Return to Article: House passes 3.5 percent military pay raise
-
23582
The language in this bill would simply clarify the original Congressional intent of NSPS which DOD intentionally ignored when it unilaterally developed the NSPS regulations. Congress always intended to preserve employees' collective bargaining and appeal rights but DOD saw a chance to gut these statutory rights because of some what murky language agreed to when the NSPS language went to Conference committee. Fortunately so far the Courts recognized this illegal power garb by DOD and voided the regulation dealing with collective bargaining and appeal rights. I am also encouraged that the language also allows for group incentive pay in the NSPS "pay for performance system". In my experience the peer pressure applied within a work group to achieve goals is more beneficial to an organization compared to individuals attempting to beat their fellow workers to receive the individual rewards. This approach would foster team work rather than jealousy and back biting.
-
23575
As an Air Force reservist subject to activation (again) and a DOD civillian employee, I enthusiastically welcome attention from Congress to any and all military and civil service benefits. Those who would argue against such are more than welcome to voluntarily enlist in military service to gain the proper perspective of the challenges, uncertainties, and dangers we face on a continuous basis. Or they should sit back and be quiet while they enjoy all the freedom and privilages they are not earning.
If the members of Congress who have introduced legislation to modify Guard and Reserve benifits are serious, and not just pandering and window dressing, I challenge them to submit these changes as ammendments to the Defense Authorizations and Appropriations bills. Allowing these bills to languish in committee and die slowly is not going to do anything to help. Does anyone really want to see grandparents approaching 60 in a combat situation because they can't afford to retire with no benefits until age 60?
Also, I can see a potential win-win situation for everyone concerned. When active duty move to a new duty station, their spouces are given preference in certain hiring situations at local government facilities in their new location. I suggest that spouces of Guard and Reserve members also be given preference in hiring in the local area of the facility their husband/wife would normally drill at if that member is placed on active duty in support of a contingency opperation for 90 days or more. This would cost the government absolutely nothing, yet would be a tremendous morale boost to our troops,as well as a fantastic opportunity for both their families and the government agencies involved.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.