| Comment Number: | EM-017400 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 8:35:10 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:
Being employed at one of the first Naval activities to adopt a Demonstration Project for it's professional personnel, I have found it necessary to read closely the proposed DOD NSPS regulations. I have many friends in another Naval activity that adopted the same Demonstration Project for it's professional personnel and, because of the dissatisfaction and unfairness (opinion) of the system recently returned to the General Schedule system. I have yet to hear one engineer or scientist voice satisfaction with that Demo Project. Pay for performance sounds great; however, the majority of employees never see any pay points, bonuses or incentives to perform well. Supervision can single out a minimal number of employees for preferential treatment evidenced by the fact that all the money allocated for bonuses is given to the same personnel year after year, while other employees, no matter how well they perform, never receive any monetary compensation. Of course, under this system, the employees have no bargaining rights. Employers do not even benefit (although they may show a huge cost savings) because the employees become demoralized eventually when they aren't appreciated and their performance suffers. Below I have listed some of my comments with regard to the proposed NSPS: 1. Subpart A - This appears to be another hasty attempt at forcing the DOD activities to adopt a system that is only partially outlined. Now the Secretary wants it implemented in July 2005 - nearly 2.25 years early. Why?? Trying to push the NSPS more quickly than the initial date of October 2008 will create numerous errors. These are the same people who want to place all other federal employees under a pay-for-performance system when they are rushing sub-standard personnel regulations. 2. Subpart B - There is nothing truly defined. Again, it appears to be another rushed regulation with open-end control for the Department. 3. Subpart C - This portion is literally full of incomplete open-end controls for the Department. a. The Department can adjust pay based on "mission requirements, labor market conditions, availability of funds, pay adjustment in other agencies or any other factors". This could mean that in peacetime vs wartime, our pay could be adjusted downward or we can be penalized for living in an area with sub-standard labor markets (remember no more cost of living adjustments either). In an area like the one where I live and work, technician positions are primarily only needed at the activity where I work. Does that mean that technicians will be paid sub-standard to what they're paid in a larger labor market? b. Why is the Department including the possibility/probability of different rate adjustments for different pay bands? And why is the Department being allowed to control whether cost of living increases are paid through their failure to adjust the minimum rate of the band? c. By not predetermining a minimum percentage increase such as exists in the General Schedule, new personnel (particularly professionals) will be deterred from applying for federal jobs. While the Department has stated that it wants to "attract and retain a high-performing workforce", why then are they trying to enact a personnel system that will only discourage that? d. Supervisors can reduce pay by 10% or more if the employee has been reduced to a lower band without a tangible reason or the pay can be increased without a tangible reason. e. DOD may set pay anywhere within the pay band - either up or down. There seems to be absolutely no control and no means of validation. f. Pay retention is not addressed. Wouldn't it be advisable to have a written rule? 3. Subpart D - Proposed regulations allow DOD to "develop, implement and administer a performance management system tailored to specific organizations and/or categories of employees. a. This part refers back to the Department's abilities to allow supervisors give low ratings to high performers and high ratings to their low-performing friends. Appeals are typically out of the question. b. The spiral ability of the probationary period will extend it every time a person moves from one job to another. Typically, a new employee that is on probation for one year could be on probation indefinitely if he changes jobs yearly, either voluntarily or involuntarily. 4. Subpart F - Gives the Secretary of Defense unlimited control of the personnel system. a. DOD can establish a minimum RIF competitive area on the basis of "geographic location, lines of business, product line, organizational unit and/or funding lines". DOD can "define competitive groups of the basis of career group, pay schedule, occupational series or speciality, pay band and/or trainee status". b. Performance outweighs length of service. An above average employee of 25 years service could possibly be displaced by an "outstanding" employee (by the particular supervisor's standards) of 10 years? 5. Subpart G - Can result in employees becoming so paranoid that their every move is being scrutinized that performance would be negatively affected and also the ultimate product. a. Probationary employees are not covered by adverse action procedures. "Appointees" such as those appointed by the Secretary, are not covered by adverse action procedures. Why are they "above the law"? b. The Secretary has sole authority to determine what offenses would mean mandatory removal, but nothing is outlined. 6. Subpart H - The MSPB has basically been removed from the appeals process and the employee is responsible for attorney fees, etc. that are incurred in the process. 7. Subpart I - Labor Management Relations a. Considering how vague some parts of the proposed system are, it's appalling that current negotiated agreements are null and void if they disagree with the yet undecided or unpublished DOD requirements. (Is this American?) b. The Secretary will appoint the NS Labor Relations Board, a board to consist of not less than 3 "independent, distinguished citizens". They are not subject to adverse actions and are only accountable to the Secretary. Their decisions are subject to limited review and they will prescribe their own rules. Somehow this doesn't seem ethic. c. All collective bargaining between labor and management is gone with regard to "numbers, types, grades, technology, methods and means of performing work, right to determine mission, budget, organization, internal security practices, hiring/assigning/directing employees and contracting out. They also have no say regarding pay schedules or pay bands. Again, this doesn't sound American. d. An employee is no longer entitled to have a union representative present when discussing personnel policies, working conditions, organizational practices. e. Disallows bargaining over conditions of employment unless it's foreseeable, substantial and significant. Why would you even need bargaining over conditions of employment if the conditions were foreseeable, substantial and significant? Your consideration of the above comments is appreciated.