| Comment Number: | OL-10510637 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 10:55:36 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:
Subpart F, Pages 7588-7590, Section 9901.601-611: Rules for reduction in force and "workforce shaping" are poorly devised, generally unfair, and potentially discriminatory. The new rules place too much reliance on subjective judgements. An employee's standing can be different based on his or her particular circumstance at a point in time. From a performance view, the new, DEMO based, performance ratings are more subjective, and subject to manipulation to get employees from lower in a band up to midpoint or higher. For example: a branch head gets a finite amount of points to distribute within the branch. He has some employees who are high in the band (above mid-point) and several who are low in the band because they are younger or have less years of employment. The branch head can skew the ratings and points such that the lower paid employees move up in the band. At that point in time, this can make the artificial appearance that the younger, less experienced employees got a better rating than the older, higher paid employees, and are more valuable. They could get a better standing in a RIF. Don't believe me? I am in a DEMO program, and have already heard my branch head tell me that he didn't have any Continuing Pay Points to give me because he had to take care of the guys at the lower end of the band. I did get two Bonus Points, and I was satisfied with that. However, if this kind of thing has an impact on my standing in a RIF, then I consider that unfair. From the view point of RIFing a product line, funding line, or organizational group, I also believe that is unfair. Our workforce is constantly told that we must be flexible to serve the needs of our sponsor and the fleet. There are times when top quality people temporarily find themselves in an organization, or on a program that is without funding. The new RIF rules are telling loyal employees that "bad timing" could ruin their careers and rob them of their livelyhood. It is also possible that a poor manager could maliciously decide to move an employee they don't like into a program or organization that they know is at risk for a RIF. Again, subjectivity is one of the flaws in the logic of the proposed RIF rules. RIF rules must be based on objective factors. With the pay for performance system that DEMO provides, longevity is the best objective factor, because it shows loyalty. If an employ has longevity and has demonstrated acceptable performance during his or her many years of employment, they should receive the highest consideration for retention in the event of a RIF. To tell them they are at risk, and that a newer, younger, less experienced employee is preferred smacks of age discrimination. I will not comment on Veteran's preferences, since I have no experience in that area. In general, I would allow years of active duty to count as years of government service/experience, and let the total numbers fall where they may. Again, total years first, then performance. Obviously, if an employee is rated as unsatisfactory for a period of time, they should be at risk regardless of time in service. In summary, RIF rules MUST place priority on objective factors, and not be subject to the whims of poor management and other factors that can be temporarily out of a quality employee's control. Time in service is the top objective factor, and needs to be the highest priority. Finally, this section reflects an attitude of the whole proposed NSPS system. It reads like a document that spent an awful lot of energy on trying to come up with ways to get rid of government employees, rather than a system for effectively managing an important part of the workforce that deals with the security of this country. While many commercials and news articles are given to show the thanks received by the armed forces as they return from battle, you will never see any thanks given to the civilian workforce behind them. The new NSPS rules prove it.