July 28, 2005

BLAIR REITERATES OPM'S STANCE ON NSPS
Source: Fednews Online

Office of Personnel Management Deputy Director Dan G. Blair reaffirmed the agency's commitment to the Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System at a conference of DoD Human Resources professionals Wednesday.

"OPM and DoD have been equal partners in developing the NSPS, and we will remain so in any future adjustments to the basic design. We've built in regulatory flexibility so the department can tailor NSPS to specific needs in staffing and appointing authorities, in classification of occupations, and in managing pay and performance systems," said Blair, who will discuss NSPS at the 10th Annual HR/EEO Forum in September.

NSPS is scheduled to be implemented "spirals," with Spiral 1.1 to be implemented this fall.

The initial spiral is slated to affect approximately 60,000 DoD employees. Pay and classification conversion would begin in January 2006 with the first performance-based payout in January 2007. This first spiral will not involve wage grade employees.

Spirals 1.2 and 1.3 will each bring 100,000 employees into the system, with 1.2 starting in spring 2006 and 1.3 in summer or fall 2006.

Spiral 2 will expand coverage to all eligible GS employees within DoD, beginning in January 2007.

In 2008, Spiral 3 will incorporate labs and other previously excluded DoD employees into the system.

NSPS's labor relations system will be phased out in October 2009, barring Congressional intervention.

Blair noted the key to successfully installing NSPS is DoD's establishing a communication plan that encourages employee feedback.

"Employees must perceive the NSPS as fair and credible, especially in managing pay and performance. The NSPS must be transparent, with implementation problems identified and resolved through constant feedback that includes a robust evaluation program," said Blair.

July 26, 2005

Labor's Big Split: Pain Before Gain
Source: Washington Post
By Harold Meyerson

CHICAGO -- In the annals of labor leave-taking, it was neither as contentious as Mineworkers President John L. Lewis's departure from the 1935 AFL convention, when he decked the president of the Carpenters Union on his way out, nor as arrogantly dismissive as one of Lewis's later farewells, when he penned a note to AFL President William Green that read, simply: "Green -- We disaffiliate -- Lewis."

But yesterday's announcement by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters that they were quitting the AFL-CIO was no less stunning for its absence of theatricals. What we know is that the split -- which is likely to grow as several other unions announce their own disaffiliations over the next couple of weeks -- sunders a union movement that is already weaker than it has been since the 1920s. What we don't know is whether the new organization that the SEIU, the Teamsters and their allies will form in the coming months can and will do anything to bolster the power of America's indispensable, if enfeebled, labor movement.

For now, it's a lot easier to see the damage than it is to foresee the gain. Both sides acknowledge that the labor political operation that AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has crafted over the past decade is the sine qua non of progressive politics in the United States, and the split clearly imperils that program. Yesterday the departing presidents -- SEIU's Andy Stern and the Teamsters' Jim Hoffa -- made clear that they want to support the political operation even though they're leaving. Hoffa said he'd instructed his locals to keep paying dues to the local AFL-CIO bodies, the central labor councils, that coordinate labor's get-out-the-vote drives.

The split comes, moreover, just as the AFL-CIO was gearing up a long-term campaign to organize Wal-Mart. But the lead unions in this campaign are the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), which is boycotting the convention and is widely expected soon to announce its own disaffiliation, and the SEIU. Yesterday, though, one lone SEIU official with particular responsibility for the Wal-Mart campaign still was working the floor of the AFL-CIO convention, even though his union was just then quitting the federation.

Indeed, there is still just enough ambivalence on the dissidents' side so that, though they've scrapped "Solidarity Forever" as their anthem, some of them sound as if they'd be comfortable performing Groucho Marx's entrance-and-exit song, "Hello, I Must Be Going." The leader whose ambivalence is most painfully on display is Terry O'Sullivan, the president of the Laborers, whose union is attending the convention, though it is aligned with SEIU and the Teamsters. O'Sullivan is the man in the middle at this convention: Though committed to the dissident coalition, he knows that a labor civil war pitting his members against the other building trades unions at construction sites could be a disaster.

O'Sullivan's, then, is the voice of caution. Labor, he says, "will have two options coming out of [this convention]. People can decide to go toe to toe, or we can figure out how to keep lines of communication going. If people on either side decide to fight it out, that would be unfortunate."

To the union leaders who support Sweeney, these and other protestations to preserve this or that federation program sound massively disingenuous, coming on the heels of departures that could cripple the federation altogether. They rightly note that Sweeney had adopted many of the dissidents' demands, though that plainly failed to satisfy them. Sweeney himself, in his keynote speech yesterday, vowed to "overcome my own anger and disappointment and do everything in my power to bring us back where we belong -- and that's together."

But the forces for unity of any kind are growing weaker by the day. Fewer dissident leaders are voicing the kinds of reservations about leaving that were audible just a few weeks ago. Yesterday, for the first time, Stern and Hoffa began to sketch the outlines of a new organization -- indeed, Hoffa promised to split the $10 million that the Teamsters would have paid in AFL-CIO dues between his own union's organizing department and a new organizing infrastructure that the yet-to-be-founded alliance will house.

