| Comment Number: | EM-008390 |
| Received: | 3/8/2005 10:54:28 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:
Subpart A: General Provisions 9901.101-9901-108 Section 9901.104 is very misleading. It states only specific chapters of title 5 of the U.S. code listed may be waived by NSPS. According to NSPS law, 5 USC 9902 (B)(5) The NSPS shall not be limited by any specific law or authority under this title [title 5, U.S.code], or by any rule or regulation prescribed under this title. That means that there must be more laws on DOD list to chop that are not listed in 9901.104. This is confusing and makes me worry about retirement, health insurance, life insurance, and workers Compensation as well as annual and sick leave. Subpart B: Classification 9901.201-9901.231 No real specifics are give on how DOD will replace the GS and WG pay systems. It only says the system will be announced in an implementing issuance. Why isn't this in the Federal Register for public comment? There are no specifics on premium pay again this like so many other aspects will be established in implementing issuances. Again the public will not be able to comment. Subpart C: Pay and Pay Administration 9901.301-9901.373 This really sucks. Each employee's pay will depend on his pay schedule and pay band, his rate range, his local market supplement and his performance payout based on his performance rating. That means to me I may not get a locally pay increase and if I don't Kiss the supervisor's butt enough during the year I won't get a excellent rating so no pay raise either. This will pit employee against employee and give the supervisor too much power to select his favorites and pad their evaluation and grant them raises while even though other employees are working their tails off the supervisor may hold back any raises for them. You call this progress? I call it a slap in the face for all employees. Subpart D: Performance Management. 9901.401-9901.409 This is not going to contribute to a more productive workforce. Its back to the personality pageant as employees grapple with supervisors over who has the best attitude or who is most appreciated in the workplace. Basic pay and retention are on the line and employees will try to make other employees look bad to win the supervisor attention. Why not add to the regulation that supervisors will be issued drop flaps in their pants and issue each employee a lip balm and kneepads. The one who kisses the most butts and has the softest lips gets retained and pay raises. Subpart E: Staffing and employment 9901.501-9901.516 Section 9901.512 states DOD will establish a probationary period. It doesn't state how long this probationary period will be. Subpart F: Workforce Shaping 9901.601-9901.611 Seniority has always played an important role in reductions in the workforce. The most senior employee is the most experienced and better qualified to do the work. Why does this Regulation not allow Seniority to be considered in a reduction in the workforce? Subpart G: Adverse Actions 9901.701-9901-721 Mandatory Removal Offences, No reduction in the penalty would be allowed and no list of what offenses would be used for mandatory removal. The proposal states the Secretary can issue and change the list at will. Does this mean it will be fair to everyone or change at the whim of the Secretary based on what the Supervisor provides as evidence. Subpart H: Appeals 9901.801-9901.810 MSPB appeals are shorten from 30 to 20 days. Management actions can not be overturned because DOD used the wrong words to describe the charge or performance expectation. Subpart I: Labor Management Relations 9901.901-9901.928 Under NSPS managers will be forbidden to bargain over the procedures for most actions but are supposed to consult with the Union. They can set their own procedures but they won't have to abide by them. The regulations give management the right to determine its procedures and deviate from them. My question is what the sense of setting procedures unless your intent is to follow them. This will cause problems with the workforce as procedures can change from day to day or worse hour to hour on management's whim. The proposed regulation states that union representatives are subject to the same standards of conduct as any other employee even while they are wearing their union hats. This takes away all fairness at the table. Management can rant and rave, bang the table and the union representative has no recourse except to set there and take the abuse. I feel the union representative should be equal to the ranking person at the table in order to properly represent the workforce or an employee in a grievance meeting. Under NSPS management can withhold information from the union that was requested to aid in an employees grievance. This seems unfair to the employee as this information may be what's needed to support their case.