Re: rational observations

I usually agree with Robbie but not in this case. His underlying premise is that PFP is bad and something that any rational worker would want to avoid (anybody else hearing peals of laughter from our friends in the private sector?). Not surprisingly, the majority of comments seem to support this position. As I see it, the problem is that Robbie's concerns are borne out of ignorance and fear, fueled no doubt by self-serving labor propaganda, rather than through first-hand experience. Could it be that those employees that Robbie is leading astray would actually be better off under a PFP system? DoD's many years of experience with demonstration projects suggests that they most definitely would be better off.

Re: rational observations

Au contraire re the LR Specialist, DoD's comments on the benefits of NSPS! Unions were borne out of a cause & effect relationship: horrendous working conditions, tyrant bosses, & poor pay all contributed to the need for unions. While the root causes for the development & spread of unions may have been mitigated by time & enlightenment on mngt's part, unions continue to exist for a reason.
One of those reason's is this joke of a reformed personnel system. NSPS was arbitrary in conception & arbitrary in implementation, attributes shared by creator of the misbegotten system, Donald Rumsfeld. I know many AF supervisors at the 1st, 2nd, & 3rd tiers of mngt that fall under NSPS & they all abhor it.
Contracting Officer USAF

Re: max hr

That is an interesting suggestion: allowing employee representatives and management to work together to create a new personnel system that works for both.

That would very likely produce better results than the top down approach used at DHS and the NSPS when creating their systems.

But, be careful, you are getting very close to what collective bargaining does. : )

May we assume that any agreement reached between the employee representatives and management in designing the new system would be binding upon both sides?

Or would the management be allowed to include a clause in the regulations allowing them to abrogate any present or future agreement that conflicted with their goals?

Re: max hr

In the pre-statutory meetings with DOD, the unions suggested such a premise, working together to fix those things both parties agreed were broke in the current system.

We agreed that the changes would be binding on the parties as we would design and negotiate at the table.

The unions of course, were turned downed cold, told that DOD and OPM heard our concerns and would take them under advisement and that they would get back to us.

They didn't of course, nor did they listen to the 56,000 DOD employees who offered comments to their new system.

Re: max hr

Have management and the Unions work together to develop a new personnel system? Are you serious? Forget about getting agreement between management and the Unions, you'd never get the Unions to agree on anything to present to management! Tell you what, try this out and let us know in about 10 years how you're doing. I'm betting you'll still be working on ground rules.