| Comment Number: | EM-017388 |
| Received: | 3/12/2005 1:28:38 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 12, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: I would like to offer my comments on the proposed NSPS regulations. The Case for Action (pages 7552-7553) The stated case for sweeping change amounts to something like ?drastic times call for drastic actions.? As a citizen, I find this embarrassing. There is nothing about 9/11 or the war on terror that dictates a complete overhaul of the DOD personnel system. ?Outmoded? personnel rules did not create a challenge to national security. The proposed rules will not enhance national security. Our current system of rules was enacted by Congress?not by a political appointee. The rules were designed to promote fairness and sound management and to prevent well-known abuses of authority that lead to bad government. The rules serve their intended purpose reasonably well and impose a very manageable cost on managerial ?flexibility? and ?agility.? The effectiveness of the civilian workforce was proven in two Gulf wars. A case can be made for some of the proposed changes. But it is reckless to adopt drastic change?much of it purely experimental?in the name of national security. Subpart D, Performance and Behavior Accountability (page 7562) It is a serious mistake to elevate ?behavioral? factors such as ?attitude, conduct ? and professional demeanor? in rating the performance of employees. These are exactly the areas most abused by managers today. They are intrinsically subjective and subject to no objective justification. Employees who expect to be rated on their ?attitude? will spend a lot more time playing up to the boss. There is already enough incentive to do this. Why add more? Subpart G, Para 2-Mandatory Removal Offenses (MROs) (pages 7564-7565) Why create a new category of ?mandatory removal? offenses? We can remove employees who endanger national security under existing rules. This novel feature of NSPS gives the Secretary of Defense authority to create of list of offenses deemed ?unusually serious? with respect to national security. People accused of these offenses will be treated more harshly and will have less due-process rights. I can?t imagine an offense that warrants ?express lane? justice. Perhaps there are some. If so, the regulation should list them and subject them to public scrutiny. Instead, we are supposed to approve these unprecedented items, sight unseen. Subpart I ? Labor Management (pages 7568 ? 7573) I personally appreciate what unions have done for this country, so I find this is the most disturbing section of the regulation. The new rules take most subjects of bargaining off the table, they substitute a hand-picked DOD panel for the independent FLRA and they a void huge volume of negotiated agreement. Why is this necessary? Why shouldn?t DOD employees receive genuine union representation? The regulations remove all but a fraction of the already limited power of employee unions to bargain working conditions. Under NSPS, unions will become powerless ?consultants,? deprived of their current right to influence the impact and implementation of major changes in the workplace. This is seriously misguided. Federal employee unions are heavily restricted under current law. They can?t bargain wages, they can?t go on strike, and they can?t disrupt the functioning of the government in any way. Why further restrict their ability to promote the interests of employees? Does national security require the repression and subjugation of DOD employees? I recommend the regulation be changed to restore the independent role of the FLRA, a meaningful form of collective bargaining and a negotiated grievance process that includes performance evaluations. I appreciate you consideration of my comments. Sincerely,