In planning to build a new federation with some organizing capacity of its own, the dissidents are harking back to the old CIO, which, with Lewis at its helm, roared out of the old AFL determined to unionize America's industrial workers. The economic and political environment is decidedly more hostile to organizing now than it was then, but Stern, Hoffa and their allies recognize that they will have to win victories on a CIO-like scale to justify their split. No one can say whether the birth of this new labor movement will lead to a desperately needed reversal in fortune for America's workers. Some stars, after all, burn most brightly just before they altogether flicker out.

meyersonh@washpost.com
2005 The Washington Post Company

July 25, 2005

Workers Speculate on Challenges of Performance-Based Pay
By Stephen Barr
Source: Washington Post

The Diary's mailbag is overflowing with comments on the Bush administration's proposal to abolish the predictable and reliable General Schedule pay system by 2010 and replace it with a government-wide system that would link job ratings to pay raises.

It's worth noting that the Diary does not hear, on a regular basis, from employees who think they are paid in a fair and transparent manner or from employees who made the transition to performance-based systems in previous years. That's human nature, perhaps.

Still, the employee comments provide a handy snapshot of the challenges involved when proposing major changes in pay practices. Here's a summary of some of the issues raised by employees last week:

• Haven't we been here before? The government gave up on a "merit pay" system for managers in the early 1990s, so how will the lessons of the past shape the Bush plan?

• Do federal managers who got to be the boss because of their technical expertise have the skills to be leaders? Will they be concerned about honest assessments of their staffs or more worried about their own bonuses? How will employees who fall out of favor with bosses know that their job performance got an objective review?

• Who will watch the supervisors? Under the current system, complaints are filed alleging discrimination and unfair treatment; will they increase under a performance-based system?

• What kind of guarantees will be made to ensure that extra funding is available to reward high performers? What happens when everyone in the office gets the highest job rating but there are not enough salary dollars to go around?

• How will agencies that currently operate pass-fail systems convert to multiple rating levels? Who believes performance ratings will be realistic and avoid "grade inflation"?

• Won't employees who work hard and are quiet end up going unnoticed and unrewarded? Will employees have to "sell" and "tout" their work? Or will the top raises only go to those employees assigned to the administration's favored projects?

• What about the timing of ratings in a person's career? Will employees who get dinged with a rating of less than "outstanding" early in their career be able to make it up with a series of "exceeds expectations" so that lifetime earnings are not eroded?

Administration officials promise that managers and employees will receiving training and that managers will be held accountable for their decisions. The new system also will include safeguards for fairness and allow employees to appeal job ratings, officials said.

Undoubtedly, congressional hearings, when they are held, also will shape the administration's plan. In the meantime, keep sending in your ideas, suggestions and concerns.

July 25, 2005

Administration Opposes 3.1 Percent Raise
Source: Federal daily.com

On July 19 the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation,
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development included a 3.1 percent pay raise
next year for federal civilian employees.

The Bush administration is opposing a3.1 percent raise for civil servants, instead proposing a 3.1 percent raise for military members and a 2.3 percent raise for civil service employees.

In a statement, the administration said a 3.1 percent pay raise for civil servants would
exceed the average increase in private sector pay. The administration also
specifically stated it opposes the 3.1 percent raise to all civilian employees of the
Departments of Defense and Homeland Security because that would limit the
agencies’ flexibility to use the new pay-for-performance systems they have
proposed.

Jul. 25, 2005

Administration unveils civil service plan. Draft legislation would do away with General Schedule pay system
Source: FCW.com
BY David Perera

The Bush administration released a draft version of civil service reform legislation last week, another major piece of its government transformation project.

In its current form, the Working for America Act of 2005 would phase out the General Schedule system, which the government has used for setting federal employees' pay and promotions. Occupation-based pay bands, each composed of four grades, would replace the pay schedule by 2010. The proposal would tie as much as 3 percent of workers' annual salary increases to some measure of worker performance.

Pay-banding would allow government salaries for high-demand occupations to better reflect market conditions on local and national levels, said Clay Johnson, the Office of Management and Budget's deputy director for management.

A recent annual Office of Personnel Management survey of the federal workforce shows that only 29 percent of workers say that differences in performance are meaningfully recognized.
The Defense and Homeland Security departments, which employ more than half of all federal workers, already use some form of a pay-for-performance system. But the administration's proposal would create reforms significantly less expansive than the ongoing changes at those departments, Johnson said.

"We don't have that same need for urgent reaction in a domestic agency" as in DOD and DHS, Johnson said. "Most of what's controversial about what exists in DOD and DHS does not exist in this reform package," including limitations on collective bargaining. But federal employee unions disagree.

"The broad pay proposal the administration wants to impose would largely mimic that which has been suggested for DHS," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, in a statement. "If basic federal pay is going to be changed, then unions need the right to bargain over pay."

For civil service reform to work, managers will need to be adequately trained to evaluate their workers, Johnson added. "Employees tell us that we're not very good managers of people," he said.

But congressional appropriators often cut training funding first, as they did recently in the House version of the DHS fiscal 2006 spending bill.

Ensuring that managers are well trained in performance evaluations has long been the Achilles' heel of civil service reform, said Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University. "There are basic issues of trust here," he said. "The frontline workforce does not trust the management of their departments."

