| Comment Number: | EM-017495 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 11:23:19 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 10, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: I write to express my concerns about 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 have worked for DoD for 31 years. I am angry that these proposals seem to treat the employees who help defend our country as the enemy. Most DoD employees work hard and are committed. I believe that mistreating the employees will hurt the agency?s mission. I am very upset by NSPS. This system will change the way workers are paid, evaluated, promoted, fired, scheduled, and treated. These rules would create a system in which federal managers are influenced by favoritism rather than serving the civil concerns of the American people. Bad Supervisors Keep in mind that military personnel are usually placed in supervisory positions because of their rank. I work in an Air Force techical school. I have seen positions 'created' out of the blue for E-5 and E-6 personnel. The real reason? Because the position title sounded important on a performance report. The trade off was that those personnel were taken away from where they were really needed. The classroom. Instructor duty is very different from the job the military performs in the field. Very different. It's been said many times, "Flightline thinking doesn't usually work in a technical school environment." Oftentimes E-5 and E-6 personnel are assigned as instructors, go through the Basic Instructor Course, teach a class or two, and then are assigned as Instructor-Supervisors. Supervisors of those with 10 or 20 or more years of teaching experience. Because of the supervisor's inexperience, they often believe that experienced instructors are not doing what they should. In other words, the supervisor that had only basic instructor training and minimal course experience is deciding whether a technique used by an instructor with 10 or 20 or more years more experience is correct. some problems. Example 1: One of those inexperienced supervisors 'dinged' me on an instructor evaluation because, in his opinion, he thought that I let the class period run too long (90 minutes). I pointed out that I followed the posted break schedule. But he did not change his mind. With his attitude, I could not win. He was bound and determined to find something wrong with my performance. Example 2: I found out that the same supervisor mentioned above was my supervisor two days before a mid-term performance review. He told me that he based the rating primarily on what he heard in the break room. In other words, rumors of equally inexperienced NCOs, not facts. He didn't even ask me about what he had heard. He just assumed it to be correct. One accusation was that I used my own, rather than course provided, lesson plan. A major no-no. He wouldn't back off until I asked him to show me the non-existant lesson plan. Can you see the way this guy thinks? Regulations mean little. It's opinion that counts. See how poor and inexperienced supervisors think? There are many like him. I've even had supervisors tell me that there was no reason for civilians to work on a military base. That shows how poor their training is. I was also in the Air Force. I compared notes. Air Force training regarding civilians is poor and starts too late. The problem is not with the workers, its with the attitudes of inexperienced and poorly trained supervisors and commanders. Here 2 - 3 years and gone again. If it weren't for the Unions the average guy wouldn't stand a chance. The new law would have made it possible for the supervisor mentioned above to fire me based solely on hearsay about a non-existant lesson plan. Is that how Congress intended its civilian work force to be treated? I've seen too many situations. I've seen the civilian personnel office give bad information to supervisors, in fact conspire with supervision. It's far from a level playing field now. The new law, as I read it, will make it worse. Why treat civilians as terrorists? Why give management more rights to abuse? Why take away our few rights to defend ourselves? It doesn't make sense. Sincerely,