| Comment Number: | OL-10508265 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 11:32:51 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 general: This nation was founded on checks and balances and you propose to do away with that history. Another thing; too many issuances to come at a later date that define the specifics of what is proposed in this FR. The Case for Action: makes very little sense to me with respect to the Corps of Engineers. We have a civil mission to design, oversee construction, and maintain our locks, dams, and lakes. Ours also has a military mission in that we design and oversee construction of buildings for military bases. We have a civil disaster mission also in that we can volunteer for emergency disaster duty for such things as tornados, earthquakes, etc. We did not enlist in the military; however, I commend those who have and do; but we did not. The possibility of deployment anywhere at anytime is ridiculous. We are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, etc.; and there is much work to be done here (and that is what we have chosen). Setting and Adjusting rate Ranges: Since overall budgetary constraints is a factor with respect to getting raises; the possibility of spending too much on the war in Iraq, Afganistan, etc., could potentially keep employees from getting any kind of raise. Also, DoD can determine when those raises, if any, are adjusted--so it is possible that employees would not get an annual raise; i.e. DoD could extend the adjustment out to 1 1/2 years, etc.). Performance-Based Pay: Any pay increase should only be a factor of individual performance. Not the team's performance, else you pit employees against one another. Performance Payout: It should be defined and not left up to managers to determine an increase in base pay or a bonus. Only base pay counts towards overall retirement. Control points seem to be another way that DoD can limit how much of an increase in pay employees can get. Premium Pay: DoD needs to find a way to insure employees are paid premium pay for hours over 40 in a week; that employees continue to be compensated for Sunday and Holiday work; hazardous duty pay; and for working shifts other than 1st as they now are; otherwise employees will be abused. Performance and Behavior: DoD seems now to wish to tell us how we should act. This is ridiculous. What does behavior have to do with performance. Even if it did; if the performance is less than satisfactory that can be dealt with under the present system. And if the conduct is such, that can be dealt with through disciplinary action as it is now. Seems like you want a bunch of robots. Workforce Shaping: Longevity should be given it's due; employees who have given years (decades) of service to the organization, should not be thrown out on the street. RIF requlations should be left alone. Performance Ratings have been a long-standing problem where there is apparently not enough money to go around, so the pets and pals reap most of the rewards. Under a RIF, this matters greatly. Suspect many employees will seek a change to their ratings of record than now do. Adverse Action Procedures: If DoD proposes a shorter advance notice and reply period; then managers should provide all information they have used to make their determination; instead of requiring employees to request it. Appeals to MSPB: Discovery should not be limited by such factors as unreasonably cumulative or can be secured from some other source, less burdensome or less expensive. The information determined to be necessary to prove a case is the overriding factor in this regard (cost and time become irrelevant). Attorney Fees: To allow the Department to not pay attorney's fees to a prevailing party because of facts not known to management when the action was taken is unbelievable. This probably happens 90% of the time. So let me get this straight--the agency fires an employee--the employee wins the case--but because of facts the agency doesn't have at the time of it's decision--the employee has to pay the attorney.