GovernmentExecutive.com

As labor unions vocally criticize the Pentagon for diminishing their role under the National Security Personnel System, at least two other observers are questioning whether nonunion employees will have enough of a say.

David Walker, comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office, told a Senate committee last week that participation of nonunion employees is one of his three main areas of concern about the system. Walker's own agency has led the way on personnel reform and has been closely monitoring NSPS' progress.

"Although the regulations do provide for continuing collaboration with employee representatives, they do not identify a process for the continuing involvement of individual employees in the implementation of NSPS," Walker said at a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management.

The hearing was called after the Defense Department issued final regulations on NSPS in the Federal Register. The new personnel system is designed to replace automatic across-the-board and within-grade pay increases with performance-based raises, collapse the General Schedule grades into broad pay bands with increased pay flexibility and streamline collective bargaining.

An NSPS spokesperson said about 60 percent of Defense's civilian employees are represented by labor unions - leaving 40 percent of civilian employees out of the loop.

"We're very concerned about the employees who are not represented by unions," said GAO's Derek Stewart, director of defense capabilities and management. "GAO cannot overemphasize the importance of getting input from every employee ... not just those represented by the unions."

Stewart said GAO recommended in July that the Pentagon develop a communications strategy that caters to individual concerns, not just those of unions. That strategy would include posting every implementing issuance on a Web site and allowing 30 days of comment, and taking feedback surveys for each issuance.

The final regulations do not meet this recommendation, Stewart said.

Federal Managers Association president Michael Styles testified at the same hearing that he is concerned his group will not be formally recognized by the secretary of Defense under the new rules, and will be locked out of dialogue.

NSPS final regulations state that the department "may request views and comments from representatives of other employee groups, such as a managers' association."

FMA is a nonprofit group representing managers and supervisors in the government. It does not bargain on behalf of its membership, but it advocates for them and is included in some discussions on workplace issues.

Styles called for the department to insert language into the NSPS regulations mirroring existing requirements from which Defense is exempt under the new personnel system. Those requirements would make the Pentagon formally recognize FMA. He also asked department leadership to set up regular monthly or bimonthly meetings with his group.

"The recognition of management organizations such as FMA is a fundamental part of maintaining a collaborative and congenial work environment," Styles said. Under the current personnel system, FMA can "come to the table with DoD leadership and discuss issues that affect managers, supervisors and executives," he said.

"While this process is not binding arbitration, the ability for managers and supervisors to have a voice in the policy development within the department is crucial to its long-term vitality," Styles added.

FMA has been included in numerous discussions on the creation of the NSPS, and if the group submits a formal request for regular meetings, officials will consider it, said Joyce Frank, a spokeswoman. She also emphasized that Defense officials have reached out to nonunion employees through town hall meetings, focus groups, surveys and web contacts, as well as through veterans' and other groups.

Styles called for the Pentagon to adopt five provisions of the United States Code, Title 5, which governs personnel management at most executive branch agencies but does not cover NSPS. These would require:

• Organizations such as FMA to be able to provide information, views and services to aid in agency operations.
• Supervisors and managers to be included in decision-making and notified of executive-level decisions on a timely basis.
• The department to maintain a system for intramanagement communication and consultation.
• The department to develop a consultative relationship with groups such as FMA.
• The department to provide support services to nonlabor managerial associations when it determines it is warranted.

Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who is leading NSPS development and implementation, said in his testimony that, in addition to unions, "employees, managers and supervisors" were consulted in the creation of the system.

As for ongoing communication with employees, England said information will be passed down the chain via supervisors and through NSPS Web sites and printed materials.

Styles said that after a bumpy start, NSPS staff has so far included FMA in the process.

"We were initially discouraged by the lack of outreach that the DoD was conducting to management and employee groups as well as OPM," Styles said. However, once communication efforts were increased, "the NSPS staff has availed themselves to our membership."

Styles said FMA leaders met with NSPS officials several times during the development of the regulations.

COMMENTS

• I was a GS-12 step 4 I was offered a GS-13 job in Kuwait on the phone by personnel a RRAD. They offer me $75,000.00 this should have been my base pay. We all know you lose your locality pay. When I received my first check they had put me at a GS-13 step one which is lest than I was making as a GS-12 step 4. The training I received on NSPS at RRAD I was told if you were on a temp promotion at the same time you were moved under NSPS you would fall in the pay band that the promotion has set you in at. After being here 4 months I received a check that put me back to a GS-12 step 4. They are telling me they had to do that to set me into NSPS at the right pay band there is no way this is ever going to be concidered a promotion it seems every turn I am losing money. What are the facts is this possible what is going on if so this system has not been studied an all flaws removed. Mark Posted February 25, 2008 11:41 PM
• I think the NSPS system is unfair for most federal employees. I am currently a new employee GS 9 Step 1, who started working with DOD in Germany on September 2006. I am supposed to receive my Step 2 increase in late September but now I am not sure of I will receive if because NSPS rolls out on October 1st in my organization. My biggest problem is that OPM is not really saying if we will receive the yearly GSI increase for 2008 under NSPS and subsequent yearly GSI increases. It seems the GSI increase is going to be phased out or included in the NSPS performance pay but will not be added in conjunction with any NSPS performance bonuses. DOD and our local HR personnel are trying to sell us on the fact that under NSPS everyone will be rated a satisfactory 3 upon conversion and as a 3, we will receive an average pay increase of 3%. This increase does not benefit new employees because currently we receive a 1.7% GSI yearly increase approved by congress plus a 3.3% step increase at the end of the year for an average total of 5%. As you can see, under NSPS our compensation will decrease by an average of 1-2% for new employees that receive a yearly step increase. In addition, I possess a Master’s degree and I am overqualified for my current position. However, I accepted this position to get my foot in the door and then re-apply for other positions that I might find more complex and challenging within the organization. If I were move into another career level within DOD, one that would have been rated a GS11 or higher under NSPS, I fall under the same pay band and be subject to a maximum salary increase of 5%. This is termed a, “reassignment” under NSPS. However, someone hired from outside DOD would be able to get negotiate a higher salary within the same Pay Band and I would be restricted to a 5% increase. I believe this is truly and unfair practice and will not assist in retaining quality employees. If these protocols under NSPS are left in place, DOD will be a revolving door and quality hard working employees will flee to the private sector. Could you please voice my concerns about NSPS and answer my GSI questions. OPM has been very vague about using GSI and NSPS in the same sentence. Teddy Posted August 14, 2007 4:21 AM
• I transferred into WRAMC from a 12/7 to a 12/10 and my base pay was cut by $5000, after a year it was cut by another $5000. Now we are being told, we are going to NSPS. We will lose our cost of living increases, have potential for loosing our locality pay ans eve have our base pay cut if we don't please the jack-asses they call supervisors. Nurses at WRAMC are already deprived of their CNE/CME monies so that more doctors can attend their chosen CMEs. In my 30 years of nursing I have never been anywhere that treats nursing personnel so poorly as here. Strongly recommend that all government employees lobby their senators & congressmen/women to pull all funding for NSPS!! Dorothy Clinton Posted October 26, 2007 6:18 PM