| Comment Number: | OL-10509987 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 10:54:15 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| Attachment: | NSPS concerns.doc Download Adobe Reader |
Comments:
Pg 7552 “Those responsible for defense transformation-including DoD civilian employees-must anticipate the future and wherever possible help create it.” The agency has been useful, relevant, and continues to adapt to change; there is no rationale as to why the entire personnel system must be changed “to anticipate the future and…help create it.” Pg 7552-3 “NSPS is essential to the Department’s efforts to create an environment in which the total force, uniformed personnel and civilians, thinks and operates as one cohesive unit.” How does the proposed rule do this? There is no rationale for this statement. If the purpose of the legislation is to be able to deploy the entire workforce as the regular armed service is deployed, then the entire force should have the same benefits and retirement age, and know all of this when they “sign on” as civilians. If required by their positions to sign mobility agreements, or voluntarily accept deployment or emergency duty, which many do, they may anticipate these assignments and transfers. By integrating the civilians into a “flexible” and “responsive” part of the team, which is already the case, only seems to imply that the new rules will allow deployment of civilian as a condition of continued employment or to even be considered “performing to expectations”. This change is not reasonable or rationale as it relates to the rights and protections of civilian employees. Pg 7554 Authority to Establish a New HR System: The legislation, which allowed the dismantling of the current personnel system, will “differ from the traditional civil service system, established under title 5, U.S. Code in certain respects”. There may be departments of current DoD civilian employees that should be subject to changes in civil service system, for the purpose of protecting the agency and citizens from infiltration by terrorists. However, it is wrong and misguided to place 1,000s of employees who work on civil works projects in localities all over the country into a system that will subject them to the new “flexibility” from civil service protections and new “exclusive procedures for the participation of employee representatives, provided in lieu of any collective bargaining requirements.” Pg 7554 There is no definition of “performance that fails to meet expectations”. Failure to meet expectation may be a park ranger or biologist failing to agree to be deployed to Iraq from a duty station in AL or FL. The “expectation” of the rater or the “pay pool manager” (pg 7560) appears to be completely open to subjective determinations as to what “meets expectations”. Pg 7560: Performance Pay Pools: The proposed pay banding is inherently unfair. Management may be able to pay new employees more than current, qualified employees. Competing for money within the team or work place will breed discontent and a strong incentive for employee sabotage or making fellow employees look bad in order to “win” more of the share price. OPM has acknowledged that “pay-for-performance” is not intended to improve performance! One of the stated goals – operating as a cohesive unit – is counter to the pay banding construct. The employee will be unable to determine where he or she stands and planning for the future will be impossible. Pg 7562 Performance/Behavior Accountability – The statement that behavior, such as teamwork/teamwork has not been considered in the evaluation is simply not true. The current performance appraisal system measures behavior and can be tailored to the specific behaviors required by the job (ie support to others in the team, not only those in direct work teams, but those in other teams which support the overall civil works project missions, etc.) Also, by allowing punishment for employees for any behavior that might impair “task” accomplishment, employees may be punished, even by reductions in basic pay, for trying to adhere to environmental laws, legislative mandates.