| Comment Number: | EM-008350 |
| Received: | 3/3/2005 11:18:20 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:
GENERAL: The proposed - almost written in stone already - regulations that are being forced on Federal civilian employees is simply a disaster. While the Army boasts of having a workforce that "looks like America", a "model" employer, the DoD wants a workforce that looks like corporate America 200 years ago. Picture a workforce that has so many limits on what they can do, no avenues of redress or protections if they happen to have a poor supervisor, no "best practices", no effective labor organization, and absolutely no incentives to make their jobs careers. This proposal will be very harmful to women, minorities and the disabled. Yes, we will still have EEO as an avenue of redress, however, how many EEO cases are settled in just a few days? How many people can PROVE they are being treated unfairly because of race, age, etc? The only reason they have left EEO rights in the proposal is because it is a law and they can't leave it out. How dare they make it seem like they are being "protective" of employees by promoting that employees still can take discrimination cases to EEO when every employee in the United States have these rights! Page number 7552: "DoD civilians must compliment and support the military around the world in every time zone, every day." Are they saying we have to deploy? Isn't that voluntary? What about the thousands of civilians (many veterans) that have physical disabilities? Are we "getting rid" of them by saying they are non-deployable? Volunteering is what it is supposed to be. Is this another Bush/Rumsfeld backdoor draft? Page number 7553: "Currently, pay and the movement of personnel are pegged to outdated narrowly defined work definitions..." The current system works if management keeps job descriptions updated. There are always supervisors that are to lazy to re-classify - probably because it may mean an employee gets upgraded for providing higher graded work than they are being paid to do. Page 7553: "The attacks of Sep. 11 made it clear that flexibility is not a policy preference. It is nothing less than an absolute requirement and it must become the foundation of DoD civilian human resources management." How can you connect a National tragedy with the personnel system? Again, supervisors have the ability to change things under the current system but hey choose not to. Document one civilian employee that failed DoD after 9/11. Document one civilian employee at Fort Drum that refused overtime when we were deploying our troops to Afghanistan. Look at the current overtime they are putting in right now. Page 7553: "The Dept. sometimes uses military personnel or contractors when civilian employees could have and should have been the right answer." Who invented the contract system? It wasn't civilian employees. When we have won contract studies, were we fully funded for our "MOST EFFICIENT ORGANIZATION'. No, but we still do the job and we do it better. Contractors can strike whenever they want to. Civilians can't without risking jail. Page 7553: "The current system limits opportunities for civilians at a time when the role of DoDs civilian workforce is expanding to include more significant participation in total force effectiveness. NSPS will generate more opportunities for civilians by easing the administrative burden routinely required by the current system and providing an incentive for managers to turn to them first when certain vital tasks need doing." We are hired to do certain jobs. What protections will we have if we are hired to do one job and then asked to do something completely different? What about persons with disabilities? Are we going to be rated on tasks that we were not hired to do? If we choose a job and state that we are not mobile, are we going to be fired if we do not want to move or be deployed? Effective dates, Continuing collaboration process, page 7557: What is DoDs idea of a continuing collaboration process? Ignore or remove dissenters? Remind employees and labor organizations over and over that the DoD is ALL POWERFUL and non-negotiable? Has DoD listened to anything the labor organizations have suggested? Has DoD sat down with labor organizations in good faith? Subpart B, Classification, page 7558: There are no assurances that pay banding will be implemented fairly. Again, if you happen to have a supervisor that just doesn't like you, you may as well give up. Currently the system provides for increases in steps. Supervisors can stop any step increase if they feel the employee is not working up to standards. Subpart C, Pay and Pay Administration, Setting and adjusting rate ranges, pages 7559,7560: DoD is giving itself the right to lower overall payroll amounts. Where do individuals fit in here? Are we going to see more installations making decisions as to which services to close? We are operating under extreme hardship now. Too many employees are doing jobs of two and three employees. How can that continue? Setting and adjusting rate changes: Setting pay according to the "availability of funds" tells employees, that DoD will decide who gets what and when. Who protects employees when DoD decides they can't afford to pay them or they use that as an excuse to get rid of them? Local market supplements: If you live in a deprived area - i.e.: unemployed farmers and loggers, what is the incentive to work for DoD if the local market is depressed? Is locality pay going to be a thing of the past? People making career decisions will leave the area. Why stay in an area if you are doing a job that pays better elsewhere? Performance payouts: This will really pit employees against each other. Setting pay: Is it fair to offer new employees higher amounts than current employees receive? Imagine training a new employee that is doing the same job you are doing only they make more money. Premium pay: Shouldn't we all hear what the proposed rules are and be able to comment on them? Subpart D - Performance Management: Setting and communicating performance expectations - DoD wants to be able to change performance standards at any time?????? I know employees who have worked for three years without ever being told what their standards are. DoD needs to remember that supervisors are human too - and they can be evil people. If a supervisor doesn't like someone, can they force unattainable standards on them and then fire them if they don't meet them? Rating and rewarding performance: Not much different than the current system - where are the improvements? Challenging a rating: I really don't have faith that DoD will help me out if I challenge my rating. I will have no labor union to help me, no other process except to try to prove I have been discriminated against. Have they budgeted to increase the staffing of the EEO offices to accommodate the increase in complaints? Development, page 7563: The current civil service system is fair to all, especially minorities, the disabled and women. Does DoD plan on having an all white male workforce? Subpart G - Adverse Actions 7564 0- Mandatory removal - The words "sole, exclusive, and unreviewable authority" are used here as in many other places - Is the Secretary of Defense going to be fair? What kind of "offenses" are going to invoke removal? What if the charge is false? Also, the words "if security is compromised" is used frequently. Where are the guidelines? Subpart I - Labor-Management Relations: Why doesn't the DoD just say, no employee has any rights for organized labor? Mother Jones must be turning in her grave! The Bush administration is forcing rules and regulations on the workforce that can be nothing less than UNION busting. If DoD is a model employer, corporate America is just smiling! Simply because management doesn't want to deal with unions while the unions are protecting the human rights of the labor force, is not sufficient cause to stifle, cripple, and eliminate organized labor. True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Fort Drum - "The Army's and the Soldier's first choice."