| Comment Number: | OL-10507772 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 2:57:06 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:
This is a definite slap in the face to we civil servants who have worked so hard to support the troops we are here for. The DoD is changing from a culture of civil servants to a corporate culture; which is not what the government is; it is an entity unique to itself. It smacks of the "good old boy" system which has taken decades to minimize. Now instead of encouraging people to be creative by bringing ideas of a better way to do things, everyone is going to be wanting to do what "management" wants for fear of reprisal. The new system does not allow for any recourse for employee rights. Even our managers here have expressed dislike for the system because they have the ability to control an employee's income. The system is too subjective. It focuses on an employee's "team" spirit rather than work capabilities and productivity. With the limited grievance avenues that employees will have and with how the system will render the unions virtually powerless, I am concerned about what rights an individual may have in an EEO noncompliance action. Who will represent these individuals? Surely it is not going to win any supervisor's favor if the employee has to do all the argumentation. Why is the new system beginning in the middle of a calendar year and fiscal year also? We just learned of this about three weeks ago and we are supposed to be under the new system by July 1. Seems like just another sneaky DoD action by not giving the people time to react. THE WHOLE SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE SCRAPPED AND LET US CIVIL SERVANTS SERVE AND NOT POLITIC. As an aside, the A76 is one of the most costly "cost savings" programs ever implemented. I recently was in an organization undergoing an A76 study and if all the time could be accounted for in lost productivity while preparing for the study, there is no way that "outsourcing" can be a savings. In addition, budget people and contract administrative people are dedicated pretty much strictly to administering the large contracts to ensure compliance on both the government's and contractor's sides, no matter bidder should win. If a contractor should win, every action must be processed with a modification, which costs thousands of dollars just to process by the time all the channels and steps are executed much less adding the cost of the actual project. I have no idea how many times we had to "reprocess" our workload stats, etc, because someone else wanted to look at the picture from a different viewpoint. If every thing had to be accounted for, A76 would almost always not be more cost effective. However, the bottom line may look good on paper; it is not an accurate accounting. The angle is that the taxpayer is saved money. That is assinine; the money is just coming out of a different pot. The taxpayers are still funding the project whether privatized or kept "in house".