TOPICS
TOPICS
Congress moves to repeal Pentagon pay-for-performance system
Congress has dealt a lethal blow to the Defense Department's controversial pay-for-performance system.
The conference committee working on the fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill on Wednesday released a report of the final legislation that repeals the law authorizing the National Security Personnel System, and mandates the return of all NSPS employees to their previous pay system by Jan. 1, 2012. The House and Senate are expected to approve the conference agreement.
"I am pleased my fellow Armed Services conferees agreed that it is time to end this short-sighted policy, which threatens the rights and protections of the DoD civilian workforce," said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii. "Employees throughout the federal government, especially those charged with defending the nation, deserve a fair personnel system. I believe this agreement will more appropriately protect DoD employee rights while giving DoD the additional performance management and hiring flexibility it needs."
The report also gives the Defense secretary the ability to propose new personnel flexibilities, but would subject those to congressional approval.
Under the agreement, the Defense secretary would have to begin returning the 200,000 Defense employees covered by NSPS to their previous pay system within six months of the law's enactment. The conference report said "no employee shall suffer any loss of or decrease in pay" when they revert to the previous personnel system.
The Federal Managers Association had been concerned that highly-rated employees who received significant pay increases under NSPS would be financially penalized when they returned to the General Schedule or another personnel system, said FMA President Darryl Perkinson.
The conference report also stated that until NSPS employees are returned to their earlier pay systems, they are entitled to 100 percent of pay raises granted to General Schedule workers in other departments.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced on Sept. 25 that all Defense employees who received ratings above "unacceptable" would receive the full raise given to General Schedule employees. Previously, employees had been entitled to at least 60 percent of that raise, but the Defense secretary had the authority to allocate 40 percent of the raise to pay pools to be distributed as performance increases and bonuses.
Federal employee unions strongly praised the conferees for choosing to repeal the authorizing legislation behind NSPS, a more aggressive action than those proposed in the House and Senate Defense authorization bills. The House version of the provision would have rolled back NSPS within one year, unless the Defense secretary argued for its reform and Congress passed legislation to preserve the system. The Senate provision would have eliminated NSPS within the same period of time, but allowed the Defense Secretary to establish a new pay-for-performance system that was "fair, credible and transparent."
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., said that the decision to repeal NSPS was a necessary first step toward the "reconstruction" of the Pentagon's personnel system, recommended by the Defense Business Board's review panel, which issued its final report in August.
While the conference report does not give the Defense secretary authority to establish a new pay system unilaterally, it does direct him to make substantial changes to performance management within the department. The report directs the secretary to work with the head of the Office of Personnel Management to create a "fair, credible and transparent performance appraisal system" for employees; a "fair, credible and transparent system for linking employee bonuses and other performance based actions to performance appraisals of employees;" and a system to provide employees with "performance assistance plans" that would give them access to on-the-job training and mentoring.
And the report gives the Defense secretary the authority to create a "Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Incentive Fund." Money appropriated for the fund could be used to award performance, hiring and retention bonuses to Defense employees.
The agreement opens the door to the creation of additional personnel flexibilities other than the changes outlined in the conference report, but says the Pentagon chief must work with the OPM director to develop a plan for those changes and justification for how they would avoid the pitfalls of NSPS identified in the Defense Business Board review panel's report. Congress would have to approve those changes.
"NSPS has been on the wrong track since its inception, and I am glad to see the conference committee take a strong stand against this failed system," said William Dougan, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees. Dougan cautioned that the conference report still had to pass, but said Wednesday had been "a very good day for the federal workforce."
COMMENTS
- Under the GS pay system I would of been a GS-9 step 1 when hired. Instead I was converted into NSPS as a YC-1. YC-1 is clerical in nature. Not Supervision. This conversion cost me and my family a $5,000 pay raise. Supervisors doing the exact same job as myself but were already GS-9 upon conversion are making anywhere from 7 to 15 thousands dollars a year more. If I get a 3 Rating under NSPS I will still be equivilant to a GS-7 step 5. NSPS simply isn't fair unless your at the top of your pay scale. These are the people who benefit from NSPS. The higher ups who rate the Supervisor doing all the work to ensure they get a significant increase. When the conversion back to GS takes place the people who suffered under NSPS should be given back pay to compensate for their loss because of this flawed system. I can only speak for myself, but NSPS cost me over $10,000 in a 16 month span. Simply NOT FAIR! Bret Speese Posted October 26, 2009 12:00 PM
- First, there is no system that, in the hands of human beings, that is going to be absolutely fair. Simply put, I grew up with TAPES and never understood why someone got a raise just because they where breathing air in the workplace. I can’t speak for all the organizations and employees, but in my opinion, its leadership failure. NSPS is a difficult system to understand, has a poor training base, is time consuming, and the key to success is to have a supervisor that can write, and you (as the one with drive and determination) be surrounded by idiots. A pay through performance system is correct, but it challenges leaders to lead (not manage, that’s for “things”), communicate organizational goals and objectives, and standards to subordinates, makes the subordinates have to explain how they have accomplished those things, and all at the risk of being unpopular for doing the right thing in support of the mission. I can’t say NSPS is the ultimate solution, but the concept is sound but has hindsight is 20/20 flaws, does need to be fixed (not eliminated), and the only people I have seen consistently complain about how unfair NSPS is are the ones who have demonstrated a solid foundation of minimal performance anyways; just coming to work on time was their contribution to working hard and felt they should be rewarded for that. D. Smith Posted October 22, 2009 10:23 PM
- This is was not only unfair to employees, but also challenging, misunderstood and mis-executed by personnelists. I was already serving in a civil service position when I applied for an external announcement for a GS-07 position in the same organization. Somewhere between the posting and the actual hiring, the job was converted to NSPS. I was notified of this and requested an opportunity to negotiate my salary. I was denied by CPO claiming that I was not entitled to negotiate my salary (contrary to NSPS guidelines). CPO Stated that the authorized grade advertised was converted to the NSPS equivalent. This also was in contrast to NSPS guidelines which allows for employee buy-in. In the end, my salary was set at less than 5% above the minimum salary despite my education qualifications, 30+ years of specialized experience and 25+ years supervisory experience. Between CPO and AFPC they were quite evasive in getting me in contact with anyone to assist in resolving my complaint W. Ellis Posted October 20, 2009 11:20 AM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco









