| Comment Number: | OL-10511346 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 3:08:36 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:
In general as I read the FR it appears that DoD is using the War on Terrorism to decrease employee rights and representation; and to decrease the checks and balance system that's been in place for decades that assure the Department and it's agencies are managing in accordance with laws, rules and regulations. If funds spent to rewrite sections of Title 5; and funds to be spent to implement these changes would be spent on training management on their rights and employee rights using current law, rule and regulation; I suspect this rewriting would have been unnecessary. NSLRB--The FLRA is an independent body for checks and balances purposes. The NSLRB will be 3 folks (hand-selected) by the Secretary for fixed terms. Does anyone really believe these 3 would go against the Secretary? NSLRB's rules come at a later date. 11. Representation Rights and Duties. The Union should not have to spend volumes of their own time researching to find references and such that the Agency uses. However the agency provides that info is fine; but they should provide it and the Union not have to hunt for it. I've spent hours and hours trying to find some reference the agency has mentioned when they could have easily provided a link or an attachment in an email.16. Grievance procedures. The union will now not be able to grieve ratings of record; that will be dealt with by some later determined method involving management whom 99% of the time side with their subordinate managers or have been party to the decision in the first place (no checks and balances in this method--no independent third-party review). Don't understand why mandatory removal actions are not covered under grievable issues. Please explain. 9901.103. Why are behaviors and other characteristics part of competencies with respect to pay and performance? What or whom specifically defines those behaviors and other characteristics? This seems ridiculous, if not scary. Sounds as if we could lose pay; be demoted, or fired if we don't act in a certain way. Mandatory removal offenses should not be up to the sole, exclusive and unreviewable discretion of the Secretary. Performance. Employee's behavior and demeanor (actions, attitude, and manner of performance) has nothing to do with getting work done. Same as above and goes along with competencies; what or who decides what these are? (SCARY) 9901.104 (e) Premium pay should be worked out in some fashion within the new system so that it is unchanged.9901.322 Setting and Adjusting rates ranges should be done yearly as they are now for cost of living puposes. Insurance, gas, food, school, daycare, etc. increase and employees should be given increases in rates for these needs.9901.323 All employees should receive a rate increase yearly and not be taken away by an unacceptable rating. Employees still need a COLA yearly. Besides, unacceptable ratings can already lead to a demotion or firing if proven under law, rule or regulation. The problem now is that employees cannot grieve these ratings and get a third party review. It will be left to their managers who maybe upset with them for any reason & retaliate with an unacceptable rating. Managers are only human and if you think this will not and does not occur; then you are very naive.9901.333. Local market supplements should be handled as Locality Increases occur now; for the same reasons as given under setting and adjusting rates ranges; it's a COLA for the local area. The Secretary or the agency should not be allowed to divert these funds elsewhere.9901.334 Same as above; an unacceptable rating should not interfere with an employee getting a local market supplement for the same reasons as given above.