There's also the matter of trusting the administration, Light said. Federal workers "are just as dissatisfied with the current system as Clay Johnson, but they're nervous about the political agenda that might be hiding behind all of these wonderful words."

Bush administration officials decided to release the legislation to the public in draft form after the unauthorized disclosure of an earlier draft to the media in June. The current version incorporates comments from federal agency officials and is meant to encourage debate, Johnson said. They say they will wait to push the legislation in Congress until lawmakers have less on their agenda, he added. The goal is to have the proposal become law by January 2007, he said.

July 25, 2005

4 Major Unions Plan to Boycott A.F.L.-C.I.O. Event
Source: New York Times
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Leaders of four of the country's largest labor unions announced on Sunday that they would boycott this week's A.F.L.-C.I.O. convention, and officials from two of those unions, the service employees and the Teamsters, said the action was a prelude to their full withdrawal from the federation on Monday.

The schism is the biggest rift in labor since the 1930's, when the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which was trying to unionize mass production workers in automobiles, steel and other industries, split off from the American Federation of Labor, which largely represented elite craft workers. This week's labor convention here was supposed to be a celebratory occasion marking the 50th anniversary of the merger.

Instead, the gathering has been marked by a split, the culmination of a rancorous debate within the union movement that also threatens to hurt labor's efforts in lobbying and in political campaigns, a development that concerns Democrats.

Leaders of the service employees union, the food and commercial workers union, the Teamsters and Unite Here, which represents apparel, hotel and restaurant employees, said they were shunning the convention because, in their view, the federation under the leadership of its president, John J. Sweeney, has been ineffective in halting the decades-long slide of organized labor.

Deepening the rift, the leaders of the four dissident unions, as well as the leaders of the laborers and the United Farm Workers, said that as a protest they were giving up their seats on the federation's executive council and would not seek re-election at the convention this week.

Two of the unions said they would take a further step.

Officials from the Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters who insisted on anonymity because a formal announcement had not been made said their unions would announce on Monday, the day the convention begins, that they were quitting the federation. The service employees, with 1.8 million members, and the Teamsters, with 1.4 million, are two of the biggest unions in the A.F.L.-C.I.O. They contribute $20 million each year, or about one-sixth of its budget.

In addition, Joe Hansen, the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, indicated that his union would probably also leave, despite Mr. Sweeney's efforts to persuade them to stay.

"We are certainly willing to listen to anything they want to say," Mr. Hansen said. "Our differences are so fundamental and so principled that I don't think there will be any change in course."

A rift could hurt the labor movement badly by redirecting its focus and energies to an internal battles instead of bedrock issues like fighting for wage increases and extending health care to more workers. Democrats, a traditional ally of organized labor, are especially worried that a schism might hurt their party's chances by making labor a less potent political force.

Andrew L. Stern, president of the service employees, defended the boycott, saying drastic changes were needed to save labor from further decline; the percentage of private-sector workers in unions has sunk to less than 8 percent from 35 percent a half-century ago.

"We're not trying to divide the labor movement - we're trying to rebuild it," said Mr. Stern, who is known as one of labor's most charismatic figures, though he has at times been accused of arrogance. "We have to do everything in our power to help workers. But when you're going down a road and it's headed in the wrong direction, and you know where the road ends, you got to get off the road and walk in a new direction where there is hope."

In unusually vituperative language, several union presidents accused the insurgents of betraying the labor movement, asserting that their boycott was sabotaging the cardinal notion of labor solidarity.

"Today is a tragic day because those who left the house of labor are weakening our house, and shame on them," said Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers of America. "Solidarity is more than saying, 'My way or the highway, and if you don't do it my way, I'll take my marbles and run.' "

The four unions boycotting the convention represent about one-third of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s 13 million members. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is the nation's main labor federation, a grouping of 56 unions that coordinates union activities in politics and often serves as the voice of American workers on job safety, raising the minimum wage and other issues.

The dissident leaders asserted that the federation, as structured, was not equipped to halt labor's decline. They said they were looking to a group they formed, the Change to Win Coalition, to encourage union growth with, for instance, multiunion organizing drives against large companies, including Federal Express and Wal-Mart.

Mr. Sweeney voiced dismay, bordering on anger, with the boycotters' actions.

"Not to attend the convention, especially when the differences that remain between our proposals are so narrow, is an insult to their union brothers and sisters, and to all working people," he said. "It's far easier to tear down a union movement than to build one.

America's working people cannot afford for unions to declare 'it's my way or the highway' when workers are under the biggest assault in 80 years."

Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said many union leaders had tried to persuade the unions not to walk out.

"I think everybody is hurt by this," he said. "This hurts American workers. This hurts the trade union federation that is the center of the planet for workers around the world."

Mr. McEntee, who is chairman of the federation's political committee, said the walkout would weaken labor's political clout by weakening its role of coordinating nationwide campaign activities for unions. In the 2004 election, polls showed that voters from union households accounted for 24 percent of all votes and that those households gave Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, a 5.8 million-vote majority.

"I think the only one who wins from this is George Bush and his minions who are trying to weaken labor unions," Mr. McEntee said.

