Overhaul of Federal Workforce Planned

[paineinthearse]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4498303

Overhaul of Federal Workforce Planned
by Frank Langfitt


“The new system would affect at least 1.5 million federal employees and mark the biggest change in the way the government oversees it civilian workforce in more than half a century.”

NPR.org, February 14, 2005 · The Pentagon published regulations Monday to overhaul its civilian personnel system from one based on time served to one that pays and promotes based on performance, according to Department of Defense officials. The change, which will affect 650,000 employees, is part of a broader plan to transform the way the government manages the federal work force. This spring, the Bush administration plans to propose legislation that would scrap the government's General Schedule -- or GS -- personnel system along with its familiar 15 grades. Officials say they will replace it with a system that rewards results.

If approved by Congress, the new system would affect at least 1.5 million federal employees and mark the biggest change in the way the government oversees its civilian workforce in more than half a century. "It's the end of the civil service system, period," said Paul Light, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank, who has spent two decades studying the public service system.

Administration officials say they must make the changes to improve the performance of the civil service and compete with salaries in the private sector. "The government needs to be able to recruit, retain and reward quality people for their contributions," an official at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said in an interview. "We can't do that under the current, inflexible system."

Unions are already trying to block some of the administration's moves, insisting that changes will strip workers of bargaining rights and leave them vulnerable to political retaliation. The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents at least 100,000 DOD employees, says it will join four other unions this week to sue the Pentagon over the regulations that are to appear Monday. An attorney for the union says that it was not consulted in drafting the regulations, as required by law. "They've shut us out of virtually all workplace decisions," said Mark Roth, the union's general council.

more........

[tridim]

1. "Officials say they will replace it with a system that rewards results"

Bwhahahaha.. Thanks for the laugh. :D

[paineinthearse]

6. I'm just the messenger, I don't write this nonsense!!!!!! nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Political performance

will be the mandate for people to keep their jobs or get promoted. THat's why civil service was instituted in the first place, back in the 1880s. What's next, reinstituting seperate but equal, or the extermination of Native Americans?

[Mandate My Ass]

3. Ah another purge

First the military then the CIA, now civvies will be rewarded or dismissed based on where their loyalties lie.

Whenever they say the word "inflexible," it just means they want to scrap all the rules and make new ones that favor their agenda.

[necso]

4. "...insisting that changes will strip workers of bargaining rights and

leave them vulnerable to political retaliation."

It will, in practise, make "politics" the basis for compensation and promotion.

But these things are exactly the point. -- Got to root out any last trace of unions and worker protections, you know. And if you can't "gitmo" employees who won't "tow the line", then at least you can "git-less" them.

[necso]

7. Oh,

and I realize that "toe the line" is probably the more common form. But the neocons (and their ilk) do not merely wish to have flunkies that conform to the "line", but rather to have flunkies that advance this line.

And this is a relevant distinction. It is one thing to be expected to be a sycophant, toady, conformist and "team-player". It is entirely another to be expected to take these things to new lows, and to act as an advocate or even as a "revolutionary" for this (largely -- and usually) hidden and unspoken agenda. For there is no guarantee that one's masters will come to one's assistance if one goes too far out on the branch. Indeed, one's masters might even saw that branch off in their own best interests. So flunkies beware.

[Book Lover]

5. Oh boy

This recommendation will bore some to tears, but I recommend reading Thompson's Classics of Public Personnel Policy to get your soundbites and talking points in for why this is a bad idea.

[paineinthearse]

8. Congressional labor/government operations oversight committees

Scan the list of members and contact yours.....

SENATE

Health, Labor, Education & Pensions - http://help.senate.gov/

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
http://help.senate.gov/


Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Committee Chairman
Senator Judd Gregg (NH)
Senator Edward Kennedy (MA), Ranking Member
Senator Bill Frist (TN)
Senator Christopher Dodd (CT)
Senator Lamar Alexander (TN)
Senator Tom Harkin (IA)
Senator Richard Burr (NC)
Senator Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Senator Johnny Isakson (GA)
Senator James Jeffords (I) (VT)
Senator Mike DeWine (OH)
Senator Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Senator John Ensign (NV)
Senator Patty Murray (WA)
Senator Orrin Hatch (UT)
Senator Jack Reed (RI)
Senator Jeff Sessions (AL)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
Senator Pat Roberts (KS)

HOUSE
Government Reform
http://reform.house.gov/
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/

Majority
Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA), CHAIRMAN
Dan Burton (R-IN)
Christopher Shays (R-CT)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
John M. McHugh (R-NY)
John L. Mica (R-FL)
Mark E. Souder (R-IN)
Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH)
Doug Ose (R-CA)
Ron Lewis (R-KY)
Todd Russell Platts (R-PA)
Chris Cannon (R-UT)
Adam H. Putnam (R-FL)
Edward L. Schrock (R-VA)
John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN)
Nathan Deal (R-GA)
Candice S. Miller (R-MI)
Tim Murphy (R-PA)
Michael R. Turner (R-OH)
John Carter (R-TX)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Patrick J. Tiberi (R-OH)
Katherine Harris (R-FL)
Michael C. Burgess (R-TX)

