| Comment Number: | OL-10502526 |
| Received: | 3/2/2005 11:34:41 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:
These comments address Subparts C and D. According to the rationale behind the NSPS, the reason for implementing the new system is to improve a federal personnel system which "cannot address the 21st century national security environment". However, after reading the new regulations, I fail to see how implementation of laws designed to immediately put employees on the defensive will improve our national security. I would like to see a complete review and audit of the "new" system as implemented in the DHS and other Federal agencies before implementaion in DOD. Has this system provided agencies with a more flexible mission driven tool? How will that be measured? Can it be measured? If, as stated, our current system already provides us with: Merit system principles that have been the basis of the civil service for decades. Principles that support: A diverse workforce; Fair and open competition; Equal pay for equal work; High standards of integrity and conduct; Protection for employees against arbitrary action, favoritism, or political coercion; and Protection for employees against reprisals for whistleblowing. Why the change? As a former supervisor, I have had no problems working within the current system to reward achievers and performers, as well as utilize improvement tools to encourage the non-performers. And, if warranted, seek dissmissal for those who just didn't "cut the mustard". I do not see how chipping away at someone's locality pay, or local market supplement, will result in improved performance. Instead, what you will get is an employee building a resentment towards the supervisor and team that you want them to feel positive towards. It does not level the playing field, but immediately creates disadvantages which will impact on the employee's private life and ability to support their families. And, if that employee, unfortunately, has a supervisor who does not recognize an employee who is trying to improve, you will have an employee without motivation and lacking in productivity. The result will be an environment with the same adversarial relationship which the NSPS is supposedly trying to eliminate. Let's not blame lack of flexibility on a "labor system which encourages a dispute-oriented adversarial relationship between management and labor", which according to the panel supposedly exists. Rather, let's look at the real problem which is a system overburdened with policies, rules, laws, mission statements, directives, metrics, and, ineffective checklists which are pushed down by policy makers completely out of touch with managing government organizations at the unit level. Employees that I have worked with over my 23 years as a federal (civilian and military) member are constantly having to prove just how "flexible" they are amidst the constant (and not always good or well thought out) changes forced upon them. What do you think this type of system would do to the morale of our military force if it was implemented for our military members? I don't think morale or productivity would be very high if members were worried that their supervisors had the ability to chip away at their basic pay and allowances. Please tell me how this system addresses, in a way that can be effectively measured, the 21st century's national security environment. What measurement will be used to tell me that I have a more flexible mission driven system? The improvements that are being sought should not be at the expense of employees forced to sell their souls to an unethical manager/supervisor in order to get a locality (local market) increase. There should be enough objectivity in whatever system exists to protect the supervisor, employee, team, and agency. By taking away the level playing field of a basic pay scale and locality adjustments, you will automatically create an environment of individuals seeking to self promote versus a team assured of their collective abilities.