The dissident leaders argued that they were boycotting over matters of principle, saying that under Mr. Sweeney the federation was shrinking from the drastic actions needed to make labor grow again. Those leaders have demanded that Mr. Sweeney agree to refund half the federation's budget to individual unions so they can spend that money to organize more workers.

Mr. Sweeney asserted that he had substantially increased the federation's spending on union organizing, but that rebating half its budget would cripple activities in politics, job safety and other areas.

Several union leaders said the dissidents were engaged not in a fight over principle, but in an ego trip and power grab.

"If you want attention, if you're looking to turn the spotlight on yourself, this is the strategy you follow," said Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

Many of the convention delegates planned to celebrate Mr. Sweeney's re-election to a new four-year term, which is a foregone conclusion. Until this week's developments, several dissident leaders had signaled they would not consider leaving if Mr. Sweeney, 71, stepped down. He has headed the federation since 1995.

Ron Gettelfinger, the president of the United Auto Workers, had at first flirted with the dissidents, sharing some of their criticism that the federation was not doing enough to turn things around. But on Sunday he criticized the boycott.

"The house of labor is always stronger when it is united," Mr. Gettelfinger said. "It won't be the end of the world, what they're doing. It will just make the challenges we face that much harder."

Sunday's preconvention events often seemed like competing pep rallies. At an event to support Mr. Sweeney's re-election, a band blared, "Solidarity Forever," and hundreds of delegates wore T-shirts saying, "the Sweeney Solidarity Team - One Strong Voice for Workers Rights."

Before 2,000 Sweeney supporters, Linda Chavez-Thompson, Mr. Sweeney's running mate for executive vice president, laid into several entities that she said had sought to weaken labor - the Bush administration, the United States Chamber of Commerce, Wal-Mart - and then she surprised her audience by adding, "the Change to Win Coalition."

Mr. Sweeney criticized the convention boycott, saying, "It's a shame for working people that before the first vote has been cast, four unions have decided that if they can't win, they won't show up for the game."

The Change to Win Coalition held a news conference, with hundreds of union members attending, that served in ways as a kickoff meeting for the new group.

"The exciting news is that the Change to Win Coalition is about one thing: new hope for millions of workers in economic crisis," said Anna Burger, the coalition's chairwoman.

"All of organized labor sees this crisis. Our coalition, however, believes that we can do something about it, and has a bold plan of action to make real change."

July 24, 2005

Making Pay-For-Performance Pay Off, Part 2
By Robbie Kunreuther
Source: Fedsmith.com

Note: (This is the second of a three part series detailing pay-for-performance in the federal government)

If the federal government is to achieve even modest success in implementing new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Defense (DoD) regulations that tie salaries to individual achievement, some formidable barriers must be scaled. Principal among these will be the lack of support vested in front line federal management. Considering the government's maze of central offices, field structures, and politically driven leadership even the most basic moves to empower local management may prove Herculean.

To date, managers have relied on human resources (HR) offices to determine salaries (grades) and employee longevity to determine salary increases within those grades. Under pay banding and pay-for-performance such decisions will be vested in line management for the first time.

Beyond these new demands on line management lies another barrier, namely, a realistic discussion of performance standards and measures of individual success or failure. Vast numbers of government workers occupy positions that don't lend themselves to "bean counting." By the same token, passing out (and withholding) raises on the basis of vague generic standards can only serve to undermine pay-for-performance efforts in the early going.

This article will concern itself with the supervisory/management side of this new compensation/evaluation equation. The final in the series will address performance standards.

Who are our supervisors?
The competence of immediate supervisors is crucial to a successful transition to the new pay systems. In addressing this issue, those who suggest most federal personnel decisions are rooted in bias and favoritism should suspend their blaming long enough to consider the realities of front-line management. Currently, supervisory failings are less likely to stem from individual character flaws than from failings with the training and organization of federal management.

To better understand the current realities of federal supervisors, first think about how these folks moved from being workers to leaders. It appears that the largest proportion of them had no passion to supervise or lead their peers. Rather, they had reached the apex of their career path, looked at vacant supervisory slots, were tempted by a salary increase, and wanted new challenges. So they applied.

Exceptions to "merit promotion" are glaring and embarrassing. The majority of supervisors were selected for their jobs on the basis of merit -- knowledge, skill, ability, and hard work. By the same token, most had no prior training to prepare them as leaders within a bureaucratic structure.

Employing the mushroom philosophy
Months (and in some cases, years) after assuming the helm, newly selected leaders are given 40-80 hours of training to equip them for their new 40-80 hour per week job. In most agencies, the bulk of these introductory classes are presented by people who have little, if any, management experience themselves. Often, more emphasis is placed on rules, regulations, and paperwork than on motivating staff.

The sad reality is that our supervisors are not well schooled in the art and science of their new career paths. We dare not ask them (or the managers above them) if they ever read books or periodicals on the subjects of leadership and management. Instead, management style is allowed to develop haphazardly -- often relying the advice of others who are equally unschooled.

A compounding factor rests in HR offices. They are well schooled in federal laws and regulations that comprise the government's "merit system." For instance, salaries accorded to different positions are based on the interpretation of booklets published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and promotional candidates are ranked by staffing specialists with no experience in that trade or profession.

