Comment Number: OL-10512200
Received: 3/16/2005 11:35:19 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:

I am extremely concerned that NSPS has created a system has reduced the rights of employees regarding labor issues. While the Merit Systems Protection Board will still exist, the time period in which to file appeals will be reduced. Additionally, once a decision is made by the MSPB, DoD may review the decision and choose to modify or completely reverse the decision. Where, may I ask, is impartiality here? Furthermore, there are increased numbers of issues that employees may not file a grievance if they do not agree. In fact, the system will allow the Secretary of Defense to determine “Mandatory Removal Offenses” which are yet to be defined. This leads to the potential of abuse of this right without offering the employee due process. I am also very concerned about the “pay for performance” portion of this proposal. This reverts to the good ol’ boy system where the bosses’ friends receive raises and the rest are left out. And…performance ratings are not grievable (surprise!). Under my current leadership, nearly everyone that worked for the organization when he arrived is considered to be poor to average. Yet everyone he has selected for a position, whether his or her actual performances are good or poor, is considered a “superstar”. They not only will get the raises for performance but will also be able to get “performance bonuses” solely at his discretion. Since I am in a position of financial trust and must occasionally tell my supervisor he may not proceed without breaking a law, he looks upon me unfavorably despite the fact that I am merely doing my job and actually protecting him. This is just one of the unfair portions of the pay proposal. There will be no more cost of living adjustments…essentially many employees may end up making less money based on this fact. But more disturbing to me is the fact that a supervisor may choose to reduce the amount of pay an employee is receiving. And that may be based either on performance or conduct. So a supervisor can say he doesn’t like that way an employee acted in a certain situation and remove pay? Does this seem fair? Would Congress approve a process by where if a congressman voted in a way his constituents didn’t like, they could arbitrarily reduce his salary? Next is the pay banding issue…which conveniently isn’t defined but will have “broad salary ranges”. Who will determine what the pay bands will include? Will current employees have an opportunity to comment again once those are defined? I am very curious to know when these “superstars” in my organization that are currently at the GS-9 pay level get several pay raises and bonuses to raise them to the equivalent to GS-12 pay, how will they be determined to be qualified to move on to the next pay band? Their duties would be the same, yet they could end up being paid much more than someone with far more responsibility. And what happens when a DoD employee wants to transfer to another agency using the General Schedule. Are they determined to be qualified based solely on their salaries since you must demonstrate that you have one year time in grade to move on to the next GS level? If there are broad pay bands, is it conceivable that a current DoD GS-9 could end up moving on as a GS-13 in another agency because they received several raises? I am also concerned about the “direct hire authority” for severe shortages and critical needs. There is great potential for supervisors to misuse this authority to hire friends and relatives in a time of need. I urge you to force the Department of Defense to reinstate the rights of employees and eliminate the discretionary pay issues that have the potential to be abused.