| Comment Number: | EM-001353 |
| Received: | 2/25/2005 3:39:22 PM |
| 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:
February 25, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: Please feel free to forward my comments and use my name as I feel that anonymity is wrong and as a group we should not be afraid to put our opinions in writing. The sad fact I believe, and it is a reality to many, is that when one is honestly trying to comment on a proposal such as this, that negative feedback will result in retribution - either immediate, or down the road in subtle and dangerous ways. Ultimately I see the NSPS creating a serious divide between management and the workers tasked with the nuts and bolts of pursuing the DOD mission. At best it is disingenuous, and at worst it is dishonest, to sell the need for a revamping of the personnel system under the guise of national security using 9-11 as their siren song. In my time, I have never seen a mission fail due to the system. The allegation that management needs the flexibility to get the job done is just not true. The means do that currently exist - those entrusted to make it happen have merely failed to in their responsibility and shown themselves to be ineffective to that end. For instance, claiming they must rely too much on contractors to support the mission thus increasing costs is just not true. Many of the contracted tasks are already contracted at the installation level due to poorly conceived notions on what is and what is not an inherently government function. We no longer have staffing for things like food service, many mechanic positions are already contracted, a good deal of basic support functions have also been incrementally contracted out. Should they gain the flexibility to ship their aging workforce to combat zones, who will be left behind to maintain the ever present rear echelon workload - CONTRACTORS of course. There is no way that creating an in-house appeals review for disciplinary action can be considered fair. In my 28+ years of federal service I have never had to pursue a grievance and have been treated fairly. However, I have encountered managers who without remorse, and for purely vindictive reasons, have set upon employees and sought to destroy their lives and careers. Unless a body totally detached from the inner workings of an organization is given the task of independently and progressively reviewing disciplinary appeals, the system will likely implode due to frustration, anger and lack of faith and trust. As for performance based management, that too stands to fail. Increasingly, manpower has not matched the increases in workload we are experiencing and supervisors are more and more often, analogously, stuffing 10 pounds of sausage into a two pound casing. At that point, it is in management's best interest to lay blame with the employee in pursuit of self-preservation. That is inherently unfair. The broken part of the system is not with the people and the personnel system they operate under. It is in how unrealistic expectations by management, at all levels, burden the system, without true accountability for effective management. Those advocating these draconian changes selectively used a few selective scenarios they cherry picked from an unscientific sampling of the whole picture to sell the idea that the current procedures are too time consuming and ineffective. Again, management is only as effective as its managers are competent. That is where the problem ultimately rests. Nobody I have spoken to believes that true merit system principles will prevail. Rather, it is more likely to result in a dishonest system rife with nepotism, favoritism, and cronyism. That will serve no good purpose and, will actually, be at cross-purposes with the mission. Sincerely,