Most federal HR specialists have not studied human resources as an academic discipline (unlike computer specialists, environmental specialists, etc.). Few of our agency personnel experts are schooled in techniques or practices (like pay-for-performance) outside the federal government. DHS and DoD will have a tough time converting their HR offices from gatekeepers and regulatory experts to advisors.

At present, many first level supervisors are not empowered to make basic determinations (rewards, punishments, etc.) regarding their own subordinates. Instead, they make recommendations that are scrutinized and critiqued by others, none of whom is fully aware of the situation on the ground. Employees come to realize that their immediate leadership has limited authority and influence. They often respond accordingly.

Determining and redetermining the salaries of individual civil servants will require a strong cadre of empowered first level managers -- capable of determining which employees should be paid how much. But where to begin?

Beginning at the beginning
A good starting place would be the selection process itself. Because of concerns regarding merit principles, most agencies do not prepare employees for their first job in management. The belief is that doing so would constitute "pre-selection" and undermine a fair and impartial process. Accordingly, while new engineers must know engineering, new lawyers must have studied law, etc. -- new supervisors needn't know the first thing about the crucial career field their about to enter.

It has been obvious for years that federal agencies need a competitive training process for would-be managers. Employees aspiring to management jobs could apply for training well in advance of a given position becoming vacant. Such pre-supervisory programs would be competitive and based on merit. Those who successfully complete for such training would, naturally, be at an advantage for subsequent selection to a leadership position. To paraphrase a famous old advertisement, "Train me now or train me later!"

Then what? OPM and federal agencies should collaborate in developing a curriculum for ongoing management education. Managers should be required to receive training (if not college level classes) that speak to practical management skills in a bureaucracy. At present, precious management training dollars are too often spent on lofty concepts (like total quality management) rather than pragmatic subjects (such as how to properly document employee performance, mediation skills, and motivation techniques).

Looking at our "lowest priority"
Beyond the financial and time commitments to better educate its first level managers, federal agencies should examine their own management priorities much more closely. This is the most formidable challenge of all. It is best illustrated by a supervisor who, in a training seminar years ago, reached her limit.

The agency in question was in a hiring freeze and a senior executive commented on the shortage of personnel with the fatal phrase, "We need to learn how to do more with less." Face flushed with anger, she surveyed a room full of senior managers and, after an initial salvo of invectives, flatly stated, "The people I supervise are my lowest priority."

It was clear this woman was committing a rare act of organizational suicide. It was also evident that she had been formulating that sentence for some time. She continued by saying, "First-come the meetings. There seems to be one or more every day. While most of the time no one wants my opinion nor asks for it... but if I don't attend the meetings people above me will notice and I will pay a price."

The unease was growing. "Then comes the administrative paperwork. I imagine that a GS 5 or 7 could do a better job completing the weekly, monthly, quarterly reports than I do. But I'm the one who has to do them... and if they're not done correctly and on-time I will pay a price." Now the tension was palpable.

"Lastly, come the special projects. Someone from this office or that department wants me to gather information or perform an analysis that doesn't concern me or my people at all. I'm often asked to drop everything for hours (if not days) to carry out a special project... and if I don't I will surely pay a price." It was clear she was turning some sort of corner and heading to a conclusion.

"Now we get to the people that I supervise. If I don't see them or speak to them for an entire week or pay period, no one above me seems to notice or care. I won't pay any price for that. Like I said, my people are my lowest priority." She sat down -- exhausted and fulfilled. No one attempted to refute her logic.

A matter of priorities
If DoD and DHS really want to approach pay-for-performance in a serious vein it's time to consider priorities of the supervisors who (with the approval of their superiors, no doubt) will be making salary determinations and pay adjustments. Beyond the technical training, better selection procedures, and a new perspective on career development, will agencies make room for real day-to-day supervision?

If so, such a commitment must be backed by deeds as well as words. The primary role of supervisors (namely, leadership and oversight) should be the principal focus when evaluating their work. Their success or failure should be based on the level to which they have observed, coached, documented, and counseled their direct reports. This requires that distractions from their principal focus be kept to a minimum.

Many will fear that empowering supervisors will result in "micro management." Such anxieties may be well founded. The objective is not to create a cadre of front line managers who simply hang over competent employees in order to create unneeded documentation.

An active, present, engaged supervisor will almost certainly be perceived as overbearing and intrusive by some, while being welcomed by others. For less stellar employees, a "micro manager" is a supervisor who notices what they're up to. Others have been waited years for someone in management to start paying more attention to their efforts.

A better selected, better trained, and better supported management is an absolute requirement in the new environment DoD and DHS are demanding. The lofty objectives that have led to pay-for-performance and pay banding can only be realized if agencies provide ongoing, long-term support to those who lead in the trenches. In essence, this is a test of leadership and, therefore, the knowledge, skills and abilities of our front line mangers are of primary concern.

If and when supervisory empowerment is addressed, the next question will concern the mechanics of appraisals. How many rating levels will there be? Will supervisors have a say in developing the criteria against which employees will be rated? Will employees be rated in generic categories (such as "initiative," "professionalism," "teamwork," etc.) or in categories that relate to the duties of a particular job ("developing plans," "writing reports," "making repairs," etc.)?

