GovernmentExecutive.com

A coalition of 36 Defense Department unions boycotted scheduled discussions over the Pentagon's new personnel system this week, citing insufficient time to prepare.

The no-show widened the rift between Pentagon officials and unions over the National Security Personnel System. This week's talks were the final opportunity for union contribution before the system's tentative February implementation.

The Pentagon scheduled the Dec. 13 and Dec. 14 meetings to gain union input on hundreds of pages of documents released in late November. The documents provide details on how the department plans to implement pay for performance and other aspects of the reforms.

But the union coalition said there was not enough time to read, analyze and prepare suggestions on the particulars of the personnel system, which replaces the General Schedule with broad salary ranges and eliminates annual raises in favor of performance- and market-based salary increases.

A number of unions in the coalition filed a lawsuit in November in which they accused the Pentagon of failing to seek adequate union input while creating NSPS. The lawsuit also addressed the labor relations portion of the reforms, but it did not touch on the human resources details included in the documents, known as "implementing issuances."

After quietly releasing the issuances Nov. 23 on the NSPS Web site, the Pentagon briefed the unions on Dec. 1 and Dec. 2.

NSPS officials planned follow-up meetings for Dec. 13 and Dec. 14 "to provide employee representatives an opportunity to discuss their views and recommendations with DoD officials on the implementing issuances," a Dec. 7 letter from NSPS program executive officer Mary Lacey to union leader Byron Charlton stated.

At the initial NSPS briefing, union representatives had told Lacey that two weeks was not enough time to read and analyze the documents, especially because of the holidays, and had proposed meetings Jan. 9-11. But Lacey denied that request in her letter.

The Pentagon did arrange an additional teleconference for Dec. 22 and extended the deadline for submitting written comments on most of the documents from Dec. 23 to Dec. 30.

"We believe the schedule provides a fair and reasonable opportunity for views and recommendations to be submitted and considered," NSPS spokesperson Joyce Frank said.

Coalition leaders disagree.

"If the collaborative process is to be a participatory practice of all parties, we insist on consulting on schedules that accommodate the needs of management and the [coalition] alike," Charlton said. "Again, the Pentagon is displaying their disregard for the legitimate worker representatives."

David Walker, the head of the Government Accountability Office and a leader in federal personnel reforms, said a breakdown in employee involvement at this stage could be damaging to the overall success of NSPS.

"There's going to be controversy about whatever changes you're going to make," Walker said. "That's why it's all the more important to have a process that has integrity so at the end of the day whether people may or may not like the changes, at least they feel the process had integrity. That can make all the difference."

In her letter, Lacey disagreed with the unions' contention that the latest documents contain a lot of new material. Many of the concepts were previously discussed with unions at meetings last spring, she said.

Coalition spokesperson Matt Biggs said the unions still hope to find a mutually agreeable time to meet.

"What we're hoping for and expecting from their side is to truly collaborate with us and come to a mutual timeframe where we can meet," Biggs said. "It's just unreasonable [to] expect us to go over 400 pages of documents that of course they've been working on for years."

COMMENTS

• No rank and file member of the DoD wants this program implemented. Management does not want this implemented. It’s unfair to ask the government to run like a business when it’s not a business. We don’t have pay parity with the private sector and we will never have it. This is union busting plain and simple. And, for you wannabe Republicans out there - you have three more years of these attacks on the middle class to contend with. I hope you’re satisfied. This administration is interested in helping the rich at our expense. You re-elected him. Now live with it. GovExec.com reader Posted December 15, 2005 9:13 AM
• "Coalition spokesperson Matt Biggs said the unions still hope to find a mutually agreeable time to meet." How about never? Is never good for you? If these folks are supposed to be representing the work force, how does holding their collective breath until they turn blue do us any good? Go to the darn table and fight for improvements if you think they must be made. Skeptical Posted December 15, 2005 8:18 AM
• In the article, it says: "In her letter, Lacey disagreed with the unions' contention that the latest documents contain a lot of new material. Many of the concepts were previously discussed with unions at meetings last spring, she said." Concepts are one thing but the proof is in the pudding and the unions got over 400 pages of details with scant time to read, digest and respond. Additionally, if they had this information last spring, why not share it then? Or was that a misunderstanding when the unions were told at meet and confer that this stuff was not developed yet? So much for credibility of process in developing a new personnel system that employees trust and buy into. Oh yeah, and if you think that promising no loss of pay for 2006 to employees will buy you an election, think again. Mark Gibson Posted December 15, 2005 3:40 PM