Comment Number: OL-10506051
Received: 3/11/2005 10:50:48 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:

I am very concerned about this NSPS proposed change in personnel system for all of the following reasons and beyond. I am certain that one of the Pentagon's objectives in advancing NSPS is to construct a so-called "pay for performance" system. This is another 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. 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. Changing the rules for who gets the boot during a rif from seniority to what kind of performance you get is not fair and just plain wrong. There is too much favoritism in the government on who gets the good ratings. It is usually the suck ups who get the good ratings not good performers. The system will be totally corrupt if you change these rules. It is not fair to people who served the government faithfully to get the boot over someone that has been only in the government for one year. If you don't consider seniority there will be no reason for anyone to be in the government. Maybe that is the aim of higher ups. Teddy Rosevelt fixed this problem, but it looks like the problem is coming back. I am ashamed and sad for the government. I am a civilian employee of 27 years and also spent time active duty in the USAF Tactical Air Command. I might point out also that I am the son of a WWII and Korean Army Veteran who grew up through the depression, growing up in small town USA with very little education. He married my mother an Austrian women also from the depression era who had both made much sacrifice for their country and likewise in their personal lives. I too have made similar sacrifices in my life and continue to serve my country the best that I know how having had a better life because of them. You need to understand the total impact that these sweeping changes will have not only for the country but those that have served it with allegiance and servitude. I am proud to serve my country but I am also responsible for caring for my family and my personal obligations at home. We signed up for a civilian job. We did not enlist in the military. Today's volunteer system works well. America is at war. We are fighting for democracy abroad. But the regulations are an attack on workers' basic rights. Please refer the following specific observations and reservations about this NSPS personnel system. Pay and Pay Administration - Subpart C A second comment session should be made available when the specific details of the performance pay pools, rating methodology, and setting and adjusting rate ranges are decided. For example, employees should be able to comment on dollar values of pay pools, number of employees in the pool, and how the monies in the pool are allocated. Employees should be able to comment on the shares given to specific performance ratings. Employees should be allowed to have a voice in how bonuses are distributed. For the system to be accepted, employees need to have a voice in the determination of these basic rules that will govern their work environment. Subpart C 9901.343 The 10 percent reduction seems like a large amount for unacceptable performance. Especially, considering it could push an employee into a lower pay band. The percentage should be reduced to 2, and no employee should be reduced from a pay band after one bad performance evaluation. It should take at least three successive poor performance evaluations to reduce an employee from a pay band. Subpart D Performance Management - 9901.401 to 9901.409 To ensure fairness and accuracy, Defense Department employees should be able to appeal any performance rating to an independent grievance and arbitration process as they can do now. Subpart E Staffing and Employment - 9901.501 to 9901.516 The proposed regulations would replace longstanding provisions on hiring found in 5 U.S.C. Chapters 31 and 33 with unpublished procedures that will be prescribed at some future date through implementing issuances. Using this approach will allow the Defense Department to arbitrarily develop and administer new rules on staffing and employment that have not been available for public comment. This is especially troubling given the proposal to engage in non-citizen hiring to positions within NSPS. Our national security would surely be put at risk if Defense Department managers were able to exercise such hiring flexibilities. Subpart F Workforce Shaping - 9901.6012 to 9901.611 The Defense Department should not change the current layoff/RIF rules, which give balanced credit to performance and the employees' valuable years of committed service. Moreover, under he proposed regulations employment disputes over such matters would be unfairly limited to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Subpart G Adverse Actions - 9901.701 to 9901.810 The NSPS guiding principle on enhanced management flexibility would be undermined if the provision on mandatory removable offenses is retained. Due process and fairness demand that the independent body reviewing major suspensions and terminations be allowed to alter the proposed penalty if it deems deem the penalty to be unreasonable. The current standards approved by the courts to guide such bodies should be continued. Subpart I Labor-Management Relations - 9901.901 to 9901.929 The labor-management law that has governed the employees' right to organize and engage in collective bargaining has worked well since 1978. There is no compelling reason to take away most of the collective bargaining rights or grievance rights. The Defense Department should not create a "company-dominated dispute board." Any dispute board must be jointly selected by management and the union. 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.