| Comment Number: | EM-022909 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 5:20:01 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: I am writing because as a federal employee, I am deeply concerned about the proposed regulations regarding the National Security Personnel System. I am a former United States Marine who served during the first Gulf War and have been working as a civilian employee for the government for nearly four years. I have always enjoyed my work as a federal civilian and consider the government to be the model employer. But when I read the regulations which have been proposed as a revamp to the current personnel system, I saw some details that could lead to potential disasters. As I read through the regulations, although written in very professional and scholarly language, it was clear that they were hurried and not well thought-out. Time and time again I noticed words such as ?DoD may establish? and ?DoD will establish implementing issuances.? As a federal employee, a writer and a reasonably intelligent person, I?ve been wondering what that means. How can employees be confident in a system that will govern their livelihoods when the ?implementing issuances? haven?t even been established? This uncertainty in the regulations was noticeable throughout, but was particularly pervasive in Subparts B and C which deal with Classification, Pay and Pay Administration. An accurate and detailed description of Pay Banding was not given. At the very least shouldn?t employees know what their pay is going to look like? What kind of a job tells employees ?Through the issuance of implementing issuances, DoD will establish a pay system that governs the setting and adjusting of covered employees? rates of pay and the setting of covered employees? rates of premium pay.? This doesn?t sound like a place the best and the brightest would want to flock to, if they can?t even give you an idea of what your pay is going to be set at. It all gives the appearance that this was hurried and not to the benefit of the employees involved. There is mention of pay pools, pay-for-performance and pay increases which will be handed out by individual supervisors. I admit pay-for-performance sounds like a great idea, but the federal government is not a business in the true capitalistic sense. It is not here to provide profits to stockholders. The federal government is and should always be the model employer, providing for all of its employees equally and recognizing the outstanding performers when it should. That sounds an awful lot like the system we have now. Employees are paid equally across the GS system and those who are above the rest are (or should be) recognized with superior performance awards or quality step increases or other similar recognition programs. Personally I like the system we have, it doesn?t lend itself to personal favoritism and abuse as easily as pay banding will and that is extremely important when dealing with the livelihoods of America?s military men and women. Subpart D, which outlines (albeit rather vaguely) the Performance Management System also states: ?DoD will issue implementing issuances that establish a performance management system for DoD employees?? An especially disturbing and alarming element of Subpart D states that supervisors will have a range of options to discipline poor performers including ?reduction in rate of basic pay or pay band.? The fact that no one individual has ever had the authority to arbitrarily reduce someone?s pay is what has always made the government the model employer. Consistent pay throughout civil service is the cornerstone of fair and equal treatment and is the foundation for a system free of corruption, fraud and discrimination. Supervisors are humans and no amount of training will prevent favoritism towards friends or relatives, likewise the proposed regulations increase the risk that people of color and other minority groups could be discriminated against. The potential for the mistreatment of women through sexual harassment and misconduct is also greatly increased. With regard to adverse actions, mandatory removal offenses are addressed, but none are named. Again a seemingly serious inadequacy. A performance appraisal appeal system will be established, but no details are available. Yet again, a deeply troubling deficiency in the proposal. With regards to Subpart I ? Labor-Management Relations, the regulations allow for management to ?implement issuances? that override current agreements and circumvent any duty to bargain the issue with the local labor organization. That doesn?t seem to support the spirit of cooperation and good faith. Employee representatives should not be seen as a hindrance, rather they should be afforded an equal footing with regards to negotiations and bargaining. This allows the voice of the employees to be heard and gives them a sense that they are included in the process. Instead the regulations seem to address the role of employee representatives as adversaries. Congress gave DoD a great opportunity to design a system that was embraced by employees and management alike. Instead it seems that this system was designed to provide a heavy hand to supervisors and managers, as the everyday worker cowers in fear and competes fiercely with the person in the cubicle next to them. Fierce competition may be great in the private sector, but cooperation and teamwork are the key to a sound and smoothly run government. I enjoy my job in the federal government and I hope that DoD and Congress take my comments and the many others who have commented constructively on the regulations seriously. We are the ones who will be living with these personnel rules for many years to come and I know we all hope this will be the best system that can be handed to the deserving men and women who make America work as federal employees. Sincerely,