| Comment Number: | OL-10500751 |
| Received: | 2/20/2005 8:19:15 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:
Congress response to the Adminstration's insistence that the executive branch must have more "flexibility" in managing civilian personnel to protect the nation from global terrorism. In reality, the principal purposes of these laws are to weaken unions and to limit or abolish third-party review of management decisions affecting unions and employees. Ms. Lacy announced that the NSPS labor relations system should be implemented DOD-wide around July 1, 2005. The systems that will be implemented in "spirals" are the new employees relations system and the new appeals system. Why does DOD want the labor relations system in place first for the whole agency? Why are the most active and effective union locals included in "Spiral 1"? The answers to these questions speak volumes about the central goal of NSPS, which is to destroy the unions. LABOR RELATIONS: DOD says it support the idea of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively, but eliminates any obligation to engage in formal negotiations through and including an impasse resolution before a neutral third party. Such a contradiction undermines a basic tenet of NSPS that it be credible and trusted to be successful. Impact and Implementation negotiations are viewed as protracted and too much time is spent on trivial matters, request for documentation is burdensome and the time to taken to furnish the information delays the bargaining process. Management rights are reserved while the unions is nothing more then a paper tiger. A successful bargaining model is a challenge, but coming to a consensus on process improvement is something that all parties in the labor-management relationship should agree upon. Employees who serve as representatives are fulfilling legal responsibilities, their time and travel expenses should be authorized as a legitimate government activity. The manner in which the approval and reporting of such activity should occur would best be addressed through a bi-lateral consensus-based approach. Parties are unable to reach agreement, the matter can be brought before an outside third party, who is skilled in dispute resolution. the used of a skilled group of specialized mediator/arbitrators would be far preferable than creating an internal review panel within DOD, which would adversely impact on the trust and credibility sought after with NSPS. The obligation to fulfill national consultaion rights with employee representatives is another area that has modification or elimination, even though the law Congress passed does not allow DOD to make such a change. Providing an opportunity for input should be continued, because it can help to identify policy pitfalls and erroneous assumptions before a final decision is implemented. This similar to the process that is used before final regulations are promulgated. While there is a time factor, possessing the unfettered right to act unilaterally will cause more harm than good over the long term. DOD says it has an interest in promoting open communications between managers and their employess, and claims that employee representatives impede effective communications. In addition, DOD asserts that, in some cases, representatives have hampered investigations of complaints and suspescted criminal activity. No evidence has been provided to support these allegations. Moreover, Congress expressed no need for change in this area. Representation has been a longstanding right in this country, which has been extended to employment situations, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. A citizen's right to representation ensure that due process is being followed. In addition, often times, employees are not willing to voice their opinions for fear of retaliation. Having a representative in attendance at such meetings can facilitate dialogue and ensure fair treatment. DISCIPLINE: To give blind deference to DOD regardless of other mitigating factors, it would result in employess being found guilty until proven innocent.