| Comment Number: | EM-023229 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 4:23:26 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 write to express my concerns about changes to work rules in the Department of Defense (DoD). The proposed regulations, known as the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), were printed in the Federal Register on February 14, 2005. This message will be sent to both DoD and my representatives in Congress. I have worked for DoD for years. I am angry that these proposals seem to treat the employees who help defend our country as the enemy. Most DoD employees work hard and are committed. I believe that mistreating the employees will hurt the agency?s mission. I am very upset by NSPS. This system will change the way workers are paid, evaluated, promoted, fired, scheduled, and treated. These rules would create a system in which federal managers are influenced by favoritism rather than serving the civil concerns of the American people. Annual Pay Raises Under the General Schedule and FWS, employee pay was clear. It was funded by Congress and could not be taken away. However, NSPS will take away this certainty. Salaries and bonuses are funded by DoD. In the past ? as recently as just last year ? DoD did not fund its awards program. Given the agency?s miserable record on this issue, how can employees feel confident that our salaries and bonuses will be funded in the future? ?Friend of the Supervisor? Pay System With the new patronage pay system, which DoD calls ?pay for performance,? the amount of a worker's salary will depend almost completely on the personal judgment of his or her manager. This system will force workers to compete with one another for pay raises, which will destroy teamwork, increase conflict among employees, and reward short-term outcomes. There is no guarantee that even the best workers will receive a pay raise or that the pay offered will be fair or competitive. This system will create a situation in which workers are in conflict with one another and afraid to speak out about harassment, violations of the law, and workplace safety problems. Furthermore, there will be no impartial appeal system to assure that everyone is treated fairly. Schedules and Overtime NSPS will allow managers to schedule employees to work without sufficient advance notice of schedule changes. This will make it extremely difficult for working parents to care for their children and family. It will also mean that abusive managers could harass employees with bad schedules or short notice. Overtime rotations can be canceled, which means that employees may not be able to plan adequately for childcare and other important responsibilities. Civilian Deployment Federal employees could be assigned anywhere in the world, even into a war zone, with little or no notice. I am proud to serve my country but I am also responsible for caring for my family and my personal obligations at home. We signed up for a civilian job. We did not enlist in the military. Today?s volunteer system works well. America is at war. We are fighting for democracy abroad. But the regulations are an attack on workers? basic rights. Furthermore, NSPS will divert the attention of defense workers from the soldiers? welfare to protecting themselves from abuse on the job. I urge you to force DoD to rethink this proposal. We need work rules that preserve fairness, serve the American people, and respect the rights of Defense Department workers. 1. Supplementary Information, The Case for Action, Page 7553. How will NSPS generate more opportunities for DoD civilians? How will NSPS provide employees with greater opportunities for career growth and mobility? 2. Supplementary Information, Next Steps, Page 7573. a. Am concerned with the Secretary being given the authority to "implement the proposal ... any time after 30 calendar days have elapsed since the initiation of congressional notification...the Secretary must determine (in his/her sole and unreviewable discretion) that further consultation and mediation are unlikely to produce agreement." b. "DoD plans to make the new labor relations provision effective 30 days after the issuance of final regulations, and notification to Congress as required by law" clarifies that DoD is intent on undoing current labor-management authorities as quickly as possible. 3. Section 9901.106. a. Collaboration is defined as "working together, especially in a joint intellectual effort." Although the NSPS law states that implementation of the new HR system will be carried out....."in collaboration with, employee representatives," paragraph (3)(ii) states that "to the extent the Secretary deems necessary, employee representatives will be provided with an opportunity to discuss their views with DoD officials..." This is not actively collaborating but merely acting as though collaboration is taking place. b. Paragraph (3)(i) references "final draft implementing issuances". It is difficult to comment on a document when so much of the proposal is still un-issued. We are commenting on a "Proposal" that needs to be more thoroughly fleshed out, with more review and revision. 4. Subpart C - Pay and Pay Administration a. Annual cost of living increases are not referenced in this document. Recommend cost of living increases be included as a major feature of the pay system. These increases should not be included as part of the Performance Pay Pools but should be a separate line item. b. Section 9901.301 to 9901.373. DoD employees should continue to receive the same annual pay and across-the-board adjustments that other federal employees receive. c. Section 9901.342. Concerned that an increase in basic pay based on performance "may not exceed the maximum rate... of the employee's pay band rate range"; any performance pay would be in the form of a bonus, which would not be included computation for retirement purposes. Recommend this be addressed. 5. Section 9901.361. Am concerned that information regarding overtime pay, compensatory time off, etc. will not be available until "implementing issuances". Recommend Congressional review and approval of implementing issuances. 6. Section 9901-373. Concerned with paragraph (e), allowing the Secretary (of Defense) "discretion to make one-time pay adjustments for GS and prevailing rate employees when they are converted to the NSPS pay system, to be described under "implementing issuances". Again, recommend Congressional review and approval of implementing issuances. 7. Section 9901.514 - Non-citizen hiring. Am concerned that the NSPS system allows for the hiring of non-citizens. How will this help to make our country more secure? 8. Subpart F - Workforce Shaping. a. Section 9901.605 - Competitive Area. The reduction in competitive area could effectively remove the ability of current employees to be given positions during RIF. b. Section 9901.606 - Competitive Group. Concerned with the possibility of an extremely limited competitive group during RIF. c. Section 9901.607 - Retention Standing. Should not give equal weight to tenure and performance during a RIF. 9. Section 9901.712 - Mandatory Removal Offenses. Concerned that "the Secretary has the sole, exclusive, and unreviewable discretion to identify offenses" that are considered Mandatory Removable Offenses. This gives too much authority to the Secretary of Defense; should undergo Congressional approval. 10. Subpart I - Labor-Management Relations, Sections 9901.901 to 9901.906 - The labor-management law that has governed employees' rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining has worked well since 1978. There is no compelling reason to take away most of the collective bargaining or grievance rights. 11. Section 9901.907 - National Security Labor Relations Board. The Secretary is granted too much authority in appointing members for this internal board. Although paragraph (2) indicates that "members of the Board will be independent, distinguished citizens... who are well known for their integrity, impartiality, and expertise in labor relations...", it is difficult to imagine how this board could be neutral and not politically partial. Sincerely,