Comment Number: OL-10506114
Received: 3/11/2005 11:44:48 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 have worked for DoD for 16 years. Nearly all of my supervisors have been active-duty military and most never bothered to become familiar with the civil service system. I worry that so much control is going to individuals who have no real interest in what happens to me or the other civilians in my workplace. It's been my experience that most supervisors are willing to spend a lot more time becoming familiar with how to punish civilian employees or force them to do something that is not in their job description than they are to reward employees or provide incentives. I also worry that I will be part of a system that can hire me to do a job that I'm very excited about and then change that job to anything they want after I've accepted it. Where is my protection from a supervisor that wants things done simply for his/her personal gain? Will I be sacrificed so that his/her career can be advanced? In today's environment of "looking out for me," I don't trust the odds of getting a fair-minded, competent supervisor for the rest of my career. At least in today's system an incompetent supervisor can only affect my morale. As long as I am doing the job I was hired to do, they can't jeopardize my source of income because of their personal agenda. This would not be true with the new system. If I hire on with knowledge that I will be sent TDY on occasion, that's acceptable, but if I'm told at the start of the job that there will be no traveling required and told a few months later that my job has been changed and I will now have to travel 3-4 days a month, what are my options? I just don't believe putting so much control at the lowest level is a good thing. Not getting a performance award because of a supervisor's or commander's indifference or prejudice is one thing, but giving these people the power to reduce my annual income is unthinkable. I understand that something needs to be done about employees that just become "dead weight" to the organization, but there are already procedures available in the current system to do combat this. Many supervisors and organization commanders say they would like to get rid of their "slackers," but when they find out they have to do it the fair way: communicating their disapproval through a mid-year evaluation and if nothing is improved, giving the employee an unsatisfactory rating on their performance appraisal, they take the easy way out and rubber stamp all of their employee's appraisals the same each year, leaving the problem employee for the next supervisor or commander to deal with. It seems to me the problem is not with the system, but with the people who are in charge of implementing the system. If they don't have the integrity and intestinal fortitude to create a positive work environment and take care of the problem employees, the answer is to create a system that gives them more power? Punish everyone instead of just the poor performers? The Department of Defense is not a business. It is a government entity that needs a strong system of checks and balances. There is too much at risk to just throw out those checks and balances and start running it like a private company.