‘Son of NSPS’?—a Bonus Excerpt from Federal Employees News Digest Interview with American Federation of Government Employees Legislative and Political Director Beth Moten.

November 30, 2009

Feds got an early holiday present when President Obama in October signed the National Defense Authorization Act and set into motion a range of long-sought measures benefiting federal employees. The NDAA also included language to abolish the National Security Personnel System. Still, the law also provides a six-month window to work out an NSPS alternative, giving rise to talk of a “son of NSPS.” Federal Employees News Digest asked about that possibility in a recent FEND: What do you think [your union] did right that made your gains in the NDAA possible—including the end to the National Security Personnel System?

Moten: Many of those [gains] were years in the making. The legislation that created NSPS was enacted in 2003, and we have really been fighting against it ever since. In 2008, in the defense authorization bill, we repealed part of NSPS—the part of it that, essentially, had made collective bargaining and employee appeal rights completely dependent on management’s new programs. These were anti-employee and anti-union. We got rid of these bad labor relations and employee appeals processes, and returned to what’s available to all federal employees under Title V. We continued to work very hard on the rest, the NSPS pay system. It took about a year to have enough data to show that that system was discriminatory. Let me say one thing. President Obama promised us, in writing, during the campaign that he would evaluate NSPS and he would not support a discriminatory pay system. That’s what he promised us. Once he got into office, we set about the business of making sure that [his administration] lived up to that promise. And in fact they did. They created a panel that had to evaluate it. They did research to see exactly what had been done. Once it was clear from their own research that the system was taking money away from people making less than $60,000 and giving it to people making over $100,000, I think it was obvious to everybody that this kind of system could not stand. It had to be repealed. We did an awful lot to get here, and it was an incredible grassroots effort. We had to build the data, and talk to people on Capitol Hill about the injustices of it all the time. Many people were very, very unhappy under NSPS, and they thought it was a terrible precedent for the rest of the government, and they worked very hard to bring it down.

FEND: It seems there is a six-month window in which, technically speaking, NSPS could rear its head again. Do you think this might happen, or not?

Moten: They [DoD] are supposed to begin the transition from the NSPS pay system to the General Schedule upon enactment—which occurred [Oct. 28]. So the six-month window you mention is supposed to just give them the opportunity, while they are transitioning that workforce out of NSPS back into GS. It gives them six months to see if they can come up with a pay system that could stand the light of day. And that would have to go back to Congress, and Congress would have to actively authorize it. Congress would actually have to agree that it was a good idea, and say yes and authorize it. It’s hard for me to imagine that anyone will come up with something that is going to be fair and transparent and non-discriminatory in that period of time. They need to go back to the General Schedule, and use the flexibilities that are already available under the GS to address any performance issues.

FEND: So, they have the chance—and we agree that it is unlikely to be a priority—but it is possible that there could be a sort of “son of NSPS” that is tried out and offered to Congress in the next six months?

Moten: That’s right. We have to be vigilant. We have to make sure that as soon as they issue any sort of proposal that we are ready with a response, and demonstrate what we think is the right thing to do.