These and other questions will be addressed in the last of this three-part article.

July 21, 2005

Pelosi: Young People Have the Most to Lose Under Social Security Privatization
Source: U.S. Newswire

WASHINGTON, July 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi joined Members of the Democratic 30-Something Group today at a town hall meeting in the U.S. Capitol attended by hundreds of young people to discuss Social Security and the negative effects privatization would have on them. Below are her remarks:

"The message that the 30-Something Group is taking out to the country - whether it is on campuses, in the halls of Congress, on the road, or in the homes across America - is that the privatization of Social Security, when it comes to young people, is a critical issue because you have the most to lose.

"We have these dice here to say: 'We do not intend to have Social Security, which is a guaranteed benefit, turn into a guaranteed gamble for any of you.'

"When you go out and talk to your friends about this, just give them these three numbers: 20, 40, and five. If you are 20 years old now, when you need Social Security, when you come to retirement age, you will get a cut of more than 40 percent in your benefits if privatization goes forward, and you will have a bill of $5 trillion. 20 years old now, 40 percent benefit cut, $5 trillion cost. This is an immoral transfer of debt to the next generation.

"So in terms of Social Security, privatization is terrible. And the impact that it has on the burden of debt that it passes on to your generation is one that we will not let happen.

"We will not turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble."

July 20, 2005

Administration continues quest to tie pay to performance across government
Source: GovExec.com

By Karen Rutzick

The Bush administration is pushing ahead with its plan to reform the personnel system for all federal workers, releasing an updated draft of legislation Tuesday that would do so.

The Office of Management and Budget released a draft of the Working for America Act, previously known as the 2005 Civil Service Modernization Act of 2005. Government Executive obtained an earlier draft of the proposal in June.

On Tuesday, Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, said there was "lots of misunderstanding" surrounding the previous draft.

Full story: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0705/071905r1.htm

July 19, 2005

Bush administration, House at odds over 2006 pay raise
Source: GovExec.com
July 19, 2005
By Alyson Klein, CongressDaily

The House and the administration are at odds over which federal employees should be given a pay raise next year—and how high that salary boost should be.

OMB contends the annual pay adjustment should not apply to blue-collar workers, or Homeland Security Department and Pentagon employees who are slated to operate under a different personnel system from other federal workers.

Extending the raise to those two agencies would undermine efforts to "begin using authorities conferred upon them by Congress to design and implement a modern personnel and pay system that best meets their needs," OMB officials wrote in a statement of administration policy on the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, approved by the House last month.
Full story: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0705/071805cdpm1.htm

July 19, 2005

BILL WOULD PROVIDE BENEFITS TO DOMESTIC PARTNERS OF UNMARRIED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Source: FedNews.com

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., along with 52 other house members introduced last week legislation that would provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees.

The term domestic partner means an "adult person living with, but not married to, another adult person in a committed, intimate relationship."

The benefits include worker's compensation, retirement, life and health insurance.

There is a certification of eligibility, where the domestic partner will have to meet certain criteria. To apply for eligibility, the employee will have to fill out an affidavit of eligibility for benefits with the Office of Personnel Management.

"The bill is being introduced now because it is early enough in the session that it could happen next year. Since it [the introduction of the bill] is not during an election year, it won't get wrapped up in politics," Congressman Frank's Press Secretary Steve Adamske said.

This bill is about "fairness" to federal employees, Adamske said.

This is not the first time Congressman Frank has introduced this bill? It has died each time.

The obstacle that Frank dealt with in the past, when introducing this bill, may be a problem he faces again.

"Republicans in Congress could hold this up from giving government workers the benefits they deserve," said Adamske.

July 19, 2005

Senate subcommittee backs 3.1 percent civilian pay increase
Source: GovExec.com
By Karen Rutzick and Amelia Gruber
July 19, 2005

A Senate appropriations subcommittee approved a 3.1 percent average pay raise for federal civilian employees Tuesday, following the House's lead.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development moved to put the civilian raise on par with military personnel for fiscal 2006. On July 1, the House passed its version of the fiscal 2006 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill (H.R. 3058), which included the 3.1 percent raise.

Two senators offered language that would require agencies to allow employee teams compete in any public-private contest involving more than 10 positions.

The Bush administration had proposed a 2.3 percent pay increase for civilians in 2006, and the White House threatened to veto the House-passed bill. However, Office of Management and Budget deputy director Clay Johnson conceded Tuesday that "Congress seems to be lining up behind 3.1 percent" despite administration opposition.

In order for the pay raise to go through, the Senate must still pass the bill. Then members from the House and Senate will have to work out differences in the two versions of the bill. Once the committee reaches agreement, each chamber must pass a final version. President Bush must then sign the bill into law.

The American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union released statements expressing support for the subcommittee's decision.

"This action clearly demonstrates the ongoing and growing understanding by members of the Senate of the key role that federal employees daily play in doing the work of the federal government," NTEU President Colleen Kelley said.

