| Comment Number: | OL-10507545 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 12:17:56 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:
The NSPS language enacting the new environment focuses primarily on flexibility at the expense of the civilian personnel as noted by the extensive/repetitive use of this word. The grievance process that is in place today evolved in response to the management/personnel action practices that exist today. I do not see where the NSPS takes any actions to penalize or control/restrict or change these practices. The NSPS does not even acknowledge that these practices are prevelant within todays personnel system. It only works to empower the ability to execute these practices. In fact, it appears to empower far worse abuse than is currently enacted today. The current grievance process provides a critical check and balance to protect the rights of the employees. A less empowered review board as noted in the NSPS language provides little legal protection and enables management to take actions with significantly reduced concern about retribution or remedy due to the employee grievances. The language appears to have been written by military leaders instead of civilian leaders. Military leaders have long voiced the discontent with the fact that civilians can and do say no. It has been my experience that this has been a critical check and balance that has prevented statutorally illegal actions from being directed by military leaders. By creating an environment that emphasized flexibility and military absoluteness in command; we will find that civilian employees are less willing to stand-up to military leaders when they know what they are being commanded to do is wrong. Many military leaders do this unknowingly out of ignorance for the statutes in a particular arena. The civilian personnel provide a strength through the retention of critical core knowledge and continuity to the military leaders. NSPS threatens to weaken this strength by reducing the civilian workers ability to stand firm on an issue because they fear retribution. Much has been published about the flexibiltiy of the NSPS to direct civilian personnel to mobilize and deploy to austere locations in harms way. I see no indication of protection being provided to these employees or their families if they become injured or disabled. I am not about to pay for the additional health insurance premiums that will most certainly result from the additional risk factor that this presents to the insurance companies. In addition, I am not about to deploy without disability coverage. Workmans compensation or social security etc are unacceptable answers to this issue. I will not put my families financial well being at risk. If we are to be treated as military personnel then we should be provided with comparable health benefits, exchange usage rights, disability, etc. Civilian personnel must retain the right to refuse deployment without retribution, penalty, adverse action, adverse performance ratings, furlough, or termination. NSPS is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The current system may not be perfect but it should have been tailored rather than being thrown out. The clean sheet of paper approach to drafting NSPS provided an avenue for political agendas and abuse to the rights and protection of a sector of US citizens that have served and continue to serve their country with honor and valor. We must remember this commitment to country as we acknowledge the repeated cases of civilian personnel that leave government service with 50+ years of service.