Comment Number: OL-10507663
Received: 3/14/2005 1:46:09 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:

Here are 4 separate comments: 1. Since the NSPS proposal of February 2005 proposes to merge conduct (including misconduct issues) into performance ratings, the right to have a union official present should be extended to include performance meetings between employees and their supervisors. In particular, this right should be applied when an employee’s rating is in danger of being lowered from his previous rating, or when the employee’s rating is in danger of being less than the average or mode rating of his working group. 2. The NSPS proposal of February 2005 says that supervisors only need to make employees aware of their performance expectations, as well as their changing expectations. The NSPS proposal does not say how employees will be “made aware”. This lack of detail on how employees will be made aware is unacceptable. Supervisory expectations should be provided clearly, in a written and signed memorandum, and should be prioritized, as appropriate. In an age where one receives dozens of emails per day, mixed with tasks, action items, and other assignments via email, simply saying the employee will be “made aware” is inadequate. During a performance review, I had a supervisor mention my slowness to respond to a relatively insignificant email. Not only had the particular email been buried in hundreds of email that I received during a two week absence from the office, but the subject was ultra low in priority and not even part of my regular duties. 3. The NSPS proposal of February 2005 says that it preserves collective bargaining for employees yet at the same time gives management the right to essentially opt out of collective bargaining whenever they feel like it. The only recourse for unions is to appeal to a management (DoD) appointed board of political cronies. The end result, and likely true agenda of NSPS creators, is to kill unions by a slow drowning death. 4. The NSPS proposal of Feburary 2005 is too extreme a change in too short a time for such a large and diverse workforce as DoD. Employees working in the bureaucracy of the system know this is true. Furthermore, the untested ideas NSPS intends to deploy are too radical. It will create chaos where there was previously clarity, especially in labor relations. This type of extremism will be followed by a backlash, after subsequent elections and political changes, thus creating more instability overall within DoD. How is all of this good for national security? How it is even related to national security?