Comments by Mark A. Rudd, NUWCDIVNPT, Newport, RI 02878

SUBPART F - Workforce Shaping
Pages 7564-7565 and Pages 7588-7590
Section 9901	and Section 9901.601-611

Background:  Comments are an attempt to share ‘Expertise’  gained from:
1) 1996 RIF; USAF Rome Laboratory; Griffiss AFB, NY (Base Closure)
2) 1999 QDR; USAF 38TH EIW, Tinker AFB, OK (Wing Folded into Group)
3) 2004 Alignment; US Navy, NUWCDIVNPT, RI (NUWC Realignment)

Introduction:  Thank you for this opportunity to give comments.  Below is my reaction based on my above background and ‘expertise’,  in particular from the RIF process.

General Comments
1. Such drastic change out of character of DoD’s successful cost-saving approach.
1.1 Propose reducing cost using developmental change as apposed to that of current NSPS Proposed Rules.
2. Costly Oversights (a typical case example from RIF Experience)
2.1 NSPS Reference Document does not allow for previous actions, which made a RIF action work.
2.2 Summary of deficiencies (NSPS Proposed Rules):
2.2.1 TRANSITIONAL COOPERATION:  Previous RIF Action allowed time for management to work with affected employees, such as:
2.2.1.1 On site job-relocation services
2.2.1.2 Community job-relocation services 
2.2.1.3 Priority Placement
2.2.1.3.1 Mitigate costly/hasty Permanent Change of Station (PCS) decisions.  (Time was allowed for me to first consider local options (less costly to DoD).
2.2.1.4 Undesirable RIF Effects (that can only get worse with current Proposed Rules.)
2.2.1.4.1 Disgruntled Employees
2.2.1.4.2 Casualties such as suicide
(I had lunch w/ my vice-commander who had the unfortunate  ‘additional duty’ of investigating such a suicide.  Please count the costs instead of starting from scratch.)

SUMMARY:  Based on my background experience (listed above), NSPS does not consider the ‘big picture’ nor ‘count the cost’ from such drastic change.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Please return to DoD’s heritage of responsible developmental change.  
(Don’t ‘throw out the baby with the bath-water.’)
2. Please  return to DoD’s ‘family/community’ type heritage.  Consider ‘bottom-up’ solutions (as well as ‘top-down’ directives) gained from our NUWC & NAVSEA Realignment investments, as well as VERA options.
2.1 From my experience, the DoD has been more of a community, working together to work out solutions.

As a local example, our current motto is:
”Working Together to Deliver the Best Solutions Quickly”
	Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Motto

SUBPART F - Workforce Shaping
Pages 7564-7565
Section 9901

Comments by Mark Rudd
Background:  ‘Expertise’ shared from 199 6 RIF; Rome Laboratory; Griffiss AFB

These comments are in relation to the following subsections (and Definitions):
1) Workforce Shaping—Subpart F
2) Adverse Actions—Subpart G

1. Please, may we learn from history?
1.1 My 1996 RIF action was accurately called an “Adverse Action.”
1.2 Introducing more pleasant names (such as Workforce Shaping) does not alter the truth, that such RIF actions (or people loosing their jobs) is truly an Adverse Action.
1.2.1Communicating this from literature:
“A rose by any other name, is it not sweet?”
‘Loosing one’s job by any other name, is it any sweeter?’
1.3 And please learn from history:
1.3.1 Recall that other governments attempted such redefinition of terms.  In history, such phrases appear to dull their conscious.
1.3.1.1 (Extreme case in point) Recall, terms such as “ethnic cleansing” which allowed the Holocaust.
1.4 NSPS did not start (but can stop) this trend of terms, such as:
1.4.1 Reduction in Force (RIF)
1.5 Historical comments (above) appear to be applicable apply to such Proposed Rules.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 Please ‘turn the tide’ by avoiding such ‘candy-coated’ terms like “Workforce Shaping.”
2.1.1 The current ‘name-game’ (such as the above ‘workforce shaping’) has been found unwise through history (as shown above).
2.2 Please Improve current rules and processes instead of investing in a whole new set of rules and processes. 
2.2.1 Review of this section appears to be a dangerous ‘reinventing the wheel’ .
Even our Constitution (which you and I both swore to defend) is amended, not rewritten.

