| Comment Number: | OL-10511416 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 3:23:22 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:
PAY 1. Personnel should not be placed under the performance pay rules until FY09 or FY10, when a new administration takes office. The delay is necessary to allow sufficient time to work out all details and at least some of the inequities of the NSPS. Personnel can be told what they would have received using the new system during the period from implementation until the next administration is in office. Implementation would be viewed as fairer and more equitable under a new administration. 2. Personnel will be hurt by the proposed pay bands for retirement and insurance purposes. Those personnel at the top of the pay band will not receive basic pay increases since they cannot exceed top of the pay band, thus reducing their basic salary and thus, their retirement and insurance. This is a big problem at the FAA. Nothing done in the NSPS should cause personnel to lose basic pay or retirement. The pay band limit should be raised yearly the same amount as the basic pay raise. Congress should legislate this. This should not be left to the Secretary of Defense! Paying a bonus instead of the basic pay raise penalizes employees for doing well. Being at the top of a pay band should not diminish basic salary or retirement. This should definitely be corrected by DoD or by Congress before implementation. 3. Congress should guarantee that all the money that would have been allocated under the old system to agencies, FOAs, offices, etc., continues to be available to those agencies, FOAs, offices, etc., for the future. No higher part of the organization should be allowed to skim funds to deprive, for example FOAs, from obtaining the full funding for its employees. There is too much leeway under the proposed rules for abuse and there is an extreme lack of protection for employees. 4. “Local market supplements” are no substitute for locality pay. They are another way DoD will reduce employee pay. There is a huge likelihood of abuse if this is left to DoD rather than to Congress. This should not be left to political appointees! 5. Too much power is allocated to DoD to decide how much money is available to pay pools. It is another avenue for DoD to reduce salaries below the current Civil Service System. This provision, as well as those above, is not required for DoD personnel to properly support the war. My office supports the war and we have always done outstanding work. DoD should be asked by Congress to give specific examples of the civilian workforce not properly supporting the war. 6. There is no protection for employees who are reduced to a lower pay band or fired by vindictive supervisors. There are such people. I had one who management knew could not work with people. They left him as supervisor because they wanted him to be able to retire from the military. He did not understand the job when he came and did not learn it. He hated the whole branch. He actually walked quietly behind me and hit me, but I could not prove it. He rated everyone in the branch as low as he could. His supervisor was his friend and would not change the ratings. Management told the supervisors they all had to stick together even though they knew the problem. He could not rate us below successful under the Civil Service System, but he could demote or fire someone under the proposed system. No recourse in the proposed NSPS would keep that from happening. 7. “DoD has determined that conduct and behavior affecting performance outcomes (actions, attitude, manner of completion, and/or conduct or professional demeanor) should be a tracked and measured aspect of an employee’s performance. The NSPS regulations provide for consideration of employee’s behavior as a performance factor, element, or objective, such as ‘teamwork/cooperation’.” Attitude and demeanor are very subjective and nebulous. They open areas for supervisors who don’t like an employee to demote or otherwise penalize that person. They should not be included in the NSPS regulation. 8. Sec 9901.321: DoD has sole and exclusive discretion to determine rate ranges. Congress, not DoD, should have this power. RIF There is too much “flexibility” in the proposed RIF procedures. The protection of viable union representation should be mandated by Congress. UNION REPRESENTATION and agreement is required to ensure personnel are protected. Without it, civil service protections will not exist.