TOPICS
TOPICS
Lawmakers weigh intervention in Defense personnel reforms
After hearing testimony from Defense officials and union representatives Tuesday, members of a House Armed Services subcommittee said that congressional action would be necessary to fix the Pentagon's new personnel system, which seeks to link pay to performance and limit collective bargaining rights.
"The National Security Personnel System is intended to help DoD respond to its human resources needs for the 21st century. But was it the right fix?" asked subcommittee chairman Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas.
In the 2004 Defense authorization bill, Congress granted the department authority to create a new human resources system, based on the notion that the current system was too rigid and outdated to allow the department to respond with agility to modern threats of terrorism. Tuesday's hearing was the first on the system since its authorization.
In that time, NSPS has come under harsh criticism from unions, which claim the labor relations rules associated with the system effectively eliminate collective bargaining. The Pentagon has appealed a lower court ruling against the system's labor relations aspects. That case is still under appeal, with a decision expected this month.
Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said the most critical element in continuing with the personnel system is finding "common ground." He asked John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, and Michael Luis Dominguez, principal deputy undersecretary of preparedness for the Defense Department, whether this would require congressional intervention.
Dominguez argued that congressional action should not be taken until the appeals court makes its decision. He contended that NSPS is working, arguing that it will take years before the department realizes all the expected benefits. "We are already seeing a powerful return on investment," he said.
But Gage and Marick Masters, a business professor at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that congressional action should not be delayed, especially because the issue deals so heavily with employee rights. "It's the responsibility of Congress to really get this straight," Gage said.
Gage said AFGE is more than willing to sit down with department officials to reach an agreement, but said doing so would require Defense officials to come to the table.
"Both sides are going to disagree until the courts and Congress react, so why don't we just cut to the chase?" Courtney said.
Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., asked whether the system is placing a burden on taxpayers. He asked Dominguez to identify exactly how much money has been devoted to NSPS since Congress authorized the changes in 2004.
Dominguez said $65 million has been spent, but Gage argued the figure is far more.
"It is certainly in the hundred millions," Gage said. "They've spent $65 million in lawyers' fees alone."
Meanwhile, Max Stier, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, argued that though NSPS has flaws, something needs to replace the current General Schedule pay and classification system that was created in 1949. "It is no longer sufficient to attract the best and brightest," he said.
Stier recommended that lawmakers allow the Defense Department to continue with certain aspects of NSPS that already have been tested through demonstration projects, before reaching a final conclusion about the effects or benefits of the system.
Furthermore, Stier suggested the subcommittee review the appeals process by which employees may fight against adverse personnel actions, and investigate the proposed changes to labor-management relations that would affect employees in bargaining units.
Ortiz said the most important factor is achieving a sense of morality in the system to ensure that talented and valued employees are not subject to harsh work rules.
"There is no perfect justice," Courtney said. "You're giving us no choice but to act."
COMMENTS
- We have been under NSPS for over a year and I have yet anything good to say about it. The good ole boy system certainly recieved a shot in the arm with this system. In our particular command, the cronies who manage our paypool simply gave each other fat bonuses and left the crumbs to the underlings. It is my understanding that for an employee to earn a rating of 5, you practically must defeat the taliban by yourself and with just a knife and thus saving the government billions of dollars. This garrison has easily 8 to ten of these individuals as they vanquished the pay pool. And lets not talk about how you can transfer your friends into jobs without any justification. Mike Posted July 29, 2008 12:29 PM
- I continue to read these topics and two things stand out. 1. Many people, like me, do not have faith in NSPS. I am holding off on my comments until I fall under the first payout (JAN 09) to see how I fare. I am a hard working YA-2, manage 8 military and was selected Civilian of the Year. I would hope I fair well and if not, i will address it in formal way. The second topic is "the good ole boy" issue. Everyone keeps talking about ex Military getting jobs and having preferential treatment. Hello, they do have preference under the law veterans get preference under: The Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, the Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) Plans and other prefernces. This goes back to the civil war. As the U.S. Office of Personnel management define the reasoning I quote "Since the time of the Civil War, veterans of the Armed Forces have been given some degree of preference in appointments to Federal jobs. Recognizing their sacrifice, Congress enacted laws to prevent veterans seeking Federal employment from being penalized for their time in military service. Veterans' preference recognizes the economic loss suffered by citizens who have served their country in uniform, restores veterans to a favorable competitive position for Government employment, and acknowledges the larger obligation owed to disabled veterans". We need the good ole boy system in a way. We just need to re-educate people as to why we have preference. If you were in uniform, spent, in many cases, 10 years deployed out of a 20 year career or lost an arm, leg, eye or all those together, you would want some federal help in getting a job as most employers would not hire you. Al Herche Posted February 23, 2008 12:47 PM
- What will be the cost, and who will pay, when in a few years (if that long) the new system is seen to be cronism and discriminatory. The Federal Goverment will then be faced with the situation of lowering the saleries of the 'good old boys' from their unearned benefits, or raising everyone elses to match those raises. The cost in the DOD could be billions. We have seen where in the World Bank the former DOD executive gave his girlfriend a bunch or 'best friend' raises. Will everybody else now get them? Will her pay be reduced? Now maginify that to the largest Federal Employer, and project the cost. Bad idea. GovExec.com reader Posted April 19, 2007 9:17 AM









