Comment Number: OL-10501313
Received: 2/24/2005 2:48:20 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:

I've been an employee at U. S. Army TACOM in Warren since 1985. I've been watching the acquisition demonstration project for several years and have been under it for about a year. The NSPS seems very close in its' basic characterstics. One is that accomplishments must support organization goals but only certain accomplishments were considered. Many of us perform complex tasks that take a long time to show the results they were seeking. Nearly all our tasks are severely constrained for funding and resources and face competing priorities for which we have little or no influence. Frequently workers are victims of circumstances which impedes gaining valuable experience and enables others to gain an unfair advantage in the competition for advancement. The traditional GS system has proven to be a reasonably good and equitable fit to compensate employees who meet and exceed the expectations. At the same time fair provisions are in place that give management options for dealing with unacceptable performance. The NSPS clearly allows too much room for management to use favoritism and bias while harming the career growth of many deserving people. We don't need a system that weakens the appeal process. That's bad for morale because it may be the only protection available if you're not treated fairly. The vats majority of supervisors are good but there will always be those who don't belong in that position. Losing collective bargaining would be counter productive since the NSPS intent is to attract and retain a quality workforce. This arrangement has lead to flexible schedules which have been very successful for quality of life and allowing employees to balance work and personal time. I don't see the point in designating some of us as "deployable assets". It seems we've always had enough volunteers for these kinds of duties. People that take OCONUS positions get a very decent compensation with their housing allowance and other little perks such as use of the PX. Uprooting people who have not volunteered can create a tremendous strain on their lives. I have seen a positive trend over the last 15 years or so where people here seem to look upon themselves as a professional as opposed to just holding down a job. I think that came about from good management relations which allowed flexible schedules. It came about from comprehensive training programs that included achieving substantive goals such as the certifications. It came about from efficiencies of today's workplace that includes modern a work environment and automation. All signs says to me that this trend will continue and the Army we serve will continue to be the ultimate beneficiary. Please do not make the mistake of implementing a system that would impact morale and risk becoming detrimental to the success of this organization's mission.