| Comment Number: | OL-10509280 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 2:14:04 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:
AS A 30 YEAR U.S. GOVT. FEDERAL SERVICE AND U.S ARMY VETERAN (VIETNAM ERA ), I AM VERY VERY CONCERNED WITH THIS NEW PERSONNEL SYSTEM. PLEASE REVIEW AND EVALUATE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Myths and Facts (and now the rest of the story) GENERAL MYTH NSPS does nothing to help with national security. FACT Not true. The mission of DoD is national security, and civilians play a vital role in supporting that mission. NSPS provides the Department the tools necessary to recruit, retain, and manage the civilian workforce to accomplish our critical mission in a more effective and efficient manner. NSPS will also provide flexibilities so we can reduce our reliance on the military to perform jobs that civilians can and should perform, freeing up the military to perform its war fighting duties. NSPS is a mission-driven, performance-based system that motivates, recognizes, and rewards excellence, which will result in an overall improvement to mission effectiveness, and enhanced national security. This is critical in the global war on terrorism. The DoD civilian workforce has been instrumental in the success of our military while under the current management system. There have never been any reported cases of where the current management system caused a failure or compromised the mission of our Armed Forces. The only change over time has been the individuals in charge. IF they are unable to effectively manage the resources at hand maybe THEY need to be changed, not the entire management system??? Also, is DoD saying that for over 50 years we have not been mission-driven, performance based and motivated, recognized and rewarded for excellence? Finally, in what respect (specifics please!) will national security be enhanced? As far as freeing up the military to perform war fighting duties, soldiers have been working in close proximity to civilians for years…all the way back to the world war era. The interaction between civilian and military gives both a perspective that enhances job performance and appreciation for what each does. At one time this was considered a good thing. Is it now a bad thing? If this issue is a shortage of soldiers, the U.S. Government has the right to institute a nation-wide draft to fill military requirements. I do not believe that separating civilian and military is the best approach. MYTH Under NSPS, DoD civilians can be assigned anywhere in the world, even to a war zone, with little or no notice. FACT Currently DoD has the authority to reassign employees, including reassignment to overseas locations, when necessary to support the mission. We do this under today’s system. This authority is unaffected by NSPS. One of the goals of NSPS is to reduce its reliance on military to perform jobs that could be performed by civilians. If this were true, then why even address the matter in the proposed regulation at all. Anything not modified by this chapter would remain as is in the current law. There are currently limitations as to who can be deployed and the agency would have to bargain with the Unions if agencies began adding to the conditions of employment. BENEFITS MYTH I will lose my benefits under NSPS. FACT NSPS will not affect rules governing retirement benefits or eligibility, health and life insurance, leave, attendance, and other similar benefits. MYTH NSPS eliminates veterans’ preference for reduction in force (RIF) and hiring. FACT NSPS preserves veterans’ preference. DoD is committed to the principles of veterans’ preference; under NSPS, veterans continue to receive preference for both hiring and RIF. Let me clarify this a little. It is true that in developing a RIF retention list, that Veterans Preference is still a consideration. However, with the proposed changes to how competitive areas are defined, veterans preference can be severely, if not totally, wiped out. With the new NSPS, traditional bump and retreat rights can be limited to a specific organization, funding line, etc… Even with veteran preference, you cannot displace someone outside of this narrowly defined group, even though they may be in your same series/function and have no vets preference at all. DoD is not being completely honest in this matter. MYTH Seniority and veterans’ preference will no longer count in the event of a reduction in force (RIF). FACT Not true. Veterans’ preference eligibles are still retained over employees without veterans’ preference in RIF. Also, seniority continues to be a factor in RIF. However, because NSPS is a performance-based system, the proposed regulations give greater weight to performance in RIF retention by placing performance ahead of length of service. Employees competing for retention under RIF who have the same performance ratings will be retained based on length of service. See question above…. MYTH I will lose my job security and there will be layoffs. FACT No jobs will be eliminated because of NSPS. In fact, under NSPS there may be more opportunities for civilians as military positions are converted to civilian. By easing the administrative burden routinely required by the current system, managers will turn to civilians first when assigning vital tasks. I agree, NSPS will not eliminate jobs. It will speed up the ability to eliminate jobs. Under the proposed management rights, management has the right to make determinations in the matter of, among other things, contracting out. Couple that with the less intrusive RIF capabilities that agencies will have and it becomes apparent that transitioning jobs from the government to the private sector becomes much easier. I don’t feel comforted by this thought. PAY MYTH I will lose pay under NSPS and I won’t get credit for the time I’ve already spent waiting for my next within grade increase. FACT Employees will not lose pay upon conversion to NSPS. Employees will be converted into NSPS at their current salary. In many cases, employees will receive a salary increase equal to the amount they have earned towards their next within grade increase (this is known as the “WGI buy-in”). Correction! Any “buy-in” will be at the sole, exclusive discretion of the Secretary. It may happen, then again, it may not! MYTH There will be no locality pay under NSPS. FACT The proposed NSPS pay system includes a locality-based component of pay called a “local market supplement” that is paid in addition to an employee’s basic pay. The local market supplement will be based on market conditions related to geographical and occupational factors, and may differ from one occupation to another in a given locality area. Employees will be entitled to increases to the local market supplement, unless they are performing at an unacceptable level. Correction! Locality adjustments will be determined at the Secretary’s sole and exclusive discretion, based upon various factors to include “available funds”. If the Secretary determines that the money can be better spent in supporting the mission of the Department, funds may not be available for locality adjustments. The Secretary also will determine when and if a locality adjustment will be applied. Also, any such adjustments are subject to the rating you receive by your management. Your rating is not subject to be grieved under any negotiated grievance procedure. It may be challenged by a process yet to be determined! MYTH NSPS is just a way to freeze the pay of DoD civilians, since we’re no longer entitled to the automatic January pay increase or within-grade increases. FACT The annual January pay increase, as we know it now, will change. The proposed pay rules provide for periodic “rate range” adjustments, to adjust the minimum and/or maximum rate of a pay band. When a minimum rate of a pay band is adjusted upward, employees will receive an equivalent increase. There are no “steps,” similar to the GS system, in a pay banding system. Instead, pay increases and/or performance bonuses are based primarily on your performance rating. Unacceptable performers are not eligible for pay increases under the proposed system. Consider this…the Department of Defense currently has not demonstrated a truly fair and effective performance rating system. Add to that the fact that now personal conduct, a purely subjective measurement, will be added to your performance indicators and you have a system that is doomed to fail. Its success will be in the fact that the ratings will not be subject to a negotiated grievance process and that the pay out cannot be challenged at all. Read it for yourself! MYTH Under NSPS, funds for salaries and bonuses will no longer be certain. FACT DoD is committed to ensuring civilian compensation is protected. In fact, the law requires that the aggregate amount of money allocated for civilian compensation for organizations under NSPS cannot be less than the amount that would have been allocated under the existing system. Under NSPS, the overall amount of money that would have been used for the annual January pay adjustment, within grade increases, quality step increases, and similar payments, will be used for civilian pay, and those funds will be protected. However, the proposed NSPS pay system will distribute those funds based primarily on performance OK! Let’s look at this closely. “the aggregate amount of money allocated for ….cannot be less that the amount allocated under the current system”. What this is saying is that there is a fixed pot of money for pay and that the overall pot will be the same under NSPS as would be if we were to have remained under the current system. Now, utilizing basic math, if someone gets significantly more money under NSPS, that means it would have to be taken from someone else. Sound good?? Further, since DoD wants to be salary competitive with private industry for the young college grads, if they get larger salaries as an incentive to join civil service, that means that the money must be taken from someplace else…our former WIGIs or COLAs! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that with fixed resources, some gotta win some gotta loose! Watch out for the office pet who is trying to make you look bad for his/her benefit! Good bye to team work! MYTH My supervisor will not be prepared and equipped to fairly and objectively rate my performance, and will not be held accountable for exercising his responsibility under NSPS. FACT Supervisors and managers will have an important role in determining performance-based pay increases. The flexibilities proposed in the NSPS regulations bring with them an increased need for accountability. This includes employee accountability for performance, as well as supervisory and managerial accountability for the proper exercise of the authorities of NSPS. Extensive training will be given to supervisors and managers, both military and civilian. Training will focus on improving skills needed for effective performance management: setting clear expectations; communicating with employees; and linking individual expectations to the goals and objectives of the organization. Supervisors and managers will be held accountable for how effectively they use the tools provided by NSPS. They will also be subject to the pay and performance provisions of the system, and their pay will be affected by how well they perform their duties as supervisors and managers. WHAT! More training!!! When do we have time for more training, what with all the classes we are having to take to get Acquisition Certified, become familiar with the new Wholesale Logistics Modernization Program (WLMP), ethics, prevention of sexual harassment, threatcon, IT security, etc…? Oh by the way, the work won’t stop! Oh by the way, no monies have been allocated for this supposed training. We were comprehensively “trained” on the TAPEs process and just look how well it reflects your worth! LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS MYTH Unions have had no involvement in developing NSPS. FACT The proposed NSPS regulations are the product of a broad-based, collaborative effort across the Department that began in 2004. This included a number of meetings with employee representatives involving extensive and fruitful discussions on potential options for the design of the system. In several areas, the proposed