| Comment Number: | OL-10510550 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 10:25:08 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:
Entire Document. This is an overview with absolutely no information on the actual implementation. Example: If the amount of funding for pay remains the same then the only way that we can have performance awards is to have losers in annual pay increases. If we have 30 percent of our people that deserve high awards, 60 percent that deserve the normal increase and 10 percent losers then there is going to be very little funding for high performance awards. Let us find out just how this is going to be implemented. Example: Veteran's preference will be reduced because of the ability to limit RIF areas. Restricted areas can be defined so as to totally eliminate veteran's preference. Example: It appears that contracting out becomes a function of management decision, thus elimination of government jobs is much easier. Example: Since locality pay increases will be at the sole discretion of the Secretary of Defense it appears that it is entirely possible that -- as with the current pay system -- we may never see legally mandated raises. Example: Locality pay increases will be dependent on rating. Yet it appears that you cannot have an independent third party assist in a negotiated dispute solution. Example: Personal Conduct appears to be added to the rating scheme. Withouth further explanation this appears to be a truly subjective area...does it refer to dress, telephone manners, skin color or religion? How about age or sex? Political party? This one really scares me as it allows a bigot to do anything with very little chance of being called on it. Example: Extensive training will be given to managers.... Really? At this point neither my manager, my second level manager nor my third level manager know anything about this system. Nor do they know of any scheduled training. I have asked! Based on the fact that at least one of the three still has problems with the current system I am certain that granting significant pay and promotion control to the immediate managers will lead to cronyism and increased response to the 'good ol' boy' system. Example: Regardless of what the MSPB or FLRA say, the Secretary of Defense can over-ride the decision. This puts annual pay increases, promotions, grievances, everything to do with personnel under the control of one man with what appears to be absolutely no controls placed upon him. Even the President doesn't have this much control. Example: It appears to me that under this plan personnel could be deployed both internally and externally to the United States without their consent. The current system requires a person volunteer for deployment or the requirement to deploy is listed as a condition of employment in a new job. I have 20 years military experience and 21 years civil service experience...and I have deployed under both types of service. At 61 years of age I don't appreciate having to wonder if some 'wunderkind' is going to decide that I'd make a good target in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. I feel that I've already been shot at enough. Example: Pay parity. No, I may not lose pay in the first year that I switch over to this system BUT...I am scheduled for a step increase the first part of the following year. Depending on how happy I have kept my boss...not how well I have done my job...and how the Secretary of Defense feels about providing all of the funding for personnel that he as been given to personnel expenses rather than weapons systems, I may or may not be given a pay raise. If someone along the line decides that it is more important to spend personnel funds on equipment or if my boss decides that my religion, sex, or color is not what he wants on his staff...I can sit until hell freezes over before getting a raise. Example: The secretary of Defense is the final authority on all personnel and pay matters. This eliminates congressional ability to mandate or, as I read it, even investigate anything to do with military pay and personnel matters.