| Comment Number: | OL-10504834 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 11:23:24 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:
Subpart A, section 9901.106(a)(2)(ii): The Secretary of Defense has sole and exclusive discretion to determine the number of employee representatives to be engaged in the continuing collaboration process. This allows the secretary to identify a low number of representatives thus pitting the Unions against each other for representative spaces. Subpart A, section 9901.106(a)(6): Nothing in the continuing collaboration process will affect the right of the Secretary to determine the content of implementing issuances and to make them effective at any time. This catchall law would allow the secretary to basically do anything he wants, whenever he wants, without regard to a collaborative effort. Subpart B, section 9901.212(d): This section references another section (9901.514 Non-citizen hiring) that has nothing to do with pay schedules and pay bands. Subpart B, sections 9901.221 and 9901.222: The classification process does not include any provisions for collective bargaining. Subpart C, section 9901.311: The lack of specifics in the new pay system makes it very hard to comment on the new pay system. What are the pay bands? What are the levels of pay in each pay band? What is the maximum pay in each pay band? Subpart C, section 9901.311: To adequately provide comments on the proposed pay system the DOD should provide their implementing issuances prior to enacting the NSPS rules. Once the issuances are provided the normal 30/30/30 process should be in effect. Obviously, the DOD, much like Department of Homeland Security, plans on waiting until the 30/30/30 time frame has passed prior to implementing their issuance with specifics on the new pay system. This is blatantly circumvents the entire process of commenting, collaborating, etc. Subpart C, section 9901.312: The Secretary now has the authority to establish pay limitations, as opposed to Congress. Subpart C, section 9901.313: The wording is very misleading. It appears that employees are protected from losing money under the new pay system. The statement is true employees (collectively) will not lose money because the money allocated for compensation will not be less than the amount without NSPS, but individually there is no guarantee that you will not be affected. It specifically says that the “aggregate employees” are not disadvantaged. There is no guarantee, individually, that you will not be affected. These words only provide for the minimum funding for pay raises. The words lack specifics to guarantee the individual employee minimum pay raises, including step increases, for acceptable performance. The words also say to the maximum extent practical, which gives the DOD and out from providing the money necessary for minimum raises. Subpart C, sections 9901.301 to 9901.373: Pay for performance as outlined addresses all raises coming from an established pot of money. This means to give the high performer a bigger raise, the money comes from someone else. What if everyone is performing at a high level? Pay raises for managers come out of the same pot of money. There are no checks and balances in the proposed system to prevent favoritism, nepotism, cronyism, etc. Subpart C, sections 9901.301 to 9901.373: How are people in development jobs 5/7/9, 7/9/11, etc. affected? There are no words to address personnel in these positions. Will promoting these people, as promised them during the hiring process, take money away from acceptable performers? Subpart C, sections 9901.301 to 9901.373: Congress will not control Pay Parity. This allows DOD to give us lower raises then they give to the military (something they have been trying to do for years, but congress has not allowed it). These changes will prevent congress from ensuring pay parity. Subpart C, sections 9901.331 to 9901.334: If locality pay (local market supplements) is based on the cost of living of a geographical area, how can it legally be withheld or dispersed at different rates based on occupation? How does this agree with the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA)? In that same law, Congress gave rating-based performance awards a specific legal authority for the first time, but excluded locality pay from award calculations? Has there been a change to FEPCA? Subpart C, sections 9901.301 to 9901.373: The step raises in the Civil Service system are like the longevity raises the military receives. The DOD is not proposing to change the way the military is paid, why are they changing the way the civil servant who supports the military member is paid? Subpart C, 9901.322: This paragraph contradicts paragraph 9901.313. After addressing the expected compensation comparability in 9901.313 which leads one to believe that we will not lose money as a result of NSPS, 9901.322 makes it clear that an employee may have their rate of pay reduced due to availability of funds and mission requirements. This will allow the DOD to reduce our Congressionally approved pay raises to a lower amount. While NSPS purports to be for the purpose of rewarding performance in the workplace, the reality is that a high-performing and acceptably performing employees can have their pay cut simply because the DOD has decided to use the money for mission requirements. Subpart C, Section 9901.352: Under Reassignment - Involuntary moves should NEVER result in a reduction in pay under any circumstances.