regulations reflect the interests and concerns that were voiced during those consultation sessions. We also held numerous focus groups and town hall meetings, many of which included local union involvement, to gather input and feedback on the system design. Now that we have published our proposed regulations, the next step in this process is to gather comments and recommendations on the proposed regulations, and engage in more discussions and dialogue with employee representatives as called for in the law authorizing NSPS. Now for the rest of the story! True, the Dept. did meet with the Unions as stated, but meaningful dialogue did not occur. We met, they checked off block on the “things to do” list and then they moved on. As for those “focus” groups, I cannot comment other than to say that I believe it was just another notch on the list of things to complete. No Union or employee focus group would ever have concurred with the language in this proposal (i.e. giving the Sec. Sole, exclusive, and un-reviewable powers, mandatory removal offenses, loss of COLAs, no employee rep on pay panels, etc…). The Dept. is just going through the motions without any real intent to include stakeholder concerns or recommendations. MYTH NSPS will do away with bargaining units and employee unions. FACT Not true. The implementation of the NSPS labor relations system will not eliminate unions or bargaining units. Employees will still be able to be represented by labor organizations and to bargain collectively. The proposed rules enable the Department to act expeditiously in carrying out its mission by limiting the situations that are subject to bargaining, and speeding up the bargaining process. True, the Union will not be eliminated, but management no will no longer have to interact on the same scale as today. The major effects will be in the area of impact bargaining on changes to working conditions and loss of independent 3rd party review for grievances and adverse actions. Also, by adding personal conduct to performance ratings, the Dept is hoping to take the wind out of Union officials who take aggressive action against agencies when employee rights are violated. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS MYTH Employees will lose their fundamental rights to grieve or appeal unfair decisions or adverse actions. FACT NSPS does not change critical employee rights such as merit systems principles, due process, whistleblower protections, and protection against prohibited discrimination and personnel practices. There will continue to be avenues for employees to seek redress. For bargaining unit employees, negotiated grievance procedures will remain part of the process, and other employees will continue to have access to administrative grievance procedures, as well as formal appeals processes for adverse actions. For the real FACTS on this, contact the Union office. The above issue is more complex and the Dept. “Fact” is once again, far from the “rest of the story” answer. Suffice to say that without independent 3rd party review and with the Secretary able to override MSPB and the FLRA, the procedure for grievances is still in place, but not on a level playing field. MYTH Under NSPS, there is no process for employees to challenge their performance rating. FACT DoD is developing a process that will allow employees to request reconsideration of their rating to a higher authority. This process will apply to all employees under NSPS. Under current law, employees in the same organization are often subject to different procedures and avenues when challenging performance ratings. This sometimes results in inconsistent decisions. Because of the importance of the performance rating process and its impact on pay, DoD will ensure that every employee has the same opportunity to seek appropriate redress. See previous section…. MYTH Under NSPS, there is no due process for employees affected by an adverse action. FACT Not true. The proposed regulations preserve due process rights for employees who are subject to an adverse action (e.g., removal, suspension of more than 14 days, reduction in pay or pay band level). In all such cases, employees continue to have the right to notice of proposed action, the right to reply, the right to representation, and the right to appeal that action. The rule changes proposed in the regulations seek to streamline this process so that workplace issues are resolved quickly, while ensuring due process, recognizing the need for workplace accountability, and providing efficient tools for dealing with performance and conduct issues. See previous section… MYTH The proposed appeal system is not an impartial process. FACT Under NSPS, employees retain the right to appeal to a third party in adverse action cases. The proposed regulations retain Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) administrative judges as the initial adjudicators of employee appeals of adverse actions. Although the proposed regulations provide for a Departmental review of those initial administrative judge decisions, employees retain the right to appeal to the full MSPB to review a final Department decision. See previous section… (after the last sentence, you must note that the Secretary has the authority to override the full board!) Final Note: The Dept. knows that most employees are not versed in labor law. As such, the language they use in this broad enabling regulation will not be fully understood by the affected parties. The same can be said for the “focus group” meetings with employees who are not in the labor relations business. Throughout this document, the Dept. is being elusive and not totally honest. AFGE Local 1858 offered to hold public debate/discussions with Dept. personnel and that offer was never acknowledged. The DoD will not discuss this matter publicly because they know it will never be able to stand up in the light of day. It was created behind closed doors by Dept. personnel who signed non-disclosure agreements and did not allow for employee representatives to be a part of the process. The Dept. even refused a congressional inquiry during the development period of the NSPS proposed regulation!