| Comment Number: | OL-10503589 |
| Received: | 3/7/2005 8:57:30 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'nm am deeply concerned about the language throught out this policy recomendation that keeps talking about, overtime, premium pay, differential, and other areas, and says to refer to : I am writing to you because of my concern about the so-called National Security Personnel System (NSPS) scheduled for implementation for more than 700,000 employees of the Department of Defense over the next year. As you know, NSPS was authorized under the 2004 Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress in November 2003. There is, however, a significant difference between the skeletal authorities that Congress approved and the sweeping new authorities that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is now claiming. During congressional hearings on this issue, the Secretary asserted that the Pentagon's broad mission requires greater "flexibility" in hiring, disciplining, compensating and assigning civilian personnel. In short, the Secretary wanted the same "chain of command" authority over civilian personnel as he enjoys over uniformed military personnel. Neither the Secretary nor his subordinates offered any concrete examples to explain how union rights might have impinged on the Pentagon's mission in the past. Although Congress acceded to the broad requests lodged by the DOD, it attached certain strict conditions--including a specific requirements that DOD observe legal requirements of labor relations statutes and that they involve duly elected unions in the development of the new system. The Pentagon has done neither. Although DOD has convened a dozen or more meetings to "brief stakeholders" and to "solicit the views" of unions, there has been no information sharing from DOD and absolutely no response to repeated union requests for specific information as to exactly what problems management wishes to address with the adoption of NSPS. I am certain that one of the Pentagon's objectives in advancing NSPS is to construct a so-called "pay for performance" system. This is another case of deceptive labeling. Various government agencies have been testing performance pay systems for more than 20 years and invariably, the results have been that the majority of workers feel cheated when advancement, promotion and pay decisions are given over to the sole discretion of a supervisor. The process typically reduces salaries and morale. It is too autocratic and eliminates any redress for decisions made on the basis of considerations other than merit. For these reasons, I oppose the implementation of NSPS and I urge you to act to instruct the Secretary of Defense to halt any further development of NSPS unless and until the Pentagon is willing to substantively address the issues raised by the United DOD Workers Coalition. It should provide for collective bargaining over the design of the pay, performance, and classification systems. Such bargaining is common in the public and private sectors, including federal components not covered by the General Schedule pay and classification system. Bargaining would in no way negatively impact the agency’s ability to accomplish its mission. Instead, it would enhance the effectiveness of the system by providing greater fairness, credibility, accountability and transparency. It should ensure that employees are not disadvantaged by the implementation of any new pay system. That is, employees must, at a minimum, be entitled to the same pay increases and advancement potential under a new system that is available under the General Schedule. It should retain the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43 and 5 C.F.R. Part 430, governing performance management. It should provide, as does the current system, for a choice between the Merit Systems Protection Board and the negotiated grievance/arbitration procedure for serious adverse actions. It should provide for impartial review of labor relations disputes by an independent entity like the Federal Labor Relations Authority. It should protect, as we believe Public Law 108-13 mandates, the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over workplace decisions that affect them. It should protect all Chapter 71 bargaining rights, including the right to bargain over procedures and appropriate arrangements related to the exercise of management’s right to assign work, deploy personnel, and use technology. To require such bargaining would not prevent management from exercising its rights. Instead, it would allow agreements to be reached over such things as fair and objective methods of assigning employees to shifts and work locations. It would allow agreements to be reached over fair and objective methods of reassigning employees on short notice to new posts of duty that may be thousands of miles from home and family. It would allow agreements to be reached over training and safety issues related to the use of new technology by employees whose jobs put their lives at risk on a daily basis. It should encourage, not suppress, the pre-implementation participation of employees and their unions in mission-related decisions. Frontline employees and their unions want to help DoD accomplish its mission, and they have the expertise to do it. They should not be shut out of mission-related decisions. It should, as the law requires, protect the due process rights of employees and provide them with fair treatment. Employees must have the right to a full and fair hearing of adverse actions appeals before an impartial and independent decision maker, such as an arbitrator or the MSPB. DoD should be required to prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that adverse actions imposed against employees promote the efficiency of the service. An impartial and independent decision maker must have the authority to mitigate excessive penalties.