| Comment Number: | OL-10502232 |
| Received: | 3/1/2005 12:28:23 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:
under performance management you have in the wording to encourage emplyee engagement, looking up the word engage seems to me that this will encourage supervisors to do what it says, engage with the enemy, personnel that are not liked or are not part of the good old boy system. under laboR RELATIONS, IT SAYS DOD AND COMPONENT WIDE issuances directives, policies, and manuals are not negotiable, even at this time management deviates away from established guidelines and interpret them the way they want with no impunity. what is to protect the employee under the new gudelines, when the employee is right, an instance being, safety, the employee identifies an unsafe condition, but the supervisor still makes the employee work the unsafe condition. under adverse actions and appeals it talks about taking adverse actions based on performance and conduct, if left up to the supervisors to use this at will, even good employees could be subjected to a supervisors personal feelings. such as when the employee feel that the way they are are doing something is not right, and tell the supervisor and the supervisor feels they are trying to get out of work or just trying to be difficult then the supervisor holds that opinon and then starts a disciplinary action based on performance. it so futher stes mitigation at the mspb is permitted only when the penalty is wholly unjustied. how does one prove justified when the process is being chopped down to where you have no recourse? define a single burden of proof statement. what must this staement cover? who should support this statement? under traing all personnel should receive the same training, so as to establish an effective understanding of the new system. that way supervisors that will not show regulations can not say one thing when in fact the other is true, knowledge is power. so empower all. under hiring and staff flexibility, talks about tools for assigning and reassigning employees in response to the misiion, that futher needs to be clarified, as in can the employee be sent overseas on a weekly basis, permanet , yearly basis, moved from base to base while having a home in one area. under pay bands, who detetermines whether a person is an outstanding performer. as it is now we have a good old boy system that cpmsesates friends, family, and people theym are grooming to be supervisors, what is to stop this practice, as we see supervisors that do not give an oblective evaluation to the emplyee, but if you are being groomed you get the best rating with bonus and days and are able to compete for better jobs with higher perfomance scores and them looking at your awards. overall the new changes would be welcomes if they hold supervisors respondsible for laws and regulations they break on a daily basis. stop the good old boy system which with the new changes they are sure to use to their advantage. as many supervisors can not write well or read well, nor can they even spell simple words, so to make them have to break out what is expected of you in your job, what you can expect of them, what is the mission requirements and such is a good idea, but we need also, to reflect that supervisors showing favortism, discrimatory behavior, noncompliance with regulations, undue discrimantion to an individual based on likes, whether they play golf, have a houseboat, have quarter horse's are in the good old boy club, will be removed from that position. this will stop some of the good old boy clubs, the best friend club, someone i like a lot clubs as in male female from remaingin in effect.