| Comment Number: | OL-10504243 |
| Received: | 3/8/2005 7:33:15 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:
Comments on misc., phrases: 1. "...high performers and low performers are paid alike...". Hey, not in my workplace they're not. High performers are, in time recognized, and, if they apply for advancement, are more likely to be promoted. The above quote is misleading, and needs to be rephrased. Consider: In my workplace, most employees receive GS-5, -7, -9, -11, -12, and -13 pay, with each level divided into 10 "steps". That's six pay levels times 10 steps, for a total of 60 pay rates, ranging over a broad financial spectrum. Hello?! What's wrong with that? 2. "...a leaner, more flexible support structure will help attract skilled, talented and motivated people....". Can you see what I mean when I say that this phraseology suggests that the current staff are a bunch of louts? How about just saying, "will help attract highly qualified workers..."? 3. The following quote is a little disgusting: "NSPS will generate more opportunities for DoD civilians by easing the administrative burden routinely required by the current system and providing an incentive for managers to turn to them first when certain vital tasks need doing. This will free uniformed men and women to focus on matters unique to the military." --- When I see obscure sentences like this, I know someone is trying to hide something. You would think that when Americans speak to Americans that they would speak plainly, instead of in double-talk. What this sentence says is that when U.S. military troops are deployed, civilians can be sent along with them, to perform routine, administrative tasks, so the soldiers can do the fighting. This is a deceitful way of empowering the government to require that 30-to-60 year old government civilians leave their families for months on end, to serve thousands of miles away from home in a Combat Zone -- in Harm's Way, as it were. These would be civilians who, years ago, may already have served on Active Duty when they were young and single, but who now are fathers, husbands, community leaders, and who are not as healthy when they were 19 and 20. That is what the sentence says, but it says it in an obscure, indirect way. --- What is it with the authors of this document, that they can't write plainly and honestly?