Comment Number: EM-017480
Received: 3/9/2005 6:36:48 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:

March 9, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: Concern 1: In the proposed NSPS regulations, where, specifically, are written protections for handicapped employees? I work in a DOD organization that, over the years, has maintained an aggressive ?Employ the Handicapped? program. In this DOD organization (and many other DOD organizations), we have employees who are sight challenged, hearing challenged, physically challenged and mentally challenged. These employees are fully capable of performing clerical tasks and are long term employees of Federal Civil Service. However, some of these handicapped individuals, due to their impairment challenges, may not perform their tasks at the same speed and accuracy as their non-impaired co-workers. Under the current Civil Service Personnel System, these individuals are given a pay raise by Congress each year if their performance is at an acceptable level. This pay raise is allocated by Congress in each fiscal year budget process. Also, these handicapped employees can obtain additional money through bonuses if their performance warrants a bonus. If these employees are not to be protected under the proposed NSPS, then they may easily be performance rated below their non-handicapped co-workers. If this occurs, then these individuals could easily be consistently rated low enough in a pay for performance system and be denied pay increases. Additionally, these individuals could consistently be rated low enough in a pay for performance system to become fodder for Reduction In Force (RIF) implementations. If no protections exist in the NSPS for handicapped employees, then the proposed regulations as written are horribly unfair to handicapped employees. Concern 2: In the proposed NSPS regulations, where, specifically, are written protections for Federal Civil Service members within 5 years of retirement from Federal Civil Service? Do the NSPS regulations contain a ?sanctuary? program that would protect employees who have over 30 years Federal Civil Service and are over age 50? If these protections do not exist in the proposed NSPS regulations, why not? Exceptions to this policy would be those individuals convicted of severe criminal penalties while on the job (i.e. government theft, etc.). Otherwise, the NSPS should contain rules that protect those employees with over 30 years Civil Service but who have not yet attained retirement age. Also, those individuals who are over the minimum retirement age, but are within 5 years of obtaining the necessary years of service for a full Civil Service retirement. Protections similar to these have been in place in the current Civil Service system and sanctuary protections are also available to members of the military. If protections of this nature do not exist in the proposed NSPS regulations, then Congress needs to step in and assure these protections are provided to Federal workers who have invested their lives in a Federal Civil Service career and are approaching retirement eligibility. Concern 3: In the proposed NSPS regulations, where, specifically, are rules to ensure that Civil Service members who are approaching a Step Increase as a General Schedule employee are still entitled to that Step Increase? If a member is entitled to a Step Increase the year they go under the NSPS, and NSPS does not provide the increase, then workers will be cheated out of a guaranteed pay increase that was due to them. Step Increase rules are written so that those members who receive a statement from their supervisor indicating performance is at an acceptable level to receive a Step Increase are entitled to this pay increase. I am a 24 year Federal Civil Service member. I have never been denied a Step Increase that was due to me in 24 years of the current Civil Service rules. This is because my performance has always been at an acceptable level (verified by my various supervisors) to receive this pay increase. Will I still receive the Step Increase that is due to me in June 2006 if my organization is placed under NSPS in January 2006? If not, why not? I don?t believe it is legal to deny a raise to me that was all but guaranteed as long as I maintained a high level of performance in my job. When you think about it, Step Increases are already a ?pay for performance? method due to the fact that you don?t receive your Step Increase unless your supervisor indicates your performance allows you to receive the increase. It kind of makes you wonder just exactly what Secretary Rumsfeld is really up to with the proposed NSPS. And it makes me wonder how many members of the House and Senate understand the current Civil Service rules. This is just one example of why many DOD employees see the NSPS as blatant Union busting. General Comments: The NSPS is unnecessary. The DOD organization that I work in has provided support for the Cold War, Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War, Gulf War, the September 11th attacks and the Iraq War. The civilians in this organization worked along side of military members and ensured our Nation was ready during these times of crisis ? as well as during times of peace. In 24 years of Federal Civil Service, I have seen employees rewarded for doing well and fired for doing wrong. I have seen employees given bonuses for a job well done and I have seen employees disciplined for breaking the rules. All of these things can be done under the current Personnel System. The Nation does not need NSPS. It will create a lower morale problem in the DOD and will significantly harm recruiting of young people into Federal Civil Service ? something that is very much needed at this time. The cost to the taxpayer to implement NSPS is a waste of money. It will cost a significant amount to implement and will make working in Federal Civil Service worse not better. Sincerely,