| Comment Number: | OL-10507292 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 9:55:52 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 hope there is some sort of sunset provision written into these proposed changes. If they don't work out at least they will expire and have the chance to be reviewed and amended as needed. Some of these changes are just outrageous. Being told to deploy overseas to a potentially hostile area with minimal notice is just not right. If a position has that potential it should be very specifically stated in writing at the time of hire with the employee signing that they understand it. I am an honorably discharged veteran who did serve overseas on the DMZ between North and South Korea for a year, BUT that’s what I signed up for and that’s what I expected when I signed up for active duty in the Army; to be deployed. Taking a civilian job in CONUS I never entertained the thought of ending up in Iraq or some other combat zone. The potential for deployment must be clearly stated in any job description that might require it, if an employee knows that’s a possibility he or she can plan accordingly. What have unions done so wrong that the DOD wants to "castrate" them? Employee's do not create unions and pay dues for lack of better things to do. Work place environment creates the need for unions, it’s always better when employee and management work together towards common goals. Pay for performance, well look around at most private industry that is not union and you can see where that goes, if the boss "likes" you your chances are much better at advancement. I thought the whole purpose of Civil Service was to take the "liking" part out of the equation. I just hope these same rules apply to members of Congress and the Senate as well as the Executive branch of government.