| Comment Number: | EM-008404 |
| Received: | 3/7/2005 10:57:21 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:
March 7, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: I write to express my opposition to proposed changes to work rules in the Department of Defense (DoD). The proposed regulations, known as the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), were printed in the Federal Register on February 14, 2005. This message will be sent to both DoD and my representatives in Congress. I am writing out of concern for my fellow federal employees whose employment rights are threatened and out of concern that this bad proposal will eventually be implemented at the federal agency where I work. This system, if adopted, will change the way workers are paid, evaluated, promoted, fired, scheduled, and treated. These rules would create a system in which federal managers are given more latitude to make decisions based on favoritism rather than performance. When you increase managerial ?flexibility? without adequate safeguards, there is a negative effect on morale, as there is no assurance that hard work and dedicated service will be rewarded. If the Government wants to keep its best and brightest employees, it should not proceed down the path of dismantling a system that most people feel gives them good benefits and reasonable job security. Federal government could end up losing our best folks, a result that is contrary to the public interest. I have looked at the rationale for the proposed regulations and found no evidence that the current system is broken. Yes, there is an abundance of hyperbole about needing a lean, agile workforce prepared to meet new challenges. But there are no facts in the record to support the idea that the current system is not up to meeting the challenges. Given the sweeping changes proposed, the DoD has the burden of establishing the factual basis for the need for change. This is absent. 1. The proposal preamble asserts that the current federal personnel system is an ?inflexible, one-size-fits-all system of defining, work, hiring staff, managing people, assessing and rewarding performance, and advancing personnel. These inherent weaknesses make support of DoD?s mission complex, costly, and ultimately, risky.? This is a conclusion that is not supported by evidence. There are no facts to show how the ?inflexibility? of the current system makes DoD?s mission complex or is linked to any cost or risk factors. DoD has not made its case. 2. The proposal preamble asserts that DoD workers are being asked to assume new responsibilities, take more risk and be more innovative, agile and accountable than ever before. This may be the case for some employees, but my guess is that the majority of employees at DoD are doing the same jobs in much the same ways as always. While it seems reasonable that demands on some workers are different, for a lot ofworkers (e.g., payroll, secretarial pool, information transfer, technical support) there may be no new demands. There is nothing in the record to support the claim that demands on most employees are that different than before. 3. The proposal preamble asserts that DoD?s 20 years of pilot projects shows that fundamental change in personnel management has positive results on individual career growth and opportunities, workforce responsiveness and innovation. There is nothing in the record to substantiate these claims of positive results or to show why the proposed changes would have the positive effects that are alleged to be the result of the pilot projects. 4. The Notice claims that the new system will benefit employees by giving them more opportunities. The Notice says DoD ?sometimes? uses military personnel or contractors when it should have used civilian employees due to unspecified ?limitations imposed by the current personnel system.? However, the limitations are not identified or explored, so commenters like me have no idea of what they are, and more importantly, whether they could be fixed by amending a personnel rule or policy, as opposed to the wholesale replacement of a tried and tested personnel system that has served this country well. Again, DoD has not provided facts to support its claim that sweeping change is needed. I will leave it to other commenters to talk in detail about the specifics of the proposal. However, I will highlight some of the more egregious negative aspects, which I believe will undermine the Civil Service and hurt the morale of DoD employees. 1. Annual Pay Raises Under the General Schedule and FWS, employee pay was clear. It was funded by Congress and could not be taken away. However, NSPS will take away this certainty. 2. Pay System Under the proposed system, the amount of a worker's salary will depend almost completely on the personal judgment of his or her manager. There is no guarantee that even the best workers will receive a pay raise or that the pay offered will be fair or competitive. 3. Resolution of disagreements There will be no impartial appeal system to assure that everyone istreated fairly. Speaking as a federal employee, I would hate to work under such a system. I view the proposed regulations as an attack on workers? basic rights, which has been advanced in the name of national security, without showing any connection to the loss of rights and better security. I predict that morale in my agency would plummet if this system were applied here. I urge the withdrawal of this proposal. Federal employees have a system that is fair, serves the American people, and respects the rights of workers. The system has been bargained for, analyzed, and revised over the years to meet new situations. It strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of the federal agencies and its workers. It has served the country well, and should not be discarded without a proven need for its abolition. Sincerely,