Comments on NSPS
23 Feb. 2005

General Comment:
	There is room for improvement in the DOD personnel system.  The classification system is cumbersome and confusing to most workers.  Supervision is given minimal training, many never bother to read the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).  The MOA is the only practicle hand book of daily procedures available in the workplace.  All items in the MOA have been agreed upon by labor and management.  Disciplinary actions and disputes arise when either party fails to follow the MOA or established rules, regulations, policies, set forth by the Department.  The sprit of collective bargaining is for labor and management to get back into the established parameters of the work place not sabotage the mission or the organization.

	I take exception to the statement in “The Case for Action” (page 7553, col. 01, para. 01) it states, “the labor system encourages a dispute oriented adversarial relationship between management and labor”.
	This is a gross mis-statement and is simply not true at my base and most others.  If this type of culture exists on a DOD facility, its root cause is based on personal emotions, turf protection, and/or the desire for control.  Changing the rules may mask this type of problem but the conditions that set up this culture will reappear in the new system.  There is little that NSPS policy can do to fix a culture as described here.  It has to be fixed at the local level, by people, labor and management, sitting across the table, eye to eye.  They have to be willing to open up, lay it out, and deal with the underlying issues that set up this culture.  Undue restrictions on collective bargaining rights makes fixing the problem harder.  If this statement,  “the labor system encourages a dispute oriented adversarial relationship between management and labor” is the premise for the changes in collective bargaining then the justfication is fundamentally flawed.

	I take exception to "Case for Action" (page 7553, Col. 01, para. 03) "...the law provides the Department and OPM in collaboration with employee representatives..."
36 members of the United DOD Coalition worked for a year to fullfill to wish of Congress to work with the Department of Defense.  The spirit and intent of cooperation was rebuffed by DOD at every turn. The Coalition as well as the rest of the 700,000 DOD employees were totally isolated as the new system was secretly written.  The posting date in the Federal Register was held in secret.  After posting, no briefing has been given my management or the personnel department to their employees because the new system was a secret to them also.  The town hall meetings were a sham and the informational NSPS website and email notification system, I am a subscriber, was devold of any real information but loaded with self endorsement of what a great system NSPS is going to be.

	I take exception to the following statement in "Case for Action" (Page 7553, col.02, para.02) "The Department sometimes uses military personnel of contractors when civilian employees could have and should have been the right answer."  This statement contradicts the Administrations A-76 rules unless it is refering to to involuntary transfer of civilians to warzones.  This duty should be voluntary and negotionable.  After all, we didn't hire on to do this, however many would with the proper assurances.

	Pay and Pay Administration-Subpart C (pages 7559-7561)
	Pay for performance pay systems sound good on paper and are easily applied to business systems where tangible values can be measured such as sales.  Government efforts to apply the business model have failed in the past (ref. the GM pay classification)  since it is difficult to apply a system, world wide, that eliminates the raters subjectivity and perjudices, ie human nature.  This why the existing pay system was established.  The opportunity to remove the poor performers was given to the managers through the performance evaluation system.
	Another problem with past systems was the trickle down effect.  The bonuses and raises were siphoed off from the top, staff level, headquarters level, base level mangement, and what is left is shared by the rank and file.  There is already a conflict in DOD where political appointees in the senior executive positions are receiving higher pay awards than career executives that have earned the same performance rating (ref. FedNews OnLine dated 02-07-2005). The pecking order is already reappearing.  Now the rank and file mistrust each other in the competition for the coveted pay raise.  There will be manuvering against each other to win the raise and an on going resentment by those who lose.  This fosters morale problems not team work.  
	This Administration has demonstrated that it holds its civilian employees in lower esteem than its military in terms of pay.  What assurances are there that civilians will be given proper consideration since that determination of pay is taken from Congress and given to the Office of Budget Management?

	Pay Administration (page 7561)
	The paragraph is written intentionally evasive.  The implication is that DOD is going to eliminate overtime pay for GS employees.  If this is the case, why don't they just state this instead of attemping to grease it by.

