Comment Number: 05-02582-EREG-136-d7391-c32222
Received: 3/8/2005 8:00:00 AM
Subject: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment
Title: National Security Personnel System
CFR Citation: 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901
No Attachments

Comments:

The law requires any new system to be contemporary. Your labor relations and performance management concepts are, however, remarkably regressive. By proposing to silence frontline employees and the unions that represent them, the Agencies appear to have decided that employees and their unions can make no contribution to the accomplishment of the essential mission of protecting the national security and defense. This backwards-thinking approach is at odds with contemporary concepts of labor relations. As the General Accountability Office recognized in congressional testimony concerning the Department of Homeland Securitys proposed regulations on human capital:

Leading organizations involve unions and incorporate their input into proposals before finalizing decisions. Engaging employee unions in major changes, such as redesigning work processes, changing work rules, or developing new job descriptions, can help achieve consensus on the planned changes, avoid misunderstandings, speed implementation, and more expeditiously resolve problems that occur. These organizations engaged employee unions by developing and maintaining an ongoing working relationship with the unions, documenting formal agreements, building trust over time, and participating jointly in making decisions.

Preliminary Observations on Proposed DHS Human Capital Regulations, Statement of David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, before Subcommittees of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform, GAO-PR-479T (Feb. 25, 2004) at pp. 14-15. Instead of proposing a system that would, as suggested by the GAO, maximize opportunities for employees and their unions to contribute to the accomplishment of the mission, the Agencies have proposed to eliminate those opportunities.

The performance management system breaks no new ground. Except for the elimination of employee procedural safeguards, the proposed system repeats many of the current systems themes, such as providing on-going employee feedback regarding performance, and consistent and continual acknowledgment and reward of high performance and good conduct. Federal agencies have been struggling to attain credible performance systems for decades. Nothing in this proposal suggests that DoD will be able to avoid the credibility problems that have plagued federal employers. These problems are even more pronounced in view of the proposal to link employee pay more closely to their performance ratings.