The White House put out a policy statement the day before the House passed its bill arguing that by applying the raise across government, Congress would limit the Defense and Homeland Security departments' ability to "design and implement a modern personnel and pay system that best fits their needs."

Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Kit Bond, R-Mo., chairman of the subcommittee, incorporated language into the bill that would require agencies across the government to let employees form teams and compete for their jobs in any public-private competition involving more than 10 positions. Agencies currently only have to allow in-house employees to compete in contests encompassing more than 65 full-time jobs.

The language also affords the in-house teams a 10 percent or $10 million cost advantage in any contest involving more than 10 jobs. The advantage is designed to account for the expected difference in administrative costs, should the work remain in house. Circular A-76, OMB's rule book on public-private job competitions, only requires the cost adjustment in larger competitions.

"This language is the first step in leveling the playing field for federal employees," Mikulski said in a statement. "Our federal employees are on the front lines every day, working hard for America. These hardworking men and women deserve to be treated fairly and, at the very least, deserve to have the same rights that contractors do."

John Gage, president of AFGE, was quick to praise the language. "No one can deny that the Bond-Mikulski reform package is all about promoting competition for the American people and producing savings for the taxpayers."

Bond and Mikulski added the language to the base Senate version of the bill, rather than introducing it as an amendment.

The House version of the Transportation-Treasury bill also contains union-backed language that would affect the Bush administration's competitive sourcing initiative. That language would block agencies from using fiscal 2006 money to run contests under the most recent version of Circular A-76, written in May 2003.

The House and Senate language will be reconciled in conference negotiations. In past appropriations cycles, the Bush administration has succeeded at eliminating similar language from the spending bills during conference.

July 20, 2005

Making Pay-For-Performance Pay Off
Source: Fedsmith.com

By Robbie Kunreuther
(Editor's Note: This is the first of a three-part series detailing
pay-for-performance in the federal government.)

As the Congress and the administration move toward institutionalizing "pay-for-performance" throughout the federal sector the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Homeland Security (DHS) are the vanguard agencies for widespread introduction of this concept. As their implementing regulationsare about to be revealed, doubts and concerns within government are reaching tsunami levels.

Mediocre bureaucrats fear that the loss of "steps" or "within-grade increases" may mean they never see a meaningful pay raise again. High achievers wonder if there will be sufficient dollars to provide realincentives for exceptional performance. And union activists, minorities, and outspoken civil servants have apprehensions about management favoritism.

The past is prologue

At its heart, the anxiety over using annual evaluations to determine salary increases rests in a long and sad history of failure that precedes this administration. President Bush is not the first to perceive a need to improve management and efficiency in the Federal sector.

Over a decade ago (1993), Congress abandoned "Merit Pay" for management officials, then graded as GM-13, 14, and 15. That first stab at pay-for-performance was part of Jimmy Carter's Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). It lasted about a dozen years.

From the word "go", managers failed to distinguish our best and brightest from the mediocre and incompetent. Many of the government's more senior employees can recall executives vowing that none of their subordinates would get ratings higher than their own. In some agencies, virtually all managers were found to be above average.

Two years after the first merit pay was abolished, the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM's) mandatory five-tiered rating system was also abandoned -- in the face of wildly inflated, subjective ratings in agency after agency. At that time, there was a drumbeat from Total Quality Management (TQM) advocates to either abandon appraisals or move toward team (rather than individual) ratings. Neither resulted in any appreciable way, but the door was open to experimentation with evaluations.

Neutering performance evaluations

Upon OPM's freeing agencies to devise their own systems, most opted for "pass/fail" systems. Over the 14 years since the Carter reforms were implemented, ratings had inflated in some agencies to an absurd degree.

Ratings of "Fully Successful" were viewed as insults as the vast majority of civil servants were evaluated as being "Excellent," "Outstanding," "Superior," "Highly Successful," and similar flattering adjectives.

The two-tiered systems insured everyone was rated the same since virtually no one fails. Accordingly, for the past decade a rather socialistic notion of performance evaluations has emerged. Over 99% of employees in these agencies (including components of DoD and DHS) are told they are "Fully Successful" on an annual basis.

From this abyss of chronic failures to provide employees with realistic evaluations such as those we experienced back in school, managers in DoD and DHS are not only being mandated to provide fair and accurate evaluations, but also to tie annual salary increases to their judgments. Santayana's adage, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Looms large.

Bangs and bucks

As these two huge federal agencies prepare to implement the latest schemes for paying, evaluating, and motivating their work force, some suggestions should be heeded. Human Resources specialists and executives should note the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report of January 2005. Citing a report recently issued by the Corporate Leadership Council (CLC), the MSPB noted that, "Simply put, pay does not appear to motivate most employees to perform better." This conclusion comes from research done by a corporate think tank. We should all take notice.

DoD and DHS are operating from a perspective that pay incentives will motivate employees. Underlying this assumption is a deep disenchantment with the federal system of pay currently at work. The GS/FWS assumes that the value of civil servants appreciates with their seniority. Salary increases are most commonly obtained via promotions and "step" (or longevity) increases. The Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security are gambling that their soon-to-be-implemented systems are better.

