| Comment Number: | OL-10512036 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 8:18:54 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:
(Due to the global time difference-please accept & read my comments and not consider them "late") Get rid of the 5 year rule in Europe! Make it applicable only to those employees whom either a. want to rotate to the US or b. those that took a position from the US to rotate back. Each employee that is forced to rotate (involuntarily) to the US, costs the government at a minimum 25K to ship goods to the next location, not to mention breaking up families. How well a performance or effective will an employee do at the next duty station 1. That was unwilling to move in the first place, and 2. Without the support of his or her family? How effective it that? This major change is also a major benefit to the Government: 1. as a cost saving element, 2. benefiting the workforce with happy, satisfied, and content workers, especially if they are already performing the duties of the position, and well; thus continuing to perform at expected (or higher) performance levels, benefiting the Government with exceptional service. Why would an organization want to loose good and effective employees who already provide excellent service and operation to a unit? That is shooting the organization and its workforce (and essentially the entire Government workforce as a whole) in the foot! As an additional cost saving measure, rehiring new employees that are not orientated to the organization and positions, is also a cost and time expense to the Government--to train and orient those employees. How can a unit continue effectively providing services when their civilian workforce rotates every 5 or so years? What good does that support unit commanders who do have to rotate? I believe and propose that reinstating those employees to their previous positions (with all promotional potential and previous benefits in tact) who in the last 5 years were affected by the 5 year rule and PPP, would be a benefit to the service of government from which position they left. As a benefit to those who were effected, said employees would be compensated with an agreement stating no removal action or a forced removal, fired, asked to resign (or the like) at all, for any reason, would be effected on or to them, from Government initiated action, from said position 10 years from the date of last move or removal, whatever the case may be. This guarantees the employee (and the Government) status and stability. Then and only then, can the incumbent become removed, and the position become vacant and renounced, or if the employee leaves voluntarily. Thank you for reading and I hope that my comments affect the cause.