| Comment Number: | OL-10502518 |
| Received: | 3/2/2005 11:22:28 AM |
| 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 am writting to express my concerns regarding the changes to the conditions of employment for civilians in the Department of Defense (DoD). The proposed regulations, known as the 5CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 National Security Personnel System; Proposed Rule, were printed in the Federal Register on Monday, February 14, 2005. I have worked for the DoD for 35 years, and I am angry and disgusted that these proposal want to put employees in the status of "possessions" of management rather than citizens of this country. These proposed rules are a retreat to the Andrew Jackson era (political favoritism) system of service to this country, and seem to foster the "good-old-boy" system of personnel management. In "Guiding Principles and Key Performance Parameters" it states in part that this plan will "Respect the individual - protect rights guarenteed by law", and yet this does not seem to hold true through the rules. Instead, the proposals regulations treat the individual as a piece of property; fosters cut-throat competition and destroys team-work; and despite verbage to the contrary strips employees of meaningful collective bargaining. The proposed regulations seem to have fogotten that employees are not "DoD Civilian" (offering the implied meaning of property) but are civilians who happen to work for DoD. In "Continuing Collaboration" it states that "The NSPS law requires that the implementation of a new HR system for DoD will be carried out with the participation of, and in collaboration with, employee respresentatives." Why has this not happened? Collaboration implies cooperation, and yet Labor Organizations of been bypassed with an attitude of "this is the way it is going to be", and not allowed any MEANINGFUL input. Under the "Performance Managerment - Subpart D" it states that "The current performance management system is burdensom because of its actual and/or perceived inflexibility and strict adherence to written elements and standards established at the beginning of a rating cycle." Why are establish objectives burdensome? As written, the proposed rules foster the notion that indecision is the cornerstone of flexibility. Is it too much to ask that management outline its goals, rather than being able to change at whim? Under "Staffing and Employment" it states that "... DoD managers will have greater flexibility in acquiring, advancing, and shapping a workforce...". In other words, a license to hire and promote friends. Under "Appeals" DoD is trying to take away the protections of the MSPB and set up a "wolves watching the sheep" system approach. Past experience dictates that under such a system employee rights and protections are done away with. Under "Attorney Fees" DoD wants to change the standard to "facts known by management". What is to keep management from claiming that they did not know all of the facts? If this stipulatioin is retained then management should prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they did not know the facts. The proposed regulations stated that the DoD civilian worforce plays a critical role in the successful accomplishment of DoDs mission. And yet, the President has tried to keep any additional funding (in the form of cost of living increases) to a minimum and not on par with the military. Is this a contradicition in approaches? The proposed regulations want to negate the requirement to bargain at the local level, and to severely limit those items on which management must bargain. The proposal want to limit negotiation to the national level and then only on substantial changes in conditions of employment. Define substantial. What may be substantial to an employee may not be substantial to management. Schedules and Overtime. NSPS will alow managers to schedule employees to work without sufficient advance notice. Overtime should not be manadatory, and it should be thoroughly justified. To reiterate, the proposal want to treat employees as property.