| Comment Number: | EM-023175 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 5:57:10 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 to express my deep concerns over the proposed National Security Personnel System (NSPS) regulations. The new rules will give Department of Defense (DOD) managers new freedoms and flexibilities. My concern is that managers will be free to trample employee rights without meaningful accountability to anyone but DOD. General Comments I am not a government employee myself, but it concerns me to see my government throw out an entire system of merit-based personnel rules in the name of national security. I don?t see how national security has been harmed by our current civil service laws. These laws were designed to protect against well-known managerial abuses. I don?t see how unions and the limited collective bargaining rights they practice today could possibly hurt DOD?s security mission. Some of the proposed features are good, including new incentives for hiring and retention. We should be attracting the best talent to these important jobs. I don?t think most of the proposed changes will enhance national security. Most of the changes will make DOD employees feel less secure and more afraid of their bosses. For example, pay for performance is a great sounding idea, but the regulations dont set any rules for measuring performance. Managers will make unaccountable judgments at appraisal time and they will determine employee pay. What?s worse is how these judgments will affect employee retention. The new rules will place appraisal scores above seniority when it comes to deciding who must go when cuts are necessary. This will burden local communities with a heavier share of middle-aged people unemployed at a time when they are least likely to find new employment. Authority to Establish a New HR System I don?t believe the connection made between NSPS and national security throughout this document. If there are good sound reasons for the proposed changes, why not just state them? I can?t see how such reasons would be more important because national security was at stake. All government should be run by the best management principles. If a principle has been shown to be superior, why not use that evidence as the basis for change? Instead, I see national security invoked as the excuse to loosen up all kinds of rules, most of which exist to ensure fairness. Veteran?s preference must be reserved. The revised rules keep some preference but not as much. You need to look at the fine print. There is no excuse for making it easier to lay off a Vet who has served this country. Guiding Principles and Key Performance Parameters I?m not sure what is intended here. Thats a problem with much of this regulation. It leaves a lot to be defined later. But this section sounds like the intent is to make civilians deployable assets and thats crazy! Why would anybody talented take a civil service job under the risk of drastic relocation at the whim of a military department? Civilians are needed for stability, not for mobility. War fighters are mobile. Civilians grow roots. Its an important balance. Subpart D -- Performance Management The idea of motivating good performance with evaluation and reward makes sense. What I dont see is any improved rationale for rating employees good and bad. If DOD was doing a poor job recognizing good performers in the past, why should it do a better job under these new rules? The new system isn?t based on better rules, more objective rules or less personality-based rules. In fact, the new system expressly permits managers to rate employees on attitude and other long discredited aspects of behavior. When your performance is rated in terms of how well you get along with the boss, you tend to curry favor with the boss. That doesn?t foster good government, however, and it doesn?t enhance national security. Any self-respecting system of performance measurement will submit itself to independent review. Today, validation occurs through the negotiated grievance processes. An independent arbitrator is trusted to resolve complaints. Under NSPS, employees would have no right to grieve appraisal ratings. This will allow managers to rate employees without supportable justification and, in such a system, we all lose. Subpart F Workforce Shaping The current rules respecting veterans and senior employees are fair and reasonable. Please dont change the rules to favor younger, more pliable and subservient employees. The proposed changes will win short-lived gains at the expense of society at large. The principles of good government will not be advanced. If there is a better balance to be struck between performance and seniority, lets aim for the middle. Under NSPS, seniority will be a last-place tie-breaker deciding who must go. Why dump legions of seniors into the unemployed market just because their best years are behind them? Shouldn?t we show some loyalty to those who have devoted so many years of service? Subpart G Adverse Actions People need a chance to prove their case. Now and then, people are wrongly accused of wildly irresponsible allegations. At such times, it is fortunate that the accused are entitled to due process--except, under the proposed rules, there is only a shadow of due process. Why should the bar be raised for employees, while the bar is lowered for managers? The proposed changes do both. They will strip the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) of independence and give DOD veto-power over MPSB judgments. This is a travesty of justice. The new rules shift the burden of proof decidedly in favor of DOD and against any aggrieved employee. The shift is sufficient to ensure that employees will never win, despite a preponderance of evidence in their favor. This is not my opinion. It is the literal effect of the new regulation. Subpart I Labor-Management Relations As a retired member of a major industrial union, I have to smile when I hear people say federal unions have too much power. Federal unions have almost no power. At least when compared to real unions. They can't bargain about wages. They can?t strike. In negotiations, they have to rely on the FLRA a pro-government agency to resolve impasses. I?m surprised federal unions manage to retain any importance at all, considering their lack of power. This regulation will profoundly trim union bargaining power. It will void extensive sections of negotiated agreements, by simply declaring the subjects un-bargainable. This is a fatal blow to collective bargaining in the public sector and a tangible harm to employees today. I have more concerns, but they are similar. I do not like to see federal employees increasingly stressed and deprived of justice. I would rather have a civil service corps who felt secure and safe to tell the truth and do their jobs. Please revise the proposed regulations to help permit such a government. Sincerely,