It's the standards, stupid

DHS and DoD are also presuming that employees will be evaluated against objective or realistic criteria. History again undermines this presumption. Under the CSRA (which is still in effect for non-DHS/DoD agencies) managers are required to provide standards that "...to the maximum extent feasible, permit the accurate evaluation of job performance on the basis of objective criteria."

Such calls for accuracy and objectivity presume supervisors and managers spend their days observing employees, annotating their observations, and keeping scrupulous records --all for appraisal purposes. Pay-for-performance presumes the same. Volumes of experience, however, tell us that federal supervisors and managers have neither the time nor the inclination to gather and interpret metrics on their subordinates -- especially those who have 10-30 direct reports performing complex jobs with changing priorities.

This distaste for objective appraisals was acknowledged by the many agencies when they resorted to "generic" standards of performance. These "one size fits all" yardsticks are as far from accurate measurement one can imagine.

Laden to with vague adjectives - "weasel words" - they have been derided by supervisors and employees alike. Many supervisors and managers will be going directly from rating "pass" or "fail" by generics to standards that will support decisions to adjust salaries.

The Corporate Leadership Council concluded that "employee engagement" is the factor that has greatest influence on individual achievement. In citing this finding the CLC suggests that positive interaction that employees have with management is the best motivator of all.

It looks as if good management means more than the promise of incremental salary adjustments. This doesn't mean that pay-for-performance is bad.

Rather, it will more likely stimulate higher achievements when presented by honest, collaborative, and caring leaders. Such leadership is not the bureaucracy's strongest suit. By the same token, no one should walk away from bold and innovative ideas just because our present infrastructure won't support them.

An agenda for change

While the challenges of implementing pay-for-performance are formidable, ideas for successful implementation point in the direction of two principal issues:

1. Develop sufficient competence and support for front line managers to ensure the program is implemented on the ground as well as on paper.
2. Consider how individual performance standards will be developed and used to support employee motivation and future salary determinations.

These subjects will be addressed in the next two articles in this series.

Before concluding, however, it is important to remember why DoD and DHS have targeted the same area for change. Motivating federal employees has never been considered easy. The coming pay systems replace a pay system that may have de-motivated as many people as not. Lastly, the seniority aspects of the GS system are not in keeping with concepts of "merit" nor do they compare to pay practices outside of government.

Another consideration is how government employees are different from their private sector counterparts. Federal workers don't work for profit or increased stock values. They work for their country and are often more motivated by that simple fact than by all the schemes and systems that residents and congresses can devise. Let's hope DHS and DoD (and all the agencies that may follow them) keep that in mind when attempting to motivate civil servants.

July 15, 2005

AFGE Injunction Request Results in DHS Delay of NSPS Case
Personnel system case delayed one month

(Washington)-At the suggestion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today notified the court that it would withhold implementation of major portions of its proposed National Security Personnel System (NSPS) regulations until Aug. 15, 2005.

The court’s suggestion came after the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and four other unions sought a preliminary injunction against the implementation of the NSPS system.

During the almost two-hour heated hearing, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer expressed skepticism that the proposed labor relations system could be considered "collective bargaining" as required by the law that allowed DHS to establish such a system. Specifically, she expressed concern over the virtual omission of the Federal Labor Relations Administration (FLRA) from the labor-relations procedures, and the lack of consultation with the FLRA by DHS and other agencies when developing the NSPS. Collyer suggested that DHS delay implementation so that she could more thoroughly investigate its legality.

"This delay is a major victory not just for AFGE, but for all DHS employees who continue to be under the protection of their current contracts and the Civil Reform Act," AFGE National President John Gage said. "The delay proves what AFGE has been saying all along—that the DHS regulations are unfair, unjust, and unconstitutional. We are confident that this delay will provide the judge with enough time to legally block implementation of the NSPS regulations."

AFGE represents the largest constituency of DHS employees, including Border Patrol, Customs & Border Protection officers, Immigration & Customs Enforcement officers, FEMA workers and civilian Coast Guard employees.

July 15, 2005

Employees accept unpopular contract at Social Security
Source: Baltimore Sun
By: Melissa Harris
Federal Workers

THOUSANDS OF Social Security Administration workers approved a four-year labor contract this week, ending months of negotiations that deeply divided employees and caused them to reject an identical proposal on the first go-round, the chief negotiator for the union said.

Social Security spokesman Mark Lassiter said that the agency would not comment on the changes until it completed a 30-day review of the contract and leaders signed it.

Federal workers cannot strike. When management and employees reach a stalemate - as SSA did after employees first rejected the plan - disputes can be taken to the Federal Service Impasse Panel, a neutral third party.

Mark Roth, general counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees, said that since President Bush fired all seven of the impasse panel's Clinton-appointed members in January 2002 and replaced them, seeking a ruling from the panel would not have provided employees any relief.

In the seven rulings posted on its Web site from this year, the panel has sided with management in all but one, according to a Sun review.

"The panel is at its lowest point in credibility and fairness," Roth said. "Workers were compelled to revote and approve it, and even then the margin was thin."

A spokeswoman for the panel said that each case is handled on its own merits and that a tally of agency versus union victories is not kept.

"When we went back to the bargaining table after the contract was rejected, management was unwilling to discuss any changes, and even if they did, we weren't sure it would be ratified," