| Comment Number: | OL-10507702 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 2:05:37 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:
In reviewing the proposed regulations, my greatest concern is that even more power will be granted to the management and the leadership of agencies, to the detriment of the workers. I have worked in a DOD agency for a number of years, and have observed the merits (i.e. rewards) of being a yes man. Corporate agendas generally take precedence over “what is right”, and those who question corporate agendas are routinely passed over when it comes to pay increases and promotions. Similarly, my agency routinely discriminates against white males and older white males when it comes to pay and promotions. Selections are routinely based on age, race, gender, and who looks the flashiest in a short interview, rather than on merit. I was recently a member of a selection panel where the Chairman announced who he had “pre-selected” before the panel even began to review applicants’ qualifications. Of course, since the panel consisted of the Chairman’s direct reports, the “pre-selectee” got the job. Besides promotion opportunities, management also tightly controls training—select individuals and groups receive abundant training (some of it unnecessary for the individual(s) to perform his/her duties), while others receive none. Travel for training and to attend conferences is often unfairly administered. Over the years, I have seen negligible accountability on the part of agency leaders. If the proposed rules are intended to be a major change in the way we do business (i.e. provide a greater focus on performance and merit, and allow greater opportunities for high achievers), the system will continue to be undermined by the “good ole boy” network unless there is greater attention paid to fairness to the workers and accountability of managers. An increased emphasis on EIG (or similar) oversight would be a good start. I also believe that it is time to pay greater attention to modernization of regional pay practices. For example, the use of COLA in some regions such as Alaska and Hawaii is a holdover from an old era. Beginning this year, DOD (and other Federal) workers in these areas will begin to see pay cuts in COLA on an annual basis, regardless of job performance. However, workers in the Continental U.S. receive locality pay, and their overall pay will most likely continue to escalate. This pay inequity will hinder DOD’s ability to equitably deploy its workforce. I recommend that DOD take this opportunity to scrap the COLA concept and develop a standardized pay strategy.