| Comment Number: | OL-10505321 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 5:03:45 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| Attachment: | NSPS REBUTTAL.doc Download Adobe Reader |
Comments:
This is a response to the proposed Department of Defense (DOD) National Security Personnel, proposed regulations published in the Federal Register on 14 February 2005. I have been a Federal Employee since l986, in DOD. It is with much sadness and fear as a Federal Employee within DOD that I write this letter. It is my personal belief that this is just another plan supported by the Bush Administration to strip Federal Employees who work for DOD of their rights to due process to seek justice when it comes to unfair treatment, unfair performance appraisels, unfair labor practices and their rights to be active in the Union’s of their choice, and to have Union representation. For anyone in the Bush Administration to support this initiative strikes to the very heart of patriotism and democracy and what this Country stands for and fights for in other countries around the world. This plan has nothing to do with National Security. Within DOD in l996 and l997 the Personnel Systems were consolidated and stove piped, supposedly for efficiency purposes. This stove pipe is dysfunctional at best, this was done on purpose, and added to the Human Resource (HR) problems in DOD. Therefore the HR system is grossly inadequate to support such radical changes. All those changes caused hiring to be slow and cumbersome, more rigid and inflexible rules were implemented, delays in disciplinary actions and appeals, and unclear guidance to supervisors about how to deal with poor performers. It is my feeling that if these stovepiped HR organizations remain in place NSPS will be a big failure. Implementation at China Lake and the Acquisition Demonstration Project clearly never spanned anywhere near the broad numbers of issues being addressed and changed under NSPS. The fact still remains that the authority granted to DOD by Congress did not take away or waive the requirements under the Federal Labor Relations Act. (The Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute, Chapter 71, Title 5 of the U.S. Code). In reading the fact sheet, it is clear that whoever wrote the NSPS does not have a clear understanding or working knowledge of the rights and flexibilities Management currently has and which rights they fail to exercise fairly and uniformly. Whoever wrote the NSPS does not have a clear understanding or working knowledge of the rights employees have and the rights the Unions have who represent Federal Employees under the U.S. Code. In reaction to that I have to say that the brain drain of the loss of experienced Human Resource workforce due to downsizing in DOD is the cause for this. It has also caused managements ability and effectiveness to work within the U.S. Code, due to lack of experience and training in these matters. DOD is going to spend literally trillions of dollars implementing this new system on the guinea pig approach to managing its human resources. This is appalling to say the least and just plain irresponsible. The fact is no Management Officials in DOD wants to deal with people (human resources) issues. Congress passed the Federal Labor Relations Act in l978 to encourage collective bargaining between Federal Employees an their Supervisors. It did so after long years of turmoil and finding that such bargaining is “in the public interest”, because among other things it “contributes to the effective conduct of public business and facilitates and encourages the amicable settlements of disputes between employees and their managers involving conditions of employment. The provisions of this Chapter should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of and effective and efficient Government.” (5 U.S.C. Section 7101). DOD’s whole proposal attempts to thwart Congress’s intent to promote collective bargaining, such barriers are not “in the public interest”, because these proposals hamper all realization of the benefits that such bargaining produces.