| Comment Number: | EM-022900 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 5:46:22 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 16, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: These comments are provided by the leadership of Local 400 AFGE regarding Docket Number NSPS-2005-001, Regulation number (RIN) 3206-AK76/0790-AH82. PART ONE. Before addressing the specifics of the supplementary information, regulation, and in some cases other literature released by the Department of Defense during the public comment period, we provide the following general information. - Incomplete data. It is impossible to provide comprehensive and entirely accurate comments about NSPS, since only the enabling regulation has been released for public comment. It is extremely unfair to ask Employees to blindly evaluate, much less support, a system the details of which have not been revealed to them and will not be until such time as DoD sees fit to release ?implementing issuances.? - Comment period or lip service? Employees, and even their union representatives, are neither personnelists nor experts in legalese such as is found in the regulation we are asked to comment upon. o At our installation the CPAC told us at the start of the comment period that employees would not be allowed to review nor comment on the proposed regulation on duty time, nor be allowed to use government equipment to submit their comments. When we took the issue higher, Employees were afforded one hour to review and comment. If there is any doubt why in many cases we submitted form letters, there?s your answer. To allow an hour of duty time to review, digest, and comment upon a document of this magnitude is to pay lip service to having sought employee input. o There was no proactive education of employees by Management; in fact, we were repeatedly told that management should refrain from discussing the NSPS. o We embarked upon a vigorous campaign to try to ensure that all Employees knew about the comment period and to educate them about the NSPS. We were then notified by the installation labor attorney that we were not to speak of the NSPS on official time. This severely hampered our efforts to educate those we represent. - Format vs. substance. The instructions for submitting comments said to reference supplementary information heading and page number, and regulation subpart and section. We believe this has dissuaded some from preparing comments, especially those whose work is not primarily administratively technical, and that it may be used as a basis to discard some comments later. All comments need to be taken into consideration, whether or not they are in the proper format. - DoD literature during comment period. During the comment period there was no attempt to educate the workforce at this location other than by dissemination of some of DoD?s literature such as ?Myths and Facts.? These documents were not even distributed to all Employees. Many employees told us that they only received them through the Union. We were asked repeatedly when the ?official? information was going to be put out. Management has informed us they do not intend to even put out all literature provided by DoD on the subject, such as the letter our MEDDAC Commander was supposed to provide to her Employees. - Sole and unreviewable discretion. This phrase shows up continually throughout the NSPS. This is inappropriate even for the Secretary of Defense, because he does not own the DoD. It belongs to our nation whom he also serves. DoD must be answerable to our elected representatives in Congress. There is an old saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Like any other part of the government, DoD must be subject to checks and balances. - Our comments on NSPS and insistence on checks and balances should not be seen as critical of all managers and supervisors. Many have excellent skills and intentions and are doing the best they can with available resources and training. But people are people, and sometimes people who seek power are those who would abuse it. Checks and balances provided by Title 5 Chapter 71 are critical to success of our workforce and therefore our agency. - Throughout the NSPS there are references to modified versions of Title 5 Chapter 71. Why is it necessary to modify the statute specifically for DoD? What adverse effect has the Statute had on mission? - Purpose. We are told the purpose of NSPS is to improve our nation?s security. The provisions of NSPS look like they were written to do away with union rights. They look like they were written in response to a complaint we often hear from managers/supervisors who say that they would have done something about poor performance or conduct ?but the Union won?t let me.? Some of them actually appear to believe that they can?t do this or that because the Union won?t allow it. In reality the union cannot stop them from doing what is within the rules. When they take an action and do not follow the rules, however, the union has a responsibility to protect the employee?s rights, and that is how it should be. - Employees are not deployable assets. They should not be deployed nor reassigned involuntarily. We have arranged our comments according to topic. For each topic, the supplementary information heading and page number are noted, as well as the regulation subpart and section. Supplementary Information Headings: General Provisions, Effective Dates, Continuing Collaboration process, page 7557; program evaluation. Subpart A, General Provisions, 9901.101. DoD should not begin to implement NSPS until all comments have been carefully considered. There needs to be true collaboration between DoD, OPM, and union representatives during the meet and confer period. Any member of Congress who wishes to be part of the meet and confer should be allowed to do so, either in person or by a representative from their staff. Sec. 9901.107, Relationship to other provisions: most people do not understand this. We believe there is no reason to modify 5 USC Chapter 71 in any manner in regard to DoD employees. We support continuance of EEO rules as they exist today, and recommend that EEO be afforded additional manpower because NSPS will increase the number of complaints taking that avenue (if the other current avenues of redress are revised as written in NSPS). Rather than exempt itself from rules on backpay, DoD should attempt to resolve the matters that result in backpay. If a DoD employee is owed backpay, their employer should not shirk responsibility for that. 9901.108 says that DoD will determine how the regulation and implementation of NSPS will be evaluated. Others need to be involved to make this a fair evaluation. Every manager and employee who has told us they?ve taken their personal time to read the regulation and supplement has expressed huge concerns about how mission will suffer under NSPS as proposed, yet the DoD releases that are supposed to go to the workforce make it sound like this proposal will cure all personnel problems in DoD. Any shortfalls that arise need to be objectively evaluated so as not to impede our mission of supporting the soldier and his family. Subpart B, Classification, page 7558. Subpart B, Classification, 9901.201 thru 9901.231 Currently we are under the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) classification standards. DoD plans to establish new classification standards. The OPM standards do not disable managers from assigning work of whatever type. What they do is make managers plan ahead and apply some kind of continuity to their planning. This is good for the mission. Expectations that change constantly are not good for the mission. There is no need for total flexibility in this area. Most jobs do not change. If you need a cook today, it?s still a cook you need tomorrow. Our overall mission of supporting the troops and families does not change, and neither do the vast majority of jobs required to perform that mission. The current system has accommodated changes due to technology, such as computers and new medical methods; it has the flexibility to support the mission. Why take the resources, money and time, to re-create the entire classification system? Why not identify what it lacks, if anything, and just write those? Sincerely,