Critics: Details about new Pentagon personnel system are scarce

A coalition of labor unions meeting with Defense Department officials to discuss the new National Security Personnel System are blasting Pentagon leaders for refusing to negotiate with them or to share information about plans for the new system.

"We're just meeting for the sake of meeting and have been since … January," said Ron Ault, president of the metal trade department of the AFL-CIO. "They haven't shared anything with us."

According to union leaders, the Pentagon has told them that the purpose of the three meetings held since January is to gather employee input, not to negotiate the design of the new system. Leaders from 35 different unions, who have joined forces under the United DoD Workers Coalition, expressed their disgruntlement during two days of meetings with Defense and Office of Personnel Management officials at a hotel outside Washington, D.C., on Wednesday and Thursday.

But in a statement provided to Government Executive, Mary Lacey, the program executive officer for the National Security Personnel System, said that union and Pentagon officials had "had meaningful dialogue, talked about substance, shared concerns, and exchanged ideas that will guide us as we continue to explore options." She said that the Defense Department was "committed to safeguarding employee rights and protections."

Last year, Congress passed legislation authorizing Defense to eliminate the General Schedule and replace it with a new personnel system for the department's nearly 700,000 civilian employees. Ever since, union leaders have publicly complained about the way the Pentagon has approached the design process.

In February, union officials reacted angrily to a Defense memorandum aimed at kicking off discussions about a new labor-management system for the department. The memo said that Defense officials were considering establishing a Defense Labor Relations Board that would resolve labor-management disputes and might also adjudicate employee disciplinary appeals, replacing the Merit Systems Protection Board's adjudicatory function.

According to the memo, Defense civilian employees could continue to join unions, but a "fee-for-service" arrangement also would be established, allowing employees to contract with a union to represent them in certain situations for a fee. Unions oppose that idea, arguing that it would lead some members to quit, believing they could secure union representation at less expense on an as-needed basis.

The memo also said that consultation between the unions and Defense management on bargaining issues would be limited to 60 days. If the unions and management were unable to reach agreement, management could move forward with the changes it proposed.

In March, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., lambasted Defense Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness David Chu at a Senate hearing, arguing that the Pentagon had "presented a singular approach right out of the box" that was "needlessly confrontational," and that indicated, according to Levin, that Defense "views consultation as a formality."

In April, Defense announced that it was relaunching its design process with a series of meetings with union leaders and groups of employees. Navy Secretary Gordon England was assigned to head up the design process. In a briefing for reporters that month, he said that the earlier memo should not be treated as definitive and that Defense was open to other ideas. The memo, he said, was merely a "point of departure."

On Aug. 16, Pentagon officials sent another memorandum to union leaders listing potential options for a new labor-management relations system. It indicated that Defense officials are dissatisfied with the current speed of bargaining, but did not indicate which of many options they prefer.

The unions responded with a detailed list of inquiries, asking Pentagon officials to provide examples of when the current system has hindered department goals or proceeded too slowly. To this point, Defense has not responded, said Matthew Biggs, legislative director of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers.

"They want to see our cards, but they don't want to do anything on the other side," says Biggs. The meetings "are just a public relations ploy for them."