| Comment Number: | OL-10512223 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 11:56:57 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:
The mobility clause for all civilians does not make since for all workers. Several individuals who cannot serve in the Armed Forces or who do not want to be in the Armed Forces and still wish to serve their country as civil servant should not be subject to the mobility of an Active Duty member with the potential of being put into a Combat situation without proper training or weapons. Another group of civil servants exist who have already done their mobility time with the Armed Forces who still wish to serve their country should not be subjected to this full mobility. Then there are the disabled individuals on the payroll whom are not fit to serve in several areas. This plan looks more like Active Duty without the benefits of PCS, and with the addition of generating a higher level of stress on the employees as well as their families. I see many people, good smart qualified people who wish to serve their country who will leave if the mobility clause is activated. It is too much to ask for a civilian and too little compensation proposed. Then Civil Service will have the same situation that the Reserves and the Guard do now. Few and far between will be willing to make such sacrifices for so little. Taking what little power the Union has away is a mistake. In business the Union is the voice of the employee. Sometimes it is the only voice an employee has against the injustice that is sometimes found in business. Where is the check and balance system here? How are the managers going to be trained to be leaders and impartial judges of performance when the qualifications for the management positions have been time? What will the performance standards be? Who will determine those standards? Will there be any objectivity? Since COLA is going away and the funds are being thrown into a pot of money that will be discretionary, who will do the auditing on the spending from that pot? Will there be auditing on those funds? If I recall correctly the test market cases for this plan failed miserably after the first year. So how does implementation GS schedule wide help mitigate the damage? It seems to me it would only make it worse. How does this save the government time, money or improve the quality of the product? Is this a bright thing to do in the middle of a war? To stir up the entire government system? Seems to me that would interrupt production so much so that the mission would not be accomplished. This will not only effect the GS workers stateside the implications and potential spillover to the war fighter could be fatal. Too much change too fast for critical entities that supports our troops. Think about what you are doing and attempting to accomplish reevaluate the number of fatalities expected as far as filling vacancies, and deaths of our troops as a result of the disruptions.