GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bush team may drop labor part of civil service overhaul

• 15893
  

  Should you be in favor of what the Bush administration is doing or not? A good question, without a straightforward answer in this case.

  It's a good thing that they seem to be backing off on the labor relations portion of NSPS a bit. It was never anything more than an attempt to undermine unions and destroy workers' rights. A judge has ruled it illegal on those grounds. The same for the DHS labor provisions.

  But at the same time, NSPS as a whole is badly planned and in violation of federal law. So the fact that the administration keeps trying to push it is troubling. Try getting a straight and complete answer on any aspect of NSPS from any official. It can't be done. They either don't know what they're doing, or won't admit it.

  I think it's best to be very wary of anything this administration does, on general principles. They've already shown a frightening contempt for the law, the Constitution, and basic common sense. The new systems grant far too much power to management, but then, that dovetails nicely with the administration's agenda of absolute power for the president. They haven't felt the need to obey the law yet, why start now?

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 4, 2006 4:26 PM
• 15889
  

  Dave: You don't really think that will happen do you? Save the lawyer talk. All federal employees don't and never will be evaluated the same. Do you think Bush, the Senate, Congress and federal judges will come under pay for performance? Do you think they work under the same standards as most federal employees? They aren't held to the same ethics standards, pay standards, retirement and health benefits. Why? Because they rule themselves, and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 4, 2006 2:56 PM
• 15854
  

  After reading this story, I had no idea whether I should be in favor of what the Bush administration was doing or not. Stories like this should include some objective assessment of the pros and cons.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 3, 2006 2:56 PM
• 15790
  

  Aha! The entire reason for NSPS is to take monies reduced for salaries and spend it on worthless DoD projects (i.e. FCP, DIMHRS). Good luck finding anyone worth a darn to work for you, DoD. Oops, BRAC is taking care of that! And you can thank Congress (Republicans, Democrats, and the lone independent) for all of these ridiculous programs.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 31, 2006 7:54 AM
• 15766
  

  That's a nice start. Now, how about dropping the rest of NSPS as well?

  David Posted March 30, 2006 12:02 PM
• 15735
  

  Oh geesh and they can't figure out why the folks at DHS are bailing on them and then can't replace them. Wasn't this going to attract the best and brightest? Guess I missed something.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 29, 2006 5:46 PM
• 15722
  

  What a novel concept -- handle pay separately from the push to emasculate the unions and to limit due process for federal employees. There is a little thing called trust. Even the much praised GAO plan now is hitting the brick wall caused by a refusal of GAO management to release information to GAO employees about how pay was determined.

  If little GAO can't do it and has been planning this for many years, how are DoD and DHS going to convince 1.0 million federal employees that the plans are kosher?

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 29, 2006 10:42 AM
• 15708
  

  If only DoD and DHS have to live with pay for performance and the rest of the federal government employees don't have to operate under pay for performance then I will be filing a lawsuit anyway. This would create a great disparity with people with the same occupations receiving different pay.

  It should be all or none, period.

  Dave Posted March 28, 2006 9:18 PM