	Pay Administration - Reduction in Band (page 7561)
	Reducing the pay of an employee for an adverse action or unacceptable performance is, how can I state this, a dumb idea. This tool sets up the potential for terrible consequences.  1.  A festering resentment by the demoted employee against the boss and the organization is a potential for work place violence, and 2.  A fear of reprisal from employees that want to do the right thing by reporting fraud, waste, aduse, unsafe work practices, etc.
	Poor performance should be addressed with a work improvement plan or a termination, not with a punishment to be meaded out  at the will of a capricious manager.

	Adverse Actions - Subpart G (page 7564)
	This section is evasive is respect to how DOD wants to incease the list of Manatory Removal Offenses that are already established.  They should be specific and clear before this is allowed.

	1.  Appeals to MSPB (page 7566, col.03, para.03)
	The Department is asking for the authority to review and over turn any Merit System Review Board (MSPB)initial decision.  The MSPB is an independant quasi-judicial agency established to protect Federal merit systems against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices and to ensure protection for employees against abuses by agency management.  Asking for permission to over turn MSPB decisions is clearly AGAINST the mandate granted by the Congress.

	6.  National Security Labor Relations Board (page 7569)
	The Secretary wants to pick this three member board.  Currently this Board is picked by the President with consultation and approval of the Senate. This change is an attempt to remove congressional oversight from this important Board.  Isolating DOD from congressional oversight was not Congress's intention when they approved of NSPS.

	7.  Management Rights (page 7570)
	Paragraph 2 plays losely with the words of Title 5 Sction 7106.  In respect to notifying the union well ahead of time of changes to the work place, the Federal Register states that the rules in Title 5 "can seriously impede the Department's ability to meet mission demands."  Title 5 specifically states that the agency "shall meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to personnel policies and practices in matters affecting working conditions, as appropriate".  The perception stated in the Federal Register that 14 days is a serious delay is far different than the rule of Title 5.  Title 5 simply states that people be given respectful consideration so that they may plan for their responsibilities to their families as they may have to schedule child care or care of elderly parents around their work schedules.  Experience has shown that worker input on work problems usually leads to better solutions.  It is the American way taught to us by Ralph Demming from the success of the Japanese automotive industry.  Air Force was buying his system at one time.

	Paragraph 2 about Title 5, in reqards to negotiation over - "the numbers, types, and grades of employees and the technology, methods, and means of performing work,...mission budget, organization, and internal security parctices, and the right to hire, assign and direct employees, and contract out", the Fed. Register fails to mention that bargaining over these items are curreently at the sole discretion of the agency.  Speaking in behalf of Air Force and Navy, these are not bargained.  I fail to see the crisis that is being painted here.

	8.  Determination of Appropriate Units for Labor Organization Representation (page 7570)
	Non mangerial positions in personnel department should not be barred from union membership.  The argument as stated in this section is weak and subjective.  Every employee is responsible for perfroming their duties efficently and with integrity whether they are repairing aircraft engines or "providing advice and guidance to management officials" union membership is a right that according to Congress in Title 5 chapter 71 Subpart F;

	A. safeguards the public intrest
	B. contributes to the effective conduct of public business, and 
	C. facilitates and encourages the amicable settlement of disputes between employees and their employers involving conditions of employment

Denial of the right of membership to these people runs counter to the mandate from the Congress on NSPS.

	11. Representation Rights and Duties (page 7571)
	An employee has the right to union representation known as the Weingarten Right when it is thought that an adverse action may be taken against him.  What could be more adverse that a criminal investigation?  These rights should not be denied during a criminal investigation no more that Miranda Rights should be denied to a citizen facing arrest.

	14.  Multi-Unit Bargaining (page 7572)
Allow me to re state this section to see it I understand this;
In the esscence of time , and to avoid variations to a single policy, management can require multi unit bargaining over particular issues and the bargaining is binding to all.  However, if the unions request multi-unit bargaining then management can deny the request.  Sounds like we are going to play ball and one side will make up the rules as we play.  This is not in the spirit of maintaining collective bargaining rights as mandated by the Congress.  This is like steering the outcome of a situation to a pre determined result.

Respectfully submitted