| Comment Number: | OL-10506943 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 12:09:30 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:
The proposed National Security Personnel System (NSPS) regulations issued by the Department of Defense (the Department) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) represent a catastrophic loss of basic liberty to me as a Department employee. I believe that these proposed regulations violate the intent of the directives from Congress granted in the NSPS statute. The Department’s proposed NSPS regulations 9901.905(a) and 9901.914(d)(5) are upsetting because they end collective bargaining, my only opportunity for democracy in the workplace. Any provisions of a collectively bargained agreement through “DoD or Component Issuances” negotiated are superseded despite Congress’ unambiguous order in 5 U.S.C. 9902(b) to preserve collective bargaining In proposed NSPS regulation 9901.914(d)(5), the Department plans to make such issuances to be non-negotiable and ending all collectively bargained agreements. In actuality, this provision will provide the Department the authority to make dictatorial changes that in no way improve the defense of the United Sates of America, while silencing any voice in opposition wishing to represent the people whose lives are controlled by these regulations. The Department’s proposed NSPS regulations violate the Congressional directive in 5 U.S.C. 9902(b) to preserve collective bargaining by bloating management rights. In the proposed NSPS regulation 9901.910(a)(2), the Department declares that management will now have the power “to take whatever other actions may be necessary to carry out the Department’s mission,” a clause that literally has no definition or limitation in the regulation. It appears to me that the mission is to end the freedom to have collective bargaining rights. It infuses the Department of Defense with powers to take political action upon its employees representing a minority political view (i.e. to terminate the freedom to have any representation in the workplace.) By leaving these powers unlimited the door is opened for all forms of abuse of power upon employees in the name of national defense. In 5 U.S.C. 9902(m)(6), Congress required the Department to ensure that any new labor relations system provided for an independent third party review of the Department’s decisions. However, the Department’s proposed NSPS regulation 9901.907 (a)(1) intends to create a new labor relations review board, costing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to invent a structure similar to the existing FLRA. Further, under proposed NSPS regulation 9901.907, the members of this board would be appointed solely by the Secretary of Defense, with no Congressional or outside oversight. This is the equivalent of a dictatorship, violating Congress’ specific instructions to ensure an independent third party review. Proposed NSPS regulation 9901.907(a)(1) violates Congress’ specific instructions in 5 U.S.C. 9902 (m) (6) to ensure independent third party reviews of the Department’s labor relations decisions. This proposal is a refusal to cooperate with Congress’ instructions in 5 U.S.C. 9902(m)(6). The proposed NSPS regulation 9901.807(k)(8)(iii) denies employees their right to a fair hearing of their appeals for adverse actions taken against them by the Department. In this proposal, the Department reserves for itself the right to unilaterally reverse the decision of an MSPB Administrative Judge (AJ), merely because the Department does not agree that the decision was correct. How could the Department resist such powers and not remove someone whose political affiliation it does not share or who is old and in the way of someone else’s hiring or not friends with someone more powerful? How could such an unbalanced regulation be used justly? How could it not be used in violation of human rights? DoD and OPM should take back these dangerous proposals. Even good-hearted people could not wield these powers justly.