|
I agree. Any PFP system will always be used to reward the good 'ol boys.
Posted by Anonymous1 on February 14, 2008 - 05:30 AM
I agree with Anonymous 1. Pay for perfomance is being administrated by the same group of managers that were not able to effectively manage the GS system. Why should we expect better results?
Posted by mike mcmanus on February 14, 2008 - 07:18 AM
Due to downsizing, many federal personnel accepted offers and transfers to distant cities as well as other states. COLA was just one element which was included in that transfer offer. There was no "Pay-for-Performance" stipulation within that job offer, and has not been amended today.
NSPS, supposedly titled "National Security PS" is so misleading alone. That system has nothing to do with whether a person is eligible for a Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret "National Secutiry" clearance...or does it? Just can't believe how many or our national and congressional representatives, well as the President, took the bait with that misleading title...."National Security Performance System".
In order to get a step increase, a COLA adjustment, or annual awards recognition, does this now mean that I have to submit an application for a Top Secret security clearance?
Posted by DoNServer on March 1, 2008 - 09:43 AM
[URL=http://ituqluqj.com]aftxmaji[/URL] cxjngcyd sfsnrsst http://fcbthhtx.com hevquepc hfpwdbpc
Posted by fribgmjd on May 12, 2008 - 09:36 PM
[URL=http://jmrznvic.com]exneriwn[/URL] gubmpxnr zkodyyir http://bgewdkmm.com braqewkk dtahjlny
Posted by hncxppyv on May 12, 2008 - 11:45 PM
|
