| Comment Number: | OL-10506194 |
| Received: | 3/11/2005 12:25:25 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:
General Comment: I downloaded the proposed NSPS regulations in pdf format and did a word search for the word experience. I found nothing relating to placing any value on work experience. I have been an engineer at a Naval Shipyard for many years. Thousands of people work here. There are huge departments organized by work functions. Overhauling naval nuclear ships is an extremely complex and difficult task requiring precise coordination among many organizations. The complex designs of ships systems and their associated terminology; coupled with government lingo and acronyms; the inherent dangers and environmental concerns associated with ship work; and responsibilities for performing quality work because other people's lives hang in the balance; makes it extremely difficult for new people hired-in to understand even the basics of what is going on. As a person who has to train new engineers straight out of college, who have never seen the ocean, let alone a ship before; I think this new NSPS system is flopping too far the other way away from valuing work experience and moving toward performance. Performance is great is you know what you are doing. On the average, I would say that it takes five to seven years for a new engineer to learn everything needed to become effective at their job. I am afraid that under this NSPS system, which doesn't value experience, that people will find that there is no reason to stay here past five years. They will climb the ladder quick, realize they are topped out, and move on to private industry. If this occurs, the quality of ships maintenance is going to go down. I hope that, five years from now, we don't have to start towing ships back to port because they broke down at sea.