| Comment Number: | OL-10510992 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 1:24:34 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:
There are several failings inherent in the design of NSPS. Doubtless, it will foster and enable favoritism. This situation seems evident with the pay-banding demonstration project in which I am a participant. I see instances where it appears that certain co-workers who are friendliest with the administrators have received the highest raises and bonuses, and this demo project is only in its first year. Granted, similar circumstances can be seen in the GS system. Those who are chummiest with their bosses can rack up cash awards, but at least the salaries remain consistent. Under NSPS, morale would suffer severely, and productive younger employees, who no longer feel they are being held captive by a pension system, would seek employment elsewhere. Secondly, the GS system already possesses all the means and tools necessary to maintain a productive workforce. The difference between GS and NSPS may well turn out to be the difference between dealing with union grievances and being tied up in court cases. This would be a colossal waste of time and money. Grievances would not be the long, drawn out, annoying and unsuccessful experiences they have been if supervisors would follow the policies and methods of documentation, counseling, assessment, etc. of employee performance that are available to them now under the GS system. Supervisors are notorious for overloading the productive employees with work and leaving inefficient employees with less to do instead of addressing the problem. Human nature says this would not change under NSPS. Please note that an unfair imbalance of responsibilities in the workplace is probably the single most common reason for losing good workers, particularly the younger workers. In addition, NSPS appears on its face to be a quasi-military system. DOD proposes powerful, sweeping authority over the worker, including where they must reside. The private sector abandoned the practice of relocating employees years ago when they realized it was neither practical nor productive. Under NSPS, DOD proposes to have the authority to relocate workers to any location at will. Ironically, this proposal comes right on the heels of DOD’s recent revision of military regulations that allow military families’ the option to remain in one location for extended periods. DOD contradicts itself and shows a lack of practical knowledge in personnel matters. As it is now, contract workers are paid much higher salaries for the same kind of work than government workers in certain parts of the world. If personnel are forced to relocate to areas such as these, why would they not choose to work for the private sector for a significantly higher salary? If DOD wants to mirror the private sector, they will have to do so in all areas. There is no longer a pension system, and therefore, no captive work force marking time. The very essence of the proposed NSPS proposal goes against the purpose and intent of our federal government. DOD would be creating a separate and independent governing body. DOD will run their own labor force and set their own policies and practices, all without the oversight of our Congress, the US system of checks and balances. Congress, the voice of the people, will lose their governing power over this massive machine. It is a potentially dangerous and undemocratic plan and I recommend that it not adopted.