| Comment Number: | OL-10506458 |
| Received: | 3/11/2005 3:43:01 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| Attachment: | FW NSPS Comments.htm Download Adobe Reader |
Comments:
Subject: Proposed Department of Defense NSPS Regulations This does not appear to be a proposed system, but an accomplished fact. To propose a system that includes any items that “are not yet determined,” or “to be implementing issuances at some point in the future, if not criminal is at a minimum seriously irresponsible. Explain how jamming this down the throats of the civilian workforce improves national security or morale. How can DoD “waive” current laws and regulations? It seems that the fact that the Federal civilian work force cannot strike is being used to allow this system to be put into effect over objections by the workforce, negotiations apparently are not allowed or highly discouraged. Cannot understand how anyone could think the proposed personnel system could be an improvement. Yes, improvement is needed. However, the proposed changes only increase the current deficiencies. Supposedly the current system makes evaluations and awards on a performance basis. Management now cannot or does not fairly and impartially give ratings and awards. I cannot see how that is corrected with the “proposed” new system. I have watched caring, responsible, committed employees passed over repeatedly while incompetent favorites receive promotions and awards because supervisors either are unaware of the work being done around them or of personality differences. Awards are currently supposed to reward good work. And of course that is determined by the supervisor. Too many supervisors cannot be bother or reward only those few favored employees. How does the threat of being reassigned not just locally but world wide improve loyalty and attitude of employees. Reassignment within happens now, whether one likes it or not. Why is it necessary to place the civilian work force in a mobilization scenario? How does this improve national security? I agree with the comments in the attached letter which states the issues much better than I can.