Minority
Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER
Tom Lantos (D-CA)
Major R. Owens (D-NY)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)
Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD)
Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)
Danny K. Davis (D-IL)
John F. Tierney (D-MA)
Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO)
Diane E. Watson (D-CA)
Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA)
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA)
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)

[paineinthearse]

9. Federal Times - More power for managers, less for unions

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=654628

February 14, 2005

DoD’s personnel overhaul: More power for managers, less for unions

By TIM KAUFFMAN

In what amounts to the most sweeping overhaul of the federal personnel system in a half century, the Defense Department unveiled draft rules that would empower managers to reward outstanding performers, hire and fire employees more quickly and bypass union negotiations when redeploying workers or changing working conditions.
Defense’s draft plan, outlined to reporters Feb. 10, largely mirrors the Homeland Security Department’s new personnel system unveiled Jan. 26. As with Homeland Security, Defense managers would be able to assign employees new responsibilities without first bargaining with the union, discipline poor performers without offering them time to improve, and steer larger raises to high performers.

Both the Defense and Homeland Security systems offer a preview of changes that could be coming to managers and employees across government. The Bush administration said it will press Congress this year to allow all agencies to adopt similar personnel reforms. “The publication of these proposed regulations will mark a significant point in our efforts to reform not only DoD’s civilian personnel system, but it gives much-needed momentum to our efforts to transform and modernize the entire civil service,” said Dan Blair, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.

The draft rules for the new system were expected to be published Feb. 14 in the Federal Register. Final rules are expected in mid-May. The Defense system, called the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), will replace the General Schedule, said Navy Secretary Gordon England, the top Defense executive overseeing development of the new system. “It’s an outdated system, frankly, and we’re going to replace it with a very modern system that we need to attract, recruit, retain and compensate fairly and manage our employees,” he said.

There are some important differences between Defense and Homeland Security’s systems. Defense managers, for instance, would receive permanent authority to bypass competitive hiring procedures and bring on employees more quickly than they can now. They also would be able to make performance, not longevity, the main factor when deciding who to let go during a reduction in force. Homeland Security managers must follow current hiring and RIF rules, since Congress prohibited the department from making changes in those areas.

more....

[cthrumatrix]

10. there are no more checks-balances

[papau]

11. kick

:-)

[GraysonDave]

12. Bad idea

It's sure to foster cases of retribution for political or other reasons. That's OK for the private sector, but not government.

[paineinthearse]

13. WP - Rationales on Civil Service Reform Are Long on Rhetoric

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24401-2005Feb14.html

Defense, Homeland Security Rationales on Civil Service Reform Are Long on Rhetoric

By Stephen Barr

Tuesday, February 15, 2005; Page B02


The rhetoric in the Defense and Homeland Security regulations highlight the arguments by the Bush administration for shaking up the civil service in the post-9/11 world. In short, the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, in laying out their plans for new pay and personnel systems, have decided that the status quo is not an option for employees or the unions that represent about half of their workforces. Here are some excerpts from the proposed Defense regulation and the final Homeland Security regulation -- both issued this month and both offering justifications for why the decades-old General Schedule is no longer suitable. From the Homeland Security regulation, published Feb. 1:

"Since September 11, 2001, this Nation has come together with a unity of purpose that has not been seen or felt since the attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941. . . .

"The mission of the Department demands that employees and supervisors work together as never before. Managers, supervisors, and employees of the department must be unified in both purpose and effort if they are to accomplish that mission. And perhaps the most important way to bring about that unity is through an integrated HR system for the Department -- a system that assures maximum flexibility and accountability."

From the Pentagon's proposed regulation for the National Security Personnel System, published yesterday:

"NSPS is a key pillar in the Department of Defense's transformation -- a new way to manage its civilian workforce. NSPS is essential to the department's efforts to create an environment in which the total force, uniformed personnel and civilians, thinks and operates as one cohesive unit. . . . Civilians must be an integrated, flexible and responsive part of the team. . . .

"The attacks of September 11 made it clear that flexibility is not a policy preference. It is nothing less than an absolute requirement and it must become the foundation of DoD civilian human resources management. . . .

"The limitations imposed by the current personnel system often prevent managers from using civilian employees effectively. The Department sometimes uses military personnel or contractors when civilian employees could have and should have been the right answer. . . .

"NSPS will generate more opportunities for DoD civilians by easing the administrative burden routinely required by the current system and providing an incentive for managers to turn to them first when certain vital tasks need doing. . . .

"The NSPS is a transformation lever to enhance the Department's ability to execute its national security mission."

The imperative to respond to the Sept. 11 attacks weighs heavily in how the departments describe changes to labor relations and to compensation. For example, the Homeland Security regulation portrays union contracts as a burden on managers leading the fight against terrorism.

"The Department must be able to rely on the judgment and ability of these managers and supervisors to make day-to-day decisions -- even if this means deviating from established or negotiated procedures," ..."The reality in the department is that such deviations would be constant, thereby rendering any negotiated procedures meaningless."

On the topic of pay, the Homeland Security regulation says "we believe" that the public wants federal employees paid according to how well they perform rather than how long they have been on the job.

