| Comment Number: | OL-10508723 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 10:22:43 AM |
| 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:
The National Security Personnel System (NSPS), as outlined in the Federal Register, will seriously undermine the rights and safeguards of those currently in Government service. Why, for instance, are DOD employees now being lumped together under a plan that cites “national security” in its title? The idea that DOD workers pose some sort of national ‘threat’ is patently absurd and without foundation. The overwhelming majority of us are hard-working individuals whose sole aim is to further and proudly serve the best interests of each of our respective agencies. In what way do the originators of NSPS see us as security risks? Additionally, all managers, who will be given unlimited authority over their own workers, are also DOD employees. Are such individuals more ‘secure’ and therefore less of a ‘risk’ than the far larger number of non-managers? The new system indicates that only employees with the best ratings, regardless of seniority, will be given pay raises and related emoluments. Others will receive far less. What of someone in his 50’s or 60’s who in addition to regular duties must tend to old or sick family member(s) or has an ailment that might impinge on the - often arbitrary -standards and who, thus, may be unable to achieve 100% 'performance’ results? Are his 15, 20, 25 years or more of continuous service, one whose expertise has proven valuable to the organization in terms of knowledge gained, quality of output and successful interactive skills, to be tossed aside while another colleague, as much as 20 or 30 years his junior and perhaps absent any personal issues, amply rewarded for meeting his ‘numbers’ even though lacking an overview of skills and knowledge that only experience can provide? Is DOD seriously interested in creating a workforce of Nietzchean supermen who sedulously march in step to a supervisor’s demands? From over 20 years in DLA, I know it takes a varied- and variegated- workforce to effectively accomplish an agency’s goals. And I have seen how at my Center we have successfully supported our troops in peacetime and during periods of extended conflict: Operation Desert Storm, the Gulf War, Iraq and other areas requiring immediate attention. When President Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in 1955 (at age 65) and curtailed his activities during convalescence, he overcame that obstacle to serve a second term. In no way did he fail his duties as Chief Executive. No one then held him accountable to ‘standards’ or threaten a pay loss or dismissal if he did not achieve executive ‘goals.’ What must always be remembered is that we are dealing with human beings, not robots. Of even greater concern is the apparently limitless power to be ceded to managers who will have the capability to choose and select those to be recipients of pay increases, promotions and other rewards. Those whose contributions do not meet the ‘standards’ or are personally disliked by the manager (yes, this does occur) will receive no pay raise (not even a minimal one) and could, at someone’s whim, be RIF’d or terminated. From personal experience I have borne the brunt of a few ill-chosen, vindictive and myopic managers whose unprofessional and abusive demeanor negatively impacted not only me but other co-workers as well. Fortunately, we have avenues of redress which, while not perfect, serve to defuse difficult work environments. That will vanish if NSPS is brought into play. The vital question is this: Who judges the judges? The entire NSPS plan is grievously flawed: it will lead to an erosion of morale and a diminution of the DOD workforce. It does not answer how such a plan will solve this nation’s security issues. I therefore urge you to oppose the NSPS in its entirety. Those who fail to do so will be remembered at election time.