| Comment Number: | OL-10512145 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 10:24:42 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:
This comment is regarding NSPS proposed regulations, Subpart I, Sections 9901.901-928. I write as a concerned citizen, taxpayer, and voter. I am troubled that, though intent is stated to preserve basic employee rights, specific proposed changes in this Subpart would severely restrict employees' fundamental rights to free association and collective bargaining. I strongly advocate eliminating these changes and retaining the current regulations governing employee union and collective bargaining rights under the FLRA. As just one of many examples of the far-reaching changes proposed in this Subpart, Section 9901.905(a) proposes that, "Any provision of a collective bargaining agreement that is inconsistent with this part and/or DoD implementing issuances is unenforceable on the effective date of the applicable subpart(s) or such issuances." This suggests that all provisions of bargained contracts (many of which have grown out of decades of carefully developed labor-management relationships) would, under NSPS, hold little meaning and could at any time in the future be trumped by new, unilateral issuances. This undermines the very meaning of collective bargaining and eliminates any meaningful input on working conditions from those who know them best--front-line employees and their union representatives. Similarly, the proposed establishment of a National Security Labor Relations Board (Section 9901.907) to take over many functions of the FLRA would place an inordinate amount of power in the hands of management within DoD, with future DefSecs responsible for appointing their own board members and, at their discretion, reversing that board’s decisions. The FLRA serves an important function as a neutral third party, outside individual departments, for all federal managers and employees. Any changes to DoD’s labor-management system should retain this role both to protect employee rights and to protect the department's integrity and guard against the potential for corruption in the future. DoD’s mission includes protecting and spreading the values of democracy and freedom. At a time when U.S. soldiers and civilians are in harm’s away across the globe fighting to protect the fundamental human rights of others, implementing new regulations which, in practice, severely restrict DoD employees basic rights to free association could be a devastating blow to the mission and to the morale of the thousands of employees charged with carrying it out every day. And insofar as perceptions of the U.S.’ human rights record have become integral to the objective of “winning hearts and minds” abroad, perceived violations of employee rights within DoD are themselves damaging to the overall mission. Finally, circumscribing collective bargaining and transforming labor-management rules to the degree proposed can only be anticipated to cause extreme disruptions within DoD’s workforce, which seems particularly risky and unwise during wartime. I expect my government to practice democracy in relation to its own citizens, not just to champion it in theory for others.