GovernmentExecutive.com

A group of senators instrumental in addressing federal personnel issues voiced concern at a hearing Thursday over the final regulations on the Defense Department's National Security Personnel System.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, expressed discontent with the planned makeup of the National Security Labor Relations Board, which would replace the Federal Labor Relations Authority in handling the Pentagon's labor-management disputes. Collins said she is concerned because the secretary of Defense is slated to have sole responsibility for appointing members of the board.

"I believe it would be wise to designate one these slots for a union representative," Collins said.

Collins aired her concerns at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management hearing, convened to discuss the final regulations, which the Pentagon published Nov. 1 in the Federal Register. The regulations seek to streamline labor relations and replace the General Schedule with market- and performance-based compensation.

Employee dissatisfaction with the system also is worrisome, Collins said. Committee members George Voinovich, R-Ohio; Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii; and Carl Levin, D-Michigan, shared that concern.

Shortly after the final NSPS rules were published, a coalition of 10 unions representing Defense workers filed a lawsuit, claiming the system illegally erodes collective bargaining rights. On Wednesday, the department and unions reached an agreement that will delay implementation of the labor-relations portions of the regulations until at least Feb. 1, allowing for the lawsuit to play out.

Voinovich said that after reading the final regulations, he has "mixed feelings."

"I remain concerned that the NSPS still does not possess a key element needed for successful reform--employee acceptance," Voinovich said.

Levin asked Gordon England, acting deputy secretary of Defense and head of the NSPS effort, to explain why employees were against the new system.

England, however, disagreed with that premise.

"There may be a small vocal number" of employees who are unhappy with NSPS, England said, but "a lot of employees are very excited about this. I'm convinced our employees will find this program very beneficial as it's rolled out and implemented."

The senators also remained skeptical about implementation. Despite the hundreds of pages of regulations, the department left much of the detail--including the number of pay bands, minimum and maximum salaries in those bands, and core competencies for performance evaluations--to be determined in the future.

Levin said the committee was told last May that the department had a "huge packet" of implementing issuances, but has yet to see any of them. "Waiting until the last minute" to finalize and publicize them "is not a rational...approach," he said.

Collins said the as-yet-unseen implementing issuances are part of the reason employee buy-in is lacking.

"Until these employees have the information that enables them to fully understand NSPS, they will remain skeptical," Collins said.

Voinovich pushed department officials to release details.

"There's been a lot of apprehension about the issuances," Voinovich said. "The sooner we can see those, I think the better we'll all be."

Despite these concerns, Voinovich and Collins said they remain committed to personnel reforms, and hope for stepped-up communications between unions and department officials.

"Failure is not an option," Voinovich said. "The next six months to a year are crucial. This committee will be watching."

England reminded the committee that the department's authority for the labor relations reforms expires in 2009, providing a check on the system if Congress is unhappy at that time.

COMMENTS

• "There may be a small vocal number" of employees who are unhappy with NSPS, England said, but "a lot of employees are very excited about this. I'm convinced our employees will find this program very beneficial as it's rolled out and implemented." Gordon England Acting deputy secretary of Defense And NSPS Sir it is time to put down the crack pipe and seek help. I have not found a single government employee in favor of NSPS. Name witheld for fear of reprisals Posted December 26, 2005 8:12 AM
• Pay-for-performance: From a manager’s perspective, I've been dealing with this for three years now. All my employees deserve something but I am limited by the percentage of SCI I can give. Solution: rotate. Look guys, most first level supervisors don't like this system anymore then you. GovExec.com reader Posted November 29, 2005 9:49 PM
• What I was trying to say a few posts ago is that Congress did not vote for NSPS as we see it now (to the extent we're being allowed to see anything at all). They passed a law to permit DoD to create a new personnel system, which was a pretty bad law to start with, but left all the details of said system for later -- a tradition DoD seems eager to follow. Despite massive flaws, this legislation included, among other things, a mandate to preserve collective bargaining. DoD then took this ill-advised authority to create a new personnel system and ran the employees over with it. The resulting system (the parts of it that are even defined, which isn't much) bears little or no resemblance to what Congress authorized. Compare the legislation to the regulations, and you'll see the regulations are in flagrant violation of federal law, particularly the mandate to preserve collective bargaining. So, Congress passed a bad law, but not nearly as bad as things turned out once Rumsfeld et al. got their grubby mitts on it. NSPS was a collaborative effort between incompetent, apathetic legislators and malicious, immoral political appointees. Hey, if you mix stagnant pond water with raw sewage, you ain't gettin' Evian. GovExec.com reader Posted November 29, 2005 11:34 AM