| Comment Number: | OL-10502607 |
| Received: | 3/2/2005 1:53:26 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:
I have read most of the new provisions for the NSPS. I and my coworkers have worked in an abusive work environment for many years. Our director is a GS-13. He has been responsible for many staff members quitting or retiring before they actually wanted to leave. He is verbally and emotionally abusive, and that abuse includes humiliation and screaming and yelling at staff members. Every person on our staff is actually too afraid to ask this man a question. Several individuals over the years have brought this to the attention of different commanders, but because our director has a reputation as an exceptional administrator (which he is) and because he is a retired military officer and knows how imperative it is to make his superiors look good, no one will deal with him; none of the commanders here have dared to confront this issue directly or take this abusive director on because they know what a formidable challenge it would be. A couple of years ago several members of our staff (including myself) went to Civilian Personnel about this man. There is no sexual harassment involved; only abusive, unreasonable, hostile behavior from him that makes our day to day work experience almost unbearable. So this is not an EEO complaint, nor does it fall into one of the usual categories of grievances (e.g., discrimination based on some kind of criteria.) We were advised to write out statements; we did that. We each wrote lengthy, detailed statements with dates or incidences, etc. These statements went to our Squadron, then Group, then Wing Commanders. There were some very specific and disturbing accounts of his irrational and abusive behavior, but in response to all of this, the only thing that happened was that we were scheduled for a day long "Team Building" exercise through the Employment Assistance Program (EAP). No action was taken against him and nothing changed. Those of us who have been here for awhile have determined that every time this complaint was brought to the attention of a commander, they would apply a "band aid" solution such as the team-building exercise that we were required to participate in, even though this response did not address our concern - even remotely. This director evaluates us based on factors that we have learned are not supposed to even be included in the evaluation process. For example, he expects staff members to put in hours of overtime each week or stay past their duty hours with no compensation - pay or comp time. Some staff members do this out of fear. Those who don't are compared unfavorably (for promotions and bonuses) to those who do give up their time with no compensation. He does not ever order us to do this, but it is understood that those who don't do it can forget about a promotion. When one of my coworkers dared to ask him if she could get compensated for staying to help facilitate a function that our office was the POC for (that went for four years past her duty day), he became enraged and called her into his office to counsel her on her "attitude." Our director gets rave reviews and numerous honors and accolades because of our hard work, yet no one EVER observes HIS behavior or performance....his supervisor is not physically present in our building. He is evaluated based on OUR accomplishments. MY COMMENT IS: This model seems very focused on punitive actions that can be taken against workers and does not appear to address the issue of how supervisors who abuse their authority are going to be held accountable; especially those who are never actually observed by THEIR superiors. MY QUESTION IS: How are irrational or abusive supervisors going to be evaluated and held accountable for their behavior? Your new model seems to assume that bosses that are abusive, irrational, show favoritism, or are hostile are all going to go away under this new system. The punitive actions seem to be addressed only in the context of WORKERS who perform poorly.