Comment Number: OL-10508032
Received: 3/14/2005 5:01:13 PM
Subject: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment
Title: National Security Personnel System
CFR Citation: 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901
Attachment: NSPS1.doc Download Adobe Reader

Comments:

I'm writing to express my grave concerns about changes to work rules in DoD as proposed per regulations, known as the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), printed in the Federal Register on February 14, 2005. This message will be sent to both DoD and my representatives in Congress. Having worked for DoD for a number of years, I'm concerned because these proposed rules are very vague. No details are provided, but yet we're supposed to make comments. Why not lay-out everything first and let the affected folks comment. It seems that the details have been worked out but nobody wants to bring it out. At any rate here are some of my comments: 1. Classification - Subpart B, page 7558-7559 of proposed rules: Define what are the career groups, especially for the Engineering and Scientific Career Group. Does the Engineering career group include software engineers who are in the IT sector? How about cost engineers who don’t have a series of their own because of antiquated OPM/Federal Govt civil service classification? Who will decide? How about Program Managers (340 series) who are actually engineers in the 800 series but had to be moved to the 340 series for the sake of being called Program or Project Managers? What is the salary differential between and engineer working as a program manager or project manager (series 340) overseeing a project or program involving engineers and architects (800 series)? The specific career program number in the Engineering and Scientific group has to be vetted and published before this is finalized. 2. Pay and Pay Administration – Sub part C; page 7559: For professional employees, say doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, etc who are have foreign language skills, would that be valued and is there a premium or extra pay for these language skills? Why and why not? In addition, will the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) continue to be paid for federal employees in Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) like places in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and other US territories/possessions? How will this be factored into the pay band, etc? Give details. 3. Sub Part C; page 7560-7561; - Will DoD match private sector pay in the NSPS? If funds are not available, where would the money come from to pay for bonuses or performance awards? How will DoD obtain funds for pay adjustments? We already have a pool system, but we have no say….only upper management controls and as you know, it is political on how these awards are made. How do we know that the bonuses are given to the right and deserving people? 4. Sub Part C; page 7560-7561 “Friend of the Supervisor” Pay System - With the new patronage pay system, which DoD calls “pay for performance,” the amount of a worker's salary will depend almost completely on the personal judgment of his or her manager. This system will force workers to compete with one another for pay raises, which will destroy teamwork, increase conflict among employees, and reward short-term outcomes. There is no guarantee that even the best workers will receive a pay raise or that the pay offered will be fair or competitive. This system will create a situation in which workers are in conflict with one another and afraid to speak out about harassment, violations of the law, and workplace safety problems. Furthermore, there will be no impartial appeal system to assure that everyone is treated fairly. 5. Sub Part C; page 7560-7561- Annual Pay Raises -Under the General Schedule and FWS, employee pay was clear. It was funded by Congress and could not be taken away. However, NSPS will take away this certainty. Salaries and bonuses are funded by DoD. In the past – as recently as just last year – DoD did not fund its awards program. Given the agency’s miserable record on this issue, how can employees feel confident that our salaries and bonuses will be funded in the future? 6. Sub Part C; page 7560-7561; - The current system, allows a CONUS employee to “retain pay” while accepting an overseas (OCONUS) job. What will happen to this? Will this go away? 7. Sub Part C; page 7560-7561; - If an employee goes overseas, will he/she have return rights to his/her old job? Current system is discriminatory --- if CONUS employees goes overseas, including Hawaii and Alaska, they have return rights back to their old job. But if you’re duty station is in Hawaii or Alaska and gets a job in CONUS, you don’t have return rights back to the Hawaii and Alaska. This is blatantly unfair! Will this be changed in the NSPS….this should be made fair. 8. Will NSPS abolish the 5-yr overseas rule that DoD implemented after WWII? A lot of Army and Air Force commands overseas are forcing their employees to go home when 5 years is up? Will this change? Why and why not? Private sector companies will not automatically rotate employees because of any 5-yr rule! This needs to be addressed also. 9. Workforce Shaping – Subpart F, page 7564: RIF rules have to be clearly identified since NSPS says there is no distinction between closely related levels of work. What are the chances that a lower ranked employee in the retention register with longer service gets to stay on the job versus a higher rated employee in the retention register with less number of years be kicked out of work during a RIF/downsizing? The present system lets you do this because it happened to me. I was a higher ranked employee on the retention register based on appraisals, but the lower ranked employee was retained/justified because of seniority by 18 months, and other official gimmicks...no sense having a retention register if current regulations are followed. How are the NSPS retention registers to be established ? 10. Nowadays, civilian employees are required to sign a mobility agreement that commanders may use to send you anywhere at any time even combat areas without any recourse, even subject to anthrax injection that FDA has not found safe. Will this continue to happen? Civilians sign up for civilian work not military work, so it should be looked from that perspective. Mobility agreements should be only required for the uniformed services. Military commanders should not have a direct say on deployment orders/mobility movements of civil service employees, unless that civilian has volunteered. I am proud to serve my country but I am also responsible for caring for my family and my personal obligations at home. We signed up for a civilian job. We are fighting for democracy abroad. But the regulations need to be clarified before finalized into law. Furthermore, NSPS will divert the attention of defense workers from the soldiers’ welfare to protecting themselves from abuse on the job. I urge you to force DoD to rethink this proposal. We need work rules that preserve fairness, serve the American people, and respect the rights of civilian Defense Department workers.