| Comment Number: | OL-10508004 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 4:23:45 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:
CLASSIFICATION (Subpart B) 9901.201 to .231 Managers & Personnel (HR) were/are the ones who have made the job descriptions complex and rigid. Usually it was done to help save certain employee’s from being affected from RIFs. Union’s have never been afforded the opportunity to negotiate classifications. Management does not need this in order to have flexibility. They have the right to assign work and detail employees to different functions. You are going to end up with a generalized workforce and no one will be a specialist in anything. You are not providing any details about “pay banding.” I cannot make any informed comments when you are leaving me in the dark as to your proposal. It should be equal pay for equal work, not who is the manager’s favorite employee. This will only going to cause hate and discontent within the workforce. You can simplify job descriptions without NSPS. This could cause an involuntary demotions depending on how the pay bands are set up. This could take me from the top of my current grade to a lower position in the established career group, which would cause an adverse effect on my pay. With the broad range of duties, I will not know what is really expected of me. I could be performing one set of duties one week and who knows what I’ll be doing the following week. I have not seen nor read any rationale from DoD of why you need these changes. I cannot understand how my classification or pay has affected national security. I expect that when this is all said and done, everyone will have a job description that states “deployment.” This is only an attempt to expand my duties and responsibilities without any extra pay. Training would be a major part to change the classification. I cannot receive any training now. It’s either because of a lack of funds or time. Pay & Pay Administration & Performance Management (Subpart C) 9901.301 to .373 (Subpart D) 9901.401 to .409 Our pay has always been based on our performance. If my performance is not up to expectations, step increases could always be held back. Management has always had the option of not promoting me if I was not doing what was expected of me. This is going to have a huge affect on my retirement. If I’m not going to receive any more raises, why should I care or keep working for DOD? Management has always been able to reward high performers with a monetary award, time off award, QSI, etc. We don’t need NSPS for this! You are not providing any details concerning this so it is difficult to comment when I am not sure what you are proposing. Teamwork will go out the window because this will pit one employee against the other. This will only hurt the mission at a time when the soldiers need us the most. Instead of everyone helping one another, they will do everything possible to make everyone else look bad. There will only be so much money to go around that will be placed into the pay pool. The end result could be that even the high performers will not be compensated. Nobody is going to want to work for DoD because I expect to be treated like a human being and not some sort of robot. You will see mass retirements when this is implemented. We will have a two-tier pay system – maybe even 3 or 4 tiers. I can foresee where a new employee will be paid even more than I am with my ___ years of federal employment. This will not be of any benefit to the mission, employees, morale, or teamwork. There is no guarantee that I will not lose pay as a result of conversion to NSPS. I don’t receive my performance appraisal on time now. The proposed regulation does not make it clear to ensure that I will get appraisals on time and receive a pay increase if my appraisal is at least acceptable. There are no assurances that pay pools administered at the Department of the Army level (if that is where they will be administered from) will ensure monies at the local level. It would be unfair to withhold a pay grade or step increase from employees for a situation they have control over. We already have a multi-level rating system. With the 360 appraisal system that at least allows input from more than one individual. My ratings already add years to my seniority during a RIF. Performance should never be placed above seniority. I am a dedicated employee, and my rights should not be held back because of favoritism. We need to be able to grieve/arbitrate our ratings if they are not fair. The system is too subjective to allow for one persons opinion of someone to have that great of an impact on someone’s livelihood. I can be the best employee in my agency; yet, the manager can rate me on my behavior/attitude. What does that have to do with anything if I’m doing my job? I could have a bad attitude yet I can still do great work. Our work is much more complicated than the private sector, so our pay should not be based on the market value of the work. We should continue to receive our cost of living increases so the across-the-board increases should not be taken away. We should be able to know what’s expected of us. We are assigned a position and we should not have to change on a whim. Premium pay should not be tampered with. Now that