| Comment Number: | OL-10501098 |
| Received: | 2/23/2005 2:07:41 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:
Department of HomeLand Security Office of Personnel Management 5CFR Chapeter XCVII and Part 9701 RIN: 3206-AK31 and 1601-AA-19 To Whom it may concern: I oppose all of the above changes for DHS and NSPS. Due to also being a tax payer who believes that this is money ill spent on a system that will create a demoralized work force in Civil Service. There is no way that this system for NSPS can be implemented with fairness to employees and allow them due process, fair wage increases, or fair Union Representation. Under the old system for Civil Service there were many provisions for Management to carry out any Mission necessary for our men and women in uniform due to the laws, rules and regulations that were already implemented. That has always been the case because we have had a dedicated Civil Service work force that makes sure Missions get completed properly and without delay to keep our armed services fully equipped with the resources that they need. Pay for performance is not going to ever be fair, because the new system cannot keep track of favoritism, in the work force. This new system will only create demoralization of our current work force with only a hand few of employees who will either get a pay increase or bonus. The problem with the old system is a failure of Management to be able to Manage correctly. The Unions had nothing to do with Managements inability to document or write letters of reprimand to letters of removal. If they would have done their job, the old system would work just fine. Hiring new employees, the Unions had and have no say in that area either. If we need to make changes to better accomplish Governmental Missions, I don't believe that trying to come up with a new system that will not only effect moral of the employees because of its unfairness, but it will also be hard to retain good employees under this new system. The experience of employees who have worked for the Government for 25 yrs or more is something that is hard to replace. It took years of trade training and experience in order to become experts in our fields. Who determines what a top performer is? It could be a Dept. with all of its employees being top performers. Who in this group will get a raise, or bonus? I am sure not everyone. the The deficet is growing more every day. I do believe it would have been more benenficial to have had the Unions be a part from the start of this and it would have made more sense to reshape some of the old system and cheaper than what is proposed now with the new system. Tax dollars spent on our men and women in uniform would have made more sense then spending millions on a new system that already shows characters of failing.