| Comment Number: | OL-10509939 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 9:31:22 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:
The amount of characters allowed will not allow me to digress sufficiently on this document in a section by section format: My past 26 years of Federal service have revealed that even though managers have gone through training programs under such names as TQL, Covey, Dr. Demming, and others, they have NOT improved either communicative processes nor understanding of how to motivate employees. This NSPS does nothing but promise more of the same; however, with more latitude provided to these managers, they will now be able to 'punish' more effectively/efficiently those who may choose to voice their opinions that may differ with managers. The wording used throughout the entire NSPS document is truely outstanding in what it wants to convey, but the reality is that there is no substance in it other than wishful thinking in that you are going to facilitate a mass change in character over a good portion of the poor and marginal managers currently in place. Yes, there are good and excellent managers in place now, but these comprise only a part of the total. Yea for those working for these good managers and woe to those working for the poor and marginal managers. Until you can show how managers are to be trained and then held accountable to perform adequately as they were trained, then I do not feel that a 'credible and trusted' system is being put in place. NSPS promotes fiscal savings and the ability to 'fight terrorism' in an improved manner over the current Civil Service System, but I see no concrete proof in either of these statements. I see (and have read) that implementing this new system is going to be extremely costly and disrupting. By disrupting, I forsee a reversal in time where we go back to an isolated work mentality, i.e.not sharing ideas with others and working as teams or even commands. With the importance of rewarding the 'high performing workforce', why should older workers (yes, those old people with some seniority) impart their wisdom on younger workers whose youthful energy will allow them to 'outperform' the older people? I do believe the older workforce is smart enough to not cut their own throats just because you've provided them a sharp instrument with which to do this. I think it a sad state of affairs to tell a hardworking workforce that their years of hard work will actually reward them with 'nothing', or very little at most. This is not the way to build up a loyal workforce. The aspect of putting much emphasis on a persons behavior and professional demeanor definitely has its points; however, some military managers treat civilian employees exactly like their military people, i.e. there will be no questioning their commands, and those that do will be dealt with severely...and quickly. Yes, my faith in NSPS continues to spiral downward. In several sections of the NSPS document, reference is made to the Secretary having sole and exclusive discretion in rescinding or changing applications 'unilaterally'. I think the Congress of the United States has sold the Federal workforce out by allowing this one person to wield this much power over such a large 'public service' workforce. The terrible acts of September 11th have produced a fear factor that is being played out by some politicians to push their agendas, and I do feel this has happened to a large degree with the pushing of NSPS. Fear is being used as a tool to weaken Unions and to reduce worker participation in their workplace. Sure, there is definitely room for improving upon current relationships between Unions and managers/management, but NSPS is not the answer as it is currently presented. I was a manager in past years, and the Civil Service regulations provided many good aspects of leading, directing, and managing people. It also provided adequate manners in which to address poor and marginal behaviors and work performance but it did this AND provided adequate protection to employees from managers who were often vindictive