we are at war, workload has never been higher. If this is changed, I will not work the extra time that is needed to perform the work. This is needed in order to make deliveries/schedules for the customers. Our customers are the soldiers. I believe that DOD is trying to save money because of the war at my expenses once again. It seems that every time the government has problems with the budget, the federal employees are always the scapegoats. The only reason that demonstration projects might have worked at some installations was that DOD funded those installations to ensure the employees received bonuses and promotions. That is not what is being proposed here. If this goes into effect as it is being proposed, I will never again suggest to anyone that the government is a good place to work. With the ageing workforce, recruitment actions will be nearly impossible. DOD is already trying to hire employees as emergency essential and most of the individuals are turning the job offers down because they do not want to be deployed. If we had this proposal back in the 90’s when all the agencies were really hurting for work, I would not have received a pay raise for 10 years. My pay should not be based on how the organization performs. The basis for pay/pay administration are too subjective. My pay could change every year and I would not be able to plan my budget or life. If you take away premium pay, no one will work overtime and mission will not be met. You are not maximizing my opportunities for me and my Union to contribute to the accomplishments of the mission. Instead, you are proposing to eliminate them. This will do nothing to help with the credibility of the system. I will only make it worse. I can only imagine how much this concept will cost the taxpayer for this design and administration of it. The money would be better spent on equipping the soldiers. How much overhead is going to be created since nobody has figured out all the details of it? The General Schedule is transparent and objective. I do not see any reason for change. Seniority and years of service should have an affect on my pay. If the current system were always properly funded, we would not have any problems. Staffing and Employment & Workforce Shaping (Subpart E, 9901.501 to .516) (Subpart F, .6012 to .611) I agree the hiring process is slow and cumbersome but we do not need NSPS to figure out a solution to that problem. A year - long probationary period is more than enough time for anyone to endure. If a manager cannot figure out by then if they want to keep that individual or not, then the manager should be removed. This will go back to the days of hiring all the relatives. I disagree with the idea that if I get promoted to a different position that I will have to serve another probationary period. That does not give me much incentive to better myself. You are not providing any details of the changes so that I can make an intelligent comment. You also want to be able to hire non-citizens into DoD. I would think that the national security will be affected by that proposal. We could have new employees earning a higher salary than employees with 20 years. I did not come to work for the government in order to be deployed anywhere in the world, at a moment’s notice and for as long as you want to send me. Veteran’s preference is going to be retained but greatly reduced. If they can only compete within their competitive level, bump and retreat rights are basically gone. Competitive areas should remain as they are. If you narrow the areas that are to be affected, my rights to remain employed will be virtually eliminated. Performance ratings already affect my seniority. During a RIF, my ratings are added to my years of service. The appraisal system is already to subjective. My employment will be based solely on one person’s opinion of me. Seniority should always come before performance ratings. DoD wants to forget about all the years of dedicated service that I have performed. If I am unjustly separated during a RIF, I should be able to appeal to the MSPB. If I choose to relocate and PPP is not handled correctly, I should also be able to appeal that decision. Probationary periods should be the same for everyone, not set for each individual employee. Two of the biggest problems with the hiring process are: background security checks and the time it takes to obtain approvals by the chain of command. I have not read anywhere that these proposals will change anything to speed up the process. There will always be workload fluctuations. Our agency has been hiring a lot of term and temp employees which gives you the flexibilities needed for “rightsizing.” DoD does not seem to understand the differences between military and civilians. I did not hire in to be deployed. I, as a civilian, was hired to support the military. If you are going to remove the career-conditional status, there will be less opportunity for placement during RIFs. We will lose corporate knowledge as longer standing employees are separated. Adverse Actions Appeals (Subpart G., 9901.701 to .721) (Subpart H, 9901.801 to 810) DoD will be the prosecutor, judge, and jury without allowing a neutral third party review. The current system should remain in effect. If I am not performing at an acceptable level, my