| Comment Number: | EM-023133 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 2:07:32 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 15, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: First of all, there are so many aspects of the NSPS proposal that I dislike, that I hardly know where to begin. In the following comments I will try to explain the reasons for what I perceive as a regression to the oppressive methods used by management prior to being enlightened in the 1960?s and 70?s by progressive leaders both in the U.S.A. and abroad. These leaders recognized the value of treating employees fairly and with respect. The NSPS proposal abrogates the progress made in management/employee relations in the past three decades. In an arrogant fashion it dismisses the good will and trust of federal employees and employee unions who have tried to work with management for the all important purpose of ensuring the security of our country and the support of our military. The NSPS proposal conjures up memories of the old sweat shop days and in our area, the mine boss attitude of a bygone era. Prior to becoming a Federal employee I worked in sales so therefore I can easily recognize a sales pitch when I hear one. All of the introductory material to the NSPS is just that. The language in the ?Fact Sheet?, ?Questions and Answers? and ?Key Messages? documents that we were provided not only attempts to sell the proposal to the reader, but also stretches the truth to the breaking point. Statements such as ?Employees will not lose pay upon conversion to the NSPS pay system? and ?Employees will have an avenue to challenge performance ratings? lead one to believe that fairness in at least these areas will be maintained. Upon reading the wording in the proposal the true message appears to give management a blank check with minimal accountability when deciding pay increases and performance ratings. Also, the statement ?Expedited disciplinary and appeals processes provide for faster resolution of workplace issues, while preserving due process rights of employees? seems to have a double meaning. It is difficult for me to understand how an ?expedited disciplinary and appeals process? and the meaning this statement connotes are compatible with ?preserving due process rights of employees?. It seems that the intent of this section of the NSPS is simply to make it a lot easier for a supervisor to get rid of an employee without worrying too much about adverse repercussions that he/she might incur upon himself. Another aspect that I find disturbing is the fact that civilian employees can be deployed at the whim of the supervisor to anywhere in the world including combat zones. I served in the Army and afterwards chose to pursue a civilian career. If I had wanted to ?see the world? in that capacity, I would have stayed in the Army. I see this as an underhanded way to avoid bringing back the Draft. Volunteering to serve in a foreign country under dangerous conditions is admirable in most instances, but being forced/coerced to deploy in order to retain employment, should not be a job requirement. Also, I find the terms ?deployable assets?, ?human capital? etc. dehumanizing. Are the authors of this regulation trying to disassociate themselves from the reality of the human aspect? Maybe it?s easier for them to think of the worker as an asset/capital rather than a real person when their efforts destroy so many rights traditionally associated with federal employment and place people untrained and/or unsuited to military situations in harm?s way. I suppose using that language makes it easier for them to stomach. As you may conclude, I find this terminology degrading and insulting. The proposed pay system is another area that is not only a step back in time, but reduces our compensation system to the level of a mom and pop store. By this I mean that an employee?s compensation will basically depend on the whim of one person, his/her supervisor. That is a pretty scary thought. I?ve personally worked under those conditions and can say with authority that favoritism will rear its ugly head. This will lead to back-stabbing and malicious competition between employees at many levels, including supervisory. Secondly, if a supervisor perceives that he/she will be seen in a more favorable light by keeping expenses, including payroll, down, he/she is likely to tighten the purse strings. Finally, the Supervisor might use awarding/holding back raises as a means of punishing an employee he/she doesn?t like. When this happens, it will not only effect the employee?s immediate standard of living, but also his/her future retirement. It will also effect the morale of the other employees. There are so many areas subject to abuse under the NSPS proposal that it is almost unbelievable to me that an intelligent mind could conceive that this system will be successful. Since I assume that the authors of this regulation are intelligent people, I can only conclude that there is more behind these important federal employment revisions then meets the eye. Nepotism, favoritism and cronyism will prosper while concepts such as ?Team Power? and working together for the good of the mission will be nothing more than a fa?ade of what it is now. People will be too busy trying to please their superiors in order that they receive the highest raises possible rather that concentrating on what is best for the good of our country. I have only touched on some of the obvious faults I perceive in this system. There are others that I have neither the time nor the inclination to try to address. I would only say in closing that a statement I read in some of the documentation to the affect that ? It will be easier to recruit and retain quality employees under this system? is a prediction that I hope will come true, but I am not at all confident that it will, especially in the long term. Sincerely,