| Comment Number: | EM-017670 |
| Received: | 3/11/2005 10:23:12 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 11, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: I am writing 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 am not opposed to changes in the Personnel system. I am currently a voluntary participant in the Acquisition Personnel Demonstration Project at the US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Command (TARDEC) in Warren, MI. I have faith in the Acqusition Demo because my union was allowed to negotiate the implementation of the demo in a collective bargaining agreement. Among other things, they insured that I can grieve my rating if I feel it is unfair and they insured a guaranteed % of salary money for raises and bonuses are available each year. I have no faith in the proposed National Security Personnel System as it takes away my union's right to bargain in many areas, it takes away my employee grievance rights for performance ratings, and it doesn't guarantee any specific amount of money be made available for raises/bonuses each year. I believe the proposed NSPS will undermine the Civil Service and hurt the mission of the DoD employees. There are many provisions in the proposal that disturb me, and honestly, if they are implemented, I will leave Federal service as soon as I can. But maybe that's the point of this plan after all, make us "older and wiser" employees disgusted enough that we just quit. Here are my specific areas of concern: Subpart A, Section 9901.101 One of the key operational characteristics listed is an agile and responsive workforce that can be easily sized, shaped and deployed to meet changing mission requirements. The disturbing word here is "deployed". I am not in military service, I am a civilian. I have three children at home and I will not leave them for deployment. I understand that all along, I could be deployed, but that has never been a reality. Requirements for deployment have always been handled on a voluntary basis and there have been no involuntary deployments where I work. However, I know that there are serious shortages in Reserve and Guard recruitments in our nation today. I see NSPS as Secretary Rumsfeld's answer to those shortages. He'll just deploy Federal civilians to make up for the losses in the Reserves and the Guard. I feel as if I'm being drafted into military service. Subpart B, c, D It is stated over and over in these subparts that details will be provided later in "implementing directives, instructions, manuals and other issuances". If I can't see the details, how can I comment? I agree in general with a lot of the concepts of pay banding, pay for performance, etc. but how can I evaluate the proposal if the details are kept secret? This is just totally unfair to employees to not share the details. Subpart C, Section 9901.342 Performance Payouts DoD is allowed to establish control points or other mechanisms within a band that limit increases in the rate of basic pay. This is a very clever concept that is not explained in detail, which allows room for abuse. It says they can require that certain "criteria" be met for increases above the control point. What is the criteria? To be determined later? Sounds to me like they are putting "steps" into the "bands"! This is the same concept we have now in the GS system.....control points (steps) within the bands (grades) that limit increases in the rate of basic pay. Right now, you have to have acceptable performance ratings to move beyond the step....what will the criteria be for moving beyond "control points"? The same, something different? Something different, depending on where you work? Something different, depending on your classification, your band? DoD isn't limited in any way on these control points or requirements. I don't see anything that explains notifying employees of what they are and when they get implemented. I hate this concept more than anything in the whole proposal! Subpart C, Section 9901.344 Other Performance Payments These other ways to compensate employees are beyond what we have now (On the spot awards, time off awards and special act awards). These are all fine and good, but what about funding them? What is to stop DoD from taking money out of the Performance Payout/Local Market Supplement/Rate of Range Adjustment pots and putting it into these "other" pots and giving it to their favorite employees under the guise of "Extraordinary Performance" or "Organization Achievement"? Subpart C Pay, Sections 9901.301 to 9901.373 The employees in DoD should continue to receive the same annual pay across-the-board adjustment that other GS/FWS workers receive. The individual pay increases for performance should include guaranteed percentages in the regulations so that employees will understand the pay system and what their pay increase will be depending on their performance. Subpart D Performance Management - 9901.401 to 9901.409 In order to insure fairness and accuracy, DoD employees should be able to appeal any performance rating to an independent grievance and arbitration process like they can do now. Subpart F Workforce Shaping - 9901.6012 to 9901.611 DoD should not change the current layoff/RIF rules which give balanced credit to performance and the employees valuable years of committed service to DoD. Subpart G Adverse Actions - 9901.701 to 9901.810 Due process and fairness demand that the independent body reviewing a major suspension as termination be allowed to alter the proposed penalty if they deem it to be unreasonable. The current standards approved by the courts to guide such bodies should continue to be used. Subpart I Labor-Management Relations - 9901.901 to 9901.929 The labor management law that has governed the employees? right to organize and engage in collective bargaining has worked well since 1978. There is no compelling reason to take away most of the collective bargaining rights or grievance rights. DoD should not create a ?company dominated dispute board.? Any dispute board must be ?jointly selected? by management and the Union. Sincerely,