manager should make me aware of that fact. Once I am notified, I should be allowed an Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for 120 days. Then, if my performance does not improve, management would then have the right to propose an adverse action. I should never be disallowed to see or use my Union representative. Due to mission requirements, it could be delayed for a limited time period, but that should be the extent of it. You are very vague about the Mandatory Removal Offenses (MRO) that it makes this difficult to comment on. We already have the Table of Penalties which is used to decide the type and duration of punishment. The system should be that all employees are entitled to due process and fairness which this proposal will destroy. If the concern is that the system is too slow, we should look at making changes to the procedural process and not discard it completely. The time frame could be shortened. Mission requirements are very important, but the principles of “just cause” are equally important. The system is already in place so that management can take the necessary actions against a poor performer or misconduct. If managers are not doing their job with dealing with those employees, then the manager should be dealt with. If I am unjustly removed because of a RIF, I should have the right to appeal to an independent agency such as the MSPB. I could be targeted for removal and would not have any recourse. My only recourse for disciplinary actions will be either EEO or my Congressman. You are making it impossible for any DoD employee to have any type of justice at all. The proposal that MSPB or arbitrators can only mitigate a penalty if it is wholly without justification is totally unreasonable. Fraud, waste, and abuse will rum rampant in DoD because everyone will be too afraid to say anything. If we have any checks and balances now – they will totally disappear. I am not the enemy! I am providing a service to the warfighter (soldier) and would like to be able to concentrate on that. Instead of doing that, I will have to spend my time worrying about my job. This will reduce the burden of proof – standards – for management in adverse actions against any employee. Congress mandated the employees be treated fairly and afforded the protections of due processes, yet, your proposals all but eliminate that. I cannot ever remember when a decision from an arbitrator or the MSPB has ever jeopardized national security and defense. If these proposals are implemented “as is,” I will become a second-class citizen because all of my rights will be removed. Labor-Management Relations (Subpart I, 9901.901 to 929) A national level bargaining agreement might be good for some things, but there will always be local issues that need to be dealt with at each agency. One size does not fit all! The Union and the employees have always done what had to be accomplished to order to support the soldiers. I cannot ever remember a time when the Negotiated Agreement or the Union has been a hindrance. The concept of the National Security Labor Relations Board (NSLRB) is not going to be fair nor impartial. DoD will be the prosecutor, judge and jury. The Secretary of Defense will appoint three members to the panel, so I cannot ever foresee where they will rule against their boss. Unions should have the right to bargain, not to consultation. I will never feel safe again if you remove/lessen my Weingarten Rights. Managers will be able to say or do anything they want if I’m alone in the room with him/her. This has worked very well since 1978 and I do not see any reason why this needs to be changed. I should have advance notice of any changes to my working conditions. I have a family to care for and my life cannot be disrupted due to any whim that management might have. When management and the Union could not reach an agreement, they could settle it through an outside neutral third party, the FLRA. Now you are proposing that it would be settled through the NSLRB, which would rule in management’s favor every time. DoD is not following the intent of the law passed by Congress! If DoD wants/needs shorter time frames for bargaining that can be accomplished without NSPS. The Union has already waived some requirements in order to meet the mission. The Union has requested the use of local arbitrators in order to speed up the process, but management refuses. It would also lower the expense for both parties. DoD has not allowed the Unions to be an active participant in this process. These proposals are all DoD’s and none of it is input from the Unions. Union should be able to negotiate any matters concerning appropriate arrangements for affected employees. Unions should not lose the right to participate in formal discussions between bargaining unit employees and managers. If I am going to have an investigatory examination placed upon me, I want my Union representative there. If management is going to set and change conditions of employment, I want my Union allowed to negotiate any such changes. If my pay, including base and locality pay, and any annual increase is going to be changed, management and the Union should negotiate any proposed changes. Your proposals are unacceptable and contrary to law. DoD is not and should not be above the law.