| Comment Number: | OL-10504747 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 9:48:31 AM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| Attachment: | NSPSComment.doc Download Adobe Reader |
Comments:
General Comment: NSPS was authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004, 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 requesting. 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. In fact, the current proposed regulations still do not provide the specifics required for adequate comment. One of the Pentagon's objectives in advancing NSPS is to construct a so-called "pay for performance" system. This is a 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 and to provide the specific regulations and instructions to allow adequate review of the new personnel system. General Comment: In its stated purpose of the NSPS, DOD repeats the fact that Congress authorized the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to establish a labor-management relations system and points to 5 U.S.C. 9902(m). However, again DOD fails to identify that Congress also said and the law assures the participation of, employee representatives in the development and implementation of the labor management relations system by requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Director of OPM to afford employee representatives and management the opportunity to have meaningful discussions concerning the development of the new system; this did not happen. General Comment: If a civil servant is deployed to a war zone, will they then be considered a “veteran”? If the military folks in the arena receive a medal or ribbon that signifies their existence in an area of the world that was in danger, then why wouldn’t the civil servant in the area be treated equally? Will the civil servant in the area be given a tax break? The military pay in a war zone is not taxed (I think the first $5600 a month is tax free); will the civil servant receive the same benefit? Currently, the civil servant does not realize either of these benefits. Subpart A, section 9901.106(a)(2)(ii): The Secretary of Defense has sole and exclusive discretion to determine the number of employee repres