"The higher the performance, the higher the pay. This, too, is a fundamental principle of the new system,"

The challenge at the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, of course, is to put this rhetoric into practice, and to convince employees that such changes will make their workplaces better. The departments expect that the new systems will be at least four years in the making. Along the way, officials promise that they will learn from experience and adjust the systems accordingly.

E-mail: [e-mail]

[paineinthearse]

14. DoD Press Release -

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009816

New civilian personnel rules published Feb. 14

by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

2/11/2005 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Officials from the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management will publish the regulations that will govern how the new National Security Personnel System will operate, DOD officials said Feb. 10.

The proposed regulations will appear in the Federal Register Feb. 14, and officials invite comment.

Navy Secretary Gordon England said once the public comment period ends March 16, the officials will confer with the various federal employee unions and then give all comments "fair and full consideration." Secretary England serves as the DOD senior executive overseeing the system.

"Our plan, then, is to begin the implementation this summer," he said. "We'll learn through doing, we'll do this in phases, and we will progressively add more and more employees (and) learn as we go until completion at the end of 2008."

The publication marks the end of the first phase of implementing the new personnel system. The system, enacted by Congress in 2003, will allow DOD officials to better manage civilian personnel, they said. Once in place, DOD officials will be able to shift people among jobs, hire faster and reward good workers.

"Now NSPS is going to replace a 50-year-old system," Secretary England said. "We're going to replace (the current system) with a very modern system that we need to attract, recruit, retain, compensate fairly and manage our employees."

The system will focus on performance, flexibility and accountability, the secretary said.

"It will be much more responsive to the national security environment, and … it will fully preserve our employee protections, our veterans preference and employee benefits," he said.

The first 60,000 people under the NSPS are scheduled to transfer to the system in July, at their current salaries. General-schedule workers will stop being GS-designated employees and will transfer to pay bands. It will be a year before the first decisions are made on performance-based pay raises, officials said.

Dan Blair, the OPM's acting director, said the new rules will not change merit-system protections, whistle-blower protections, veterans preference, benefits, rules against prohibited practices or leave and work schedules.

The system will change the general-schedule system and job-classification standards. It will give managers more flexibility in reassigning employees to fulfill critical needs and more flexibility in where employees will work.

"We have encouraged our unions to work constructively with us, and also with the federal mediation and conciliations services so we can find common ground and make this an even better system," Secretary England said.

However, five federal employees’ unions announced they will challenge the system in court. The unions contend DOD and OPM officials have not adequately consulted with them.

Mr. Blair said that with NSPS, the entire federal government personnel system has "reached a tipping point." DOD, the Department of Homeland Security and a number of other federal agencies’ employees will be covered under new, more responsive personnel rules.

"More federal workers will be covered by reformed and modernized systems than the current general schedule," he said. "These changes haven't come easily. But this new system (shows) that transformation can take place.”

[moondust]

15. Out with stability.

In with aggression, ambition, cut-throat competition, lies, treachery, politics-based civil service at the beck and call of the Corrupt Politico of the Week.

Repugs are surely doing their best to destroy the U.S.

[tsuki]

16. Okay, why to go Dubya. Let's see, we can add the civil service to the

destruction of Iraq, the economy, social security, civil rights, and the enviroment. You're almost there, Dubya. In another year, you can have a press conference and tear up the Constitution on M$M to the cheers of the faithful. /end sarcasm, but is it really sarcasm.

[cap]

17. a lot of these guys voted for dubya...

ye reap what ye sow... they thought they were a winner in this society... but they arent...

Wait till we taxpayers stop picking up the tab for DOD contractor's pensions...

[rodeodance]

18. bush has always wanted to destroy unions -his chance came with 9/11

and the creation of Homeland security!!--

[paineinthearse]

20. insecurity....n/t

[demnan]

19. Ok, I don't like this but

reform is needed in the Federal Government. There are far too few people who are doing valuable work there. Of course there are many fine government employees, but there is also a lot of waste and a lot of unproductive people who merely want to obtain a paycheck - people who hire contractors to do their thinking for them and to make policy decisions. I know of what I speak.

I think Al Gore was on to something when he was trying (as Vice President) to rid the government of a lot of waste. A lot of government people I knew felt so also, but what Bush is trying to do is to privatize the entire Federal Government. All this started during Reagan.

As for the FAA - well I have to be honest, these folks don't talk to each other. They would rather pick up a phone and call a contractor located in Virginia, than to talk to someone sitting 10 feet away from them. I've experienced this time and time again. Other agencies fight against each other and distrust each other.

It's long past time the GS system was revised in the Government, but I fear Bush is going to fuck it up worse than it is, like he does everything else.

[TaleWgnDg]

21. waitaminute . . . waitaminute . . . waitaminute . . .

Correct me here if I am wrong . . . but wasn't the Civil Service System begun to over-ride political cronyism? And now GWBush wants to replace the Civil Service System with -- yup -- cronyism?

Egads, how utterly insightful of our illustrious president, yet, again! Cheers for the "moran" in our nation's Oval Office!