| Comment Number: | OL-10504922 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 1:18:13 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:
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 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, 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: 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 F, Section 9901.607: The wording is very misleading. Tenure is the first criteria for a reduction in force. However, an experienced employee recently assigned a new job could be the first to go in a RIF, without retreat rights to their previous job. Subpart I, Sections 9901.901 to 9901.928: Contrary to the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 the DOD did not afford employee representatives the opportunity to have meaningful discussions during the development of the proposed Labor-Management Relations.