How to Challenge Personnel Rules

A Defense Department reader argues that labor unions challenging the new National Security Personnel System are making "a tactical error of strategic proportions. They have tried to present NSPS primarily as a union-busting issue rather than a taxpayer protection issue." He uses his own experience as an example:

Under NSPS, three of my last five bosses would’ve killed my career because I questioned their ethics and public responsibilities--and not necessarily overtly. One was a consummate liar, one was a sexual harasser (not of me but I provided damaging testimony), and one hated reservists and veterans. Under NSPS, they would have had nearly unlimited ability to not only stifle the traditional end-of-year bonuses (which some did) but also cost-of-living and longevity increases. All tried to demand fealty to them and not to the taxpayers. Ultimately, my ability to provide for my family would have been seriously compromised so that I could not continue public service. And that is just plain wrong.

Labor leaders hint at this problem with their somewhat clumsy accusations of "cronyism" (see below), but the focus in challenges to both the Defense and Homeland Security personnel overhauls has been on collective bargaining limits. The reality is that any challenge to the new systems is a long shot, because the status quo is so hard to defend. But a strategy of emphasizing the adverse impact on labor relations is unlikely to garner widespread support.