| Comment Number: | OL-10502527 |
| Received: | 3/2/2005 11:35:10 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:
II entered Civil Service in 1978, about the time of the activation of the Civil Service Reform Act. I have worked all over the country and overseas for both military and civilian supervisors. I have also supervised both military and civilian employees. I have worked in civilian personnel and small functional areas. I have received incentive awards, bonuses, and service-wide recognition within my specialty for outstanding performance. In my career, I have learned a few things about the personnel management system. 1) Management will hire people they are familiar (most like) with into higher-paying jobs. Since management is mostly military, they will consider an ex-military person over a civilian. They look to hire individuals with the “proper” training, education and experience that civilians can’t get through the current system, or is not supported. The military is concerned about career progression of the military and will find the necessary funding for training opportunities. Not the same enthusiasm is provided to civilians. Interesting, too, because many civilians I know are ex-military and get quite a shock to see this. Making hiring practices easier, and making it easier to "go outside" to bring people in, will institutionalize this form of selective hiring and promotion and cripple incentive for current employees. The lack of support for training within the civilian system in order to be competitive is, at best, disappointing. In addition, there is no incentive for loyalty and patriotism, two reasons I joined and remain in public service with the Defense Department. 2) Many managers and supervisors don't have time for the proper management of the civilian workforce. Although standards and periodic feedback have been required, the requirement is not documented or enforced. In my career, I've heard many complaints about the lack of flexibility in hiring and firing. I've seen too many "creative" hiring to appreciate the first assertion and too little attention paid to the personnel management system to properly provide feedback, document poor performance and misconduct to back the second. More and lengthy training for managers and supervisors (and the rest) and the incredible amount of time it will take at all levels to convene committees and subcommittees to make this training successful will take attention of our primary military mission and success in the Global War on Terrorism. 3) Because a program has a 50-year legacy doesn't mean it's a bad program. It may be inconvenient to those who don't understand it... and it has been lacking in application and accountability. Through NSPS, managers who have not taken the time to understand the older, fairly straight forward system, will now be overwhelmed with the extremely "hands-on" approach of the new one, which brings us back around to major issues with the current system. 4) Resistance to cultural change, especially with pay banding, will continue as a significant roadblock. A military culture of entitlements for service and a fairly rigid rank structure versus pay banding of civilian workers does not breed a cohesive total force. What we do day to day is based on rank; much of our effectiveness is based on rank. A GS-11 carries more "clout" than a lower graded employee, more than an office code or symbol. I sat in a briefing where military members were given a notional chart of how the military would fare under pay banding. They were quite uncomfortable, especially with the loss of COLA. A compatible mil-civ rank system has always helped civilians and military integrate into a total force. It seems pay banding, while effective in labs and other civilian environments, would be a detriment elsewhere. Pay for performance is not a bad idea. Nor is it a new one. (The current system provides for this.) Nor is it the only criteria DOD should look at in fairly compensating employees. I don’t disagree with many of the assertions of the union coalition. I’m glad they have come together for once (although I wish the pettiness among the member unions would stop). I think it’s very important for all to understand the NSPS is a proposal, and that all should take the time to provide individual comment on this legislation. We all have the opportunity to have an impact on how this will apply to our livelihood. I hope military members in supervisory/management positions also provide comment. NSPS will dramatically affect they way they do their jobs. I appreciate the opportunity to comment.