Comment Number: OL-10507795
Received: 3/14/2005 3:13:54 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:

Docket number (NSPS 2005-001) or RIN 3206-AK76/0790-AH82 Pay and Pay Administration. Subpart C: “DoD will determine the rate range adjustments and local market supplements considering mission requirements, labor market conditions, availability of funds…." This is a leap of faith. Traditionally, civilian pay is a discretionary account controlled by an installation commander and therefore may be used by the commander for purchase of equipment and other goods, rather than to fill a needed vacancy. DoD needs to take control at this opportune time to establish a civilian pay account, comparable to the military pay account, that cannot be used for anything other than civilian pay, bonuses and awards. If a commander overspends his/her discretionary funds or otherwise shortchanges the funding for civilian pay and awards, are civilians penalized by being riffed due to lack of pay dollars? How is the commander held accountable? What is changing or being addressed by NSPS that assumes funds will be available to adequately manage, recruit and retain high performing employees when that has not been the case to date? Staffing and Employment – Subpart E “applicants from the local commuting area and other targeted sources may be considered first.” This needs further description. This regulation addresses OSD's attempt to encourage people to be mobile…and management has the right to reassign….but local people could be considered first. This statement seems a contradiction of the need for mobility - the development of new experiences needed to enhance performance. What is the force behind this recommendation? Is this to discourage pcs-eligibles from applying, thereby saving the government funds? Does this put the best qualified person in the position - or the cheapest? Decide what is intended through this new regulation - a flexible, agile, and high performing workforce? Or the cheapest labor pool government can buy? Who/what are the other targeted sources. Is this an affirmative action move or an effort to seek specific skills? Further definition is needed. Work force shaping & Pay for Performance – somehow there has to be an outlet, at least initially, to enable lower rated employees with 28 years of service (for example), an option of retirement. How would these folks compete on the outside at age 60 (for example), and how would they support their families? It may seem that this is not our, OSD's or management's problem, but it is. For 50 years, managers have not performed their most important function, ensuring acceptable performance from their employees. Now, all of a sudden, the burden of those 50 years is on the employees who've been allowed to slide through the system with out redress. I agree with the elimination of the PIP - but also feel the need to transition without discarding older employees based on management's sudden ability to use new authorities without having to do their jobs (as they needed to do in the past to remove a poor performer). Labor Management Relations – Subpart I…Para 10: “Conditions of Employment" – include mandatory mobility…enable senior leadership to make mission-related decisions as to who should fill vacancies based on competencies available in the workforce rather than based on the best qualified person who applied. Create an inventory of employee competencies to provide management with valuable information upon which decisions should be made: whether to recruit locally, hire from within, or select externally because the services do not have the competencies needed to perform the job. Para 13: Duty to bargain and consult: "management has no obligation to bargain over changes to conditions of employment unless the change is foreseeable, substantial and significant". Since mandatory mobility is all three…include this in the blanket authority for management.