Comment Number: EM-022878
Received: 3/15/2005 10:35:11 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:

General comments: The unions served as a means for checks and balances between employees with supervisory duties and employees without supervisory duties (Note that management and employees are employees of the government to include SESs, SLs, and STs. ?This implementation by DoD completely eliminates any checks that the unions had to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and justly. ?Without checks and balances, there is no limit to what an employee can be forced to do (such as break the law, violate regulations, etc) to save his/her job. ?The old system allowed him/her the flexibility to stand his/her ground to bring issues out into the open with a minimum amount of fear of being fired. Further, why are there no implementing issuances, instructions, etc. within this document? ?After 13 months, officially but actually longer than that, this document has no implementing instructions, groups, bands, etc. in which the NSPS was deemed as being leveraged from multiple ongoing demos. ?This document is only a reformatted version of the law with no specifics. ?The NSPS spirial 1.1 is slated to be implemented in July 05, 4 months from 16 March 05 deadline for comments. ?One can only be lead to believe that either the team that developed this document is incompetent or that this is a deliberate withholding of information from the American public for whatever purpose (most likely for the deception of the real intent of this system). ? This deliberate withholding of information is, without question, deceitful and dishonest to say the least. This document provides absolute total power to one individual or his/her designees. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and has been proven multiple times over. Hitler and Stallen come to mind. Specific comments are as follows: Subpart B 9901.201 (a) ?This section refers to national and local rates paid by employees in the private sector. ?However the rest of the Subpart B never addresses anything about the private sector labor rates. ?The section 9901.201 (b) links Subpart B to Subpart C. 9901.202 (b)(2) ?This section refers to "employees and positions that would otherwise be covered by a prevailing rate system established under 5 USC chapter 51". ?Does this mean that the 8 Labs excluded by law is covered by the NSPS or just the demos which do not have exemption according to the law which made NSPS available? 9901.202 (b)(5) ?This section seems to be a catch all section and should not apply to the 8 labs specifically exempted by law. ?However this section doesn't specifically state the exemption. ?Does this mean that the 8 labs are still exempt or not? 9901.203 (a&b) ?It is interesting to note that the SL, ST, and SES positions do not have waivers of chapters 51 and 53 of Title 5 USC. ?Only positions of GS-15 and below are affected. ?Section (b) indicates that the annual leave accrual is not waived. ?This leads me to believe that it is modified or will be modified in the GS conversion to the NSPS pay banding system. ?This section needs to clarify if the annual leave will remain the same or change for old GS-15 and below pay bands. ?Hopefully it will remain the same. 9901.204 ?The definition for Position and job is confusing. ?This definition relates back to 9901.202 (a) that relates to 9901.102 (b)(2), which relates to Subpart D. ?Why not just say what it means or omit "whom the Secretary approves for coverage under 9901.202 (a)."? 9901.211 ?Relevant labor-market features; and other characteristics of those occupations or positions seems vaigue and unnecessary. ?What is a labor-market feature or a characteristic of an occupation/position? ? Occupation/position would seem to suffice. ?Further, why are there no implementing issuances within this document? ?After 13 months, officially but actually longer than that, this document has no implementing isstructions, groups, bands, etc. in which it the NSPS was deemed as being leveraged from multiple demos. ?One can only be lead to believe that either the team that developed this document is incompetent or that this is a deliberate withholding of information from the American public for whatever purpose. 9901.212 (c) ?The pay band definitions and qualification standards and requirements have no implementing issuances. ?However spirial 1.1 of the NSPS is slated to be implemented in July 05. ?This leads me to believe that the pay band definitions will be developed in 5 months which seems to be inconsistent with the quantity of progress made in the last 13 months. ?These definitions must be in existance but not included within this document. ?Why is there an intent withhold information from the American public? ?Why was this information not included? 9901.221 (a) ?This section addresses that DoD will develop a methodology for describing and documenting the Classification requirements. ?Why was that information not included as required by the law's intentions? ?These methodologies should be provided to everyone (public and all employees) and not just the affected employees. 9901.221 (b) ?In 13 months no occupational series have been assigned to jobs nor jobs to a career group, pay schedule, and pay band. ?Further the procedures to classify jobs do not exist as per this document. 9901.222 ?The criteria for reconsideration is not provided. ?There apparently exists demos from which NSPS was grown from and OPM has criteria, however no criteria was provided. ?There is no mention of mating the job to the employee's education and capabilities. ?Does this mean that the employee executing the job may be moved out of that job or removed from service? 9901.231 ?(b) ?This states that implementing instructions will be provided later in implementing issuances. ?Again there has been substantial time for a PEO to provide this information within this document for comments from the American public.