| Comment Number: | OL-10501385 |
| Received: | 2/24/2005 11:09:25 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:
(Comments continued from previous submittal) 11. Under NSPS, supervisors are given vast new authorities with more profound effects on employees, yet NSPS lacks new accountabilities to keep these new supervisory powers in check. Performance ratings by a supervisor may have a potentially devastating effect on the career and pension of an employee, determining pay increases, pay reductions by 10% per year, RIF retention status, etc. Despite these greater powers to reduce pay and fire people, no greater accountability is placed on the deciding official, who might abuse these new powers bestowed upon him. Due to human nature (i.e. absolute power corrupts absolutely) abuses will be more frequent and more profound under NSPS. Even under the present GS system, union officials have found that it is not possible for supervisors to separate personal feelings and give an objective performance measurement. Furthermore, supervisory abuse of power is widely tolerated, rarely acknowledged, and never punished. Accountability at all levels was supposed to have been one of the guiding principles of NSPS, yet much talk is made of employee accountability in the Federal Register without much mention of supervisory accountability. No provision is made to hold supervisors accountable for the ratings they give, or for abusing their authority. Also, supervisors are given the authority to change performance metrics at whim throughout the course of the rating cycle, as well as apply different metrics for different employees in the same position. Employees will not be able to challenge problems with these metrics or inconsistent application of performance metrics. There is no requirement for the supervisor to be fair, equitable, and consistent in establishing performance standards for his employees. Under NSPS, supervisors are only accountable for “communicating” expectations and feedback to employees. Congress will be continually flooded with complaints due to the lack of a fair administrative process to challenge anything related to the performance ratings given to employees. Civil litigation will likely increase also, particularly claims by employees against their supervisors. Lawyers will gladly take these cases since more money is at stake. 12. Under NSPS, an employee’s salary can be lowered during a "reassignment" to any salary within the range of his pay band. Since reassignments can be done arbitrarily by management, and since reassignments within some organizations are routine, what is to prevent management from abusing this power? Given the expected wide salary range of the pay bands, a reassignment to another section could result in a sudden and devastating pay reduction, beyond the 10% limit. ‘Save pay’ and other limitations should be placed on pay reductions due to reassignments under NSPS. Routine reassignments within an organization should not be subject to potential pay reduction. 13. NSPS seems to have no salary standards other than how well the supervisor feels the employee is performing. Under the GS system, salary is tied to level of responsibility in accordance with OPM position classification standards. The concept of equal pay for equal work will erode under NSPS. For example, an engineer doing relatively simple work extremely well in one department of an organization, could be making substantially more money than an engineer performing much more complex work at an acceptable level in a different department of the same organization. 14. Under NSPS, the internal DoD appeals board of political appointees is a bad concept and will become a "kangaroo court", whose primary interest will be to protect DoD, not to seek justice. Case decisions will swing wildly with the political winds. This will produce unstable labor relations. Stability is better for national security.