SUBPART F - Workforce Shaping
Pages 7588-7590
Section 9901.601-611

Apparent all new set of rules:  This complete set of new rules is viewed as dangerous, based on previous experience (and as shown below).

  Based on my 1996 Adverse Action (RIF), at least the rules were more concise to allow fair checks and balances.  

  These pages (of Proposed Rules) appear to give the ‘hatchet-man’ authority to hurt himself, or (using the old saying) ‘cut him-self off at the knees.’

Section § 9901.603 states: “Definitions.”
In this subpart:
Competing employee means a career employee (including an employee serving an initial probationary period), an employee serving on a term appointment, and other employees as identified in DoD implementing issuances.
Competitive area means the boundaries within which employees compete for retention under this subpart, based on factors described in § 9901.605(a).
Competitive group means employees within a competitive area who are on a common retention list for the purpose of exercising displacement rights.

   As Miriam Webster Online Dictionary defines the term: com·pete
Etymology: Late Latin competere to seek together, from Latin
: to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (as position, profit, or a prize [or survival in this venue]) : be in a state of rivalry
   
   I admit that the competitive arena is usually good in most cases.  However, do you really plan your work-force to work in ‘rivalry’ instead of our current ‘Working Together’ motto at NAVSEA/NUWC?  
   
   Returning to my 1996 RIF case, the process (as ugly as it was) allowed an environment for me to train my replacement instead of ‘compete.’  Which is in the best interest of the government, to work together or to compete (in such a RIF scenario)?

   I found the ‘etymology’ (or ‘history of a linguistic word’ compete) to be quite interesting to such definitions in § 9901.60.  Note the origins coming from 'late Latin', such as Rome.  I support healthy competition such as the Greek Olympics, yet find the above three (3) forms of the root word ‘compete’ to be early beginnings of the Roman’s  ‘state of rivalry’ ending with the Gladiators.  Remember that the Roman Empire soon fell and didn’t appear to benefit from such competition.  I appeal that we return to our own heritage, such as work together.  
   If you find such statements extreme, I failed to mention that I grew up in Rome NY, where we were made very aware of how we (as a society) are not learning from the fall of the Roman Empire.  I understand these Proposed Rules are in response to the War on Terror.  Yet remember that Rome fell from within. 

IN SHORT
   Where are you going with your use of ‘competitive’ language?  
Based on what I have experienced, this form of competition (such as introducing work-force rivalry) is not in the best interest of the government.

RELEVANT QUOTE:   “United we stand, divided we fall.”

SUBPART G – Adverse Actions
Pages 7590-791
Section 9901.701-715

Section 9901.704(b, 5 out of 16) states: “Actions excluded.”  A reduction-in-force action under
subpart F of this part;

   Does this section indicate that a ‘reduction-in-force’ in not an ‘adverse action’?
FYI, people loosing their jobs is an ‘adverse action.’
The following language is considered as ‘desensitizing’ and should be expunged.
‘Workforce Shaping’
‘Reduction-in-force’
See Historical Comments above.

   When I lost my job (from a ‘reduction-in-force’), the rules were at least more clear and concise.  The Subpart F and G do not have well defined rules as compared to the former (painfully executed) RIF rules.  And already, this complete re-design (or Proposed Rules) are not as clear to understand than the original as I had to experience it a decade ago.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
Please consider the above comments and recommendations.
Please return to and amend the original Personnel System instead of starting over.
   This also offers cost-savings by mitigating legal-fees.
Please consider and learn from history and our US heritage (as listed above).

CLOSING COMMENTS:
   We have many challenges ahead of us.  Remember, you are not alone in this effort.  Your work-force is pulling with you.  Thank you again for this opportunity for supplying comments.
   If some of my comments appear ‘corny,’ remember my background (mentioned above), supplemented by three DoD Civil Service assignments in three separate states in the past decade.  Feel free to tap such Federal investments, such as with this review of Proposed Rules.
   As a reminder, the first word in the USA is ‘united.’  Thanks again for this opportunity to work together.