my situation is the exception rather than the rule. When all is said and done, rating an individual is part objective and part subjective; management effectiveness makes all the difference. My fear is that under NSPS, managers will do no better a job than they are currently doing which means that 80 percent to 90 percent of them will screw up setting achievable standards, counseling employees, and finally rating fairly based on performance. Even more than that, I fear that the money to fund raises will evaporate under this system. If that happens, it won't make any difference.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 1, 2006 5:50 PM
• 15811
  

  Everyone here knows what the real deal is regarding pay for performance. We all know that over the course of our careers, we will earn significantly less money under this new system than we would have under the GS system regardless of how well we perform. Because we were hired into the GS system in which our ascension up the GS ladder to our journeyman grades and steps was guaranteed, and because we all planned out our futures based on this system, the act of changing this system to one in which we will no longer be able to count on these previously guaranteed salaries is both criminal and immoral.

  Now, undoubtedly, someone who reads this will assume I'm "just another government employee who expects a guaranteed paycheck just for showing up to work." But considering the fact that I was immediately placed in the busiest group in my office right out of the academy, where I have worked countless weekends, holidays, and night shifts; considering the fact that I have worked countless six and seven day weeks and have completely blown my minimum LEAP requirements out of the water when my office takes pride in not paying anyone overtime; considering the fact that I went into severe debt because I agreed to relocate to a very expensive area starting with a very low grade level; and considering the fact that I am still busting my hump the same as I have from day one, that attitude would be terribly wrong.

  Here's what I recommend. Let's change the "pay for performance" system into a "performance for pay" system. For the first year, I suggest we all do our jobs as well as we always have. Following that, we only perform as well as the salaries we are being paid. So if on a certain year we receive a good raise, we work hard. If on a certain year we get shafted, then we perform like crap. (Sorry boss, I can't respond today. I'm unavailable.) Our agencies should get the efforts out of us that they are paying for, and not a dime more.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 31, 2006 5:36 PM
• 15803
  

  Ya'll listen to the Flunky Queen, as she has pegged it ... a quick "fix" (the so called pay bump) of money for everyone that is designed to do two things: First, it covers the government's butt ensuring no adverse action lawsuits as a result of a potentially earned wage increase being lost and secondly, putting dollar signs in the slaves, err -- workers, eyes while showing how much management cares about employees.

  In a few short years the lack of pay raises, "thin" pay raises or bonus only years (not counted towards retirement) will be budgetary issues out of the agencies control -- it's the "systems fault!" Just keep doing more with less and maybe it'll be better next year. Besides, you wouldn't want to be seen as a non-team player or worse yet, a liberal, would you?

  Cracked & Wired Posted March 31, 2006 12:44 PM
• 15792
  

  It is not a bonus pay-bump, it is pay already earned toward a Wage Grade Increase. As "Mr. T" would say, "I pity the fools" who have now been dragged into NSPS. All DOD civilians will have their pay flat-lined for the remainder of their careers once they have us all shoved in this system for a year.

  DoD Employee Posted March 31, 2006 8:43 AM
• 15781
  

  "How can the Defense Department ignore the law of the land?" Guess what -- they do it every day. It is so easy when no one cares. Especially the military because they think they have their own law and their own political system and it does not reflect the "will of the people." There is no civilian control of the military -- the greatest cause for the DoD to ignore the law is the all volunteer military. As long as you have mercenaries running the Department of Defense, you will have a huge conflict of interest and no check or balance on the program.

  Taxpayer Posted March 31, 2006 6:47 AM
• 15780
  

  Taxpayer,

  In the big picture you are correct about the power issue, but the real problem is going to come at the rank and file level. I personally know of at least one situation in DHS where the SES was playing MAXHR a year ago, she promoted, instead of firing, a GS-5 to a GS-7/9/11 position because her mother worked in HR and the SES wanted to do some other illegal personnel moves, quid pro quo. There was a congressional filed, which the agency "white washed" and nothing was done. This is where the real problem is going to be, the "good ole boy (or girl)" network will take us right back to the reason the civil service system was formed to begin with.

  Ted Posted March 31, 2006 6:17 AM
• 15765
  

  That first-year buyout keeps people from complaining for a while -- "the opiate of the people," so to speak. But wait a year or two. Suckers will be fooled by that buy-out -- but keep your eyes and ears open, folks.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 30, 2006 10:55 AM
• 15761
  

  How can the Defense Department ignore the law of the land? The federal judge is protecting the American worker by ruling the labor relations portion of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) is illegal. But the Defense Department is going ahead with the NSPS effective on April 30. Everyone must obey the law, no exceptions.

  The unions have disagreed at the negotiations yet President Bush, DoD, and DHS have not paid any attention to this opposition. When will the politicians listen to the people who put them in office?

  Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, wrote: "MAX HR represents a major step in efforts to build a cohesive department from 22 disparate agencies, and it must be a success. I sincerely believe that nothing less than our national security is at stake." How can the General Schedule be a threat to national security?

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 30, 2006 9:29 AM
• 15758
  

  So, if you are already a Step 10 you get nothing in compensation? This is a total injustice. I hope that early out comes before I am forced into this ridiculous scheme. Are all you Democrats paying attention? Your representatives voted for this stupid personnel system, so don't just blame the Republicans!

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 30, 2006 8:28 AM
• 15754
  

  I hate to say this but it will probably be the last raise some of the people see. This is a return to the old pay to play system. I wonder how long it will be before someone is charged with taking kickbacks from employees to give good performance reviews to enable them to get to a higher payband. I'm sorry -- I just do not trust the administration and Congress -- this is just a ploy to reduce costs by limiting raises.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 30, 2006 7:42 AM
• 15751
  

  What a crock! This type of action defeats the entire line of bull the administration has been putting forth about getting raises based on performance. The first increase is based on seniority and not performance. What happens to those that are at the top of their grade and have been for a decade and there is no hope for a pay increase because of a step increase? Also, how do those people get any reward now or in the future -- particularly GS-13's? You cannot move to a higher grade without moving from your location (a stupid rule that perpetuates in the services! A GS-13, step 10 who has been there for several years (more than three) is stuck in the political bull of not increasing grades and will not get an increase because he/she is not in a position to get a step increase. NSPS does not solve this problem and does not right the wrongs of the past either.

  The process is bull and will continue as such under the NSPS system. The major problem with the NSPS is that it gives far too much power to the executive branch to the downfall of the legislative branch. It removes an important check and balance on executive power!

  Taxpayer Posted March 30, 2006 7:27 AM
• 15749
  

  This story is misleading. First, the pay "bump" is merely to account for time already worked towards eligibility for the employees' next WGI. Secondly, WGIs are not automatic -- they require an acceptable level of performance and supervisory approval. While the percentage of people receiving WGIs is very high, the actual increase still has to be authorized. Maybe they should have made the approval process more stringent instead of spending money to create a new system. This country has the most stable government workforce in the world. This is accomplished without regard to who is in the White House. Must be doing something right!

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 30, 2006 7:08 AM
• 15745
  

  Enjoy that "pay bump" because it will be the last raise many DoD employees will ever see under NSPS.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 30, 2006 5:48 AM
• 15741
  

  "Defense officials have been clear to say that no employee will lose pay in the initial conversion to the system, and now it is clear many employees will gain from the switch, at least at the outset."

  Gain? Gain what? It is compensation already earned. Please do not make it sound as if they are being provided a monetary perk for being converted into NSPS.

  State clearly that the bump in pay is mandatory and already owed to these individuals, as well as the rest of us, when (or if) that time ever comes.

  Dave Posted March 29, 2006 9:57 PM