| Comment Number: | OL-10500085 |
| Received: | 2/15/2005 8:30:03 AM |
| 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:
Realizing that these comments may go on deaf ears, I must re-iterate and say that the "supposedly new" NSPS system IS actually the old antiquated system that DOD used 10 years ago. I am quite sure that this NSPS intiative is what the DOD used for 40 years which our Secretary blamed for it's own shortfalls in his recent statements. It has been resurrected with the notion that it is a new system! It is not new, nor was it effective, in my opinion. The cronyism aspect ALWAYS undermined the performance efforts of the efficient workers as I recall. Also, the performance rating system allowed trainees with little, or no, experience the opportunity to bump out their supervisors during a RIF. The personally liked employees would be given 20+ years towards their tenure! These issues are on an archived record with the Merit protection board. The so-called new system was an abusive system in the late 80's and early 90's as I recall. The system was also implemented under a "non teaming" environment at that time, which forced competition among co-workers. Theis agenda left hidden agendas, the coveting of knowledge, and "kiss up to the boss" actions. In retrospect, I recall the only lasting method for which performance was measured, was through a cronyism approach between management and the employee. I was a victim of this as I recall because I was putting out fires everywhere but I was considered always a "new guy" on the block. I got lower ratings because of doing more work, but the cronies that did nothing got higher ratings. I presume the cronies will get get more money as well. In my opinion, the current system including the teaming initiative works well. If re-alignment, hiring, and meeting new World 21st century intiatives are on the agenda, then I would encourage the Secretary to take another long hard look at what the Department offers their potential candidates as opposed to their private industry counterparts. The notion of providing low entry pay, with limited employee rights as opposed to their private industry counterparts, with a mandate to travel Worldwide, would not suit a highly qualfied College graduate unless they were adversely effected in life due to an illness, disability, or were considered unemployable in private industry. Finally, I personally would like to see this so called new system work and actually attract any of the candidates that competed for the "Apprentice." With no disrespect to the current administration, this is hardly an intiative that belongs in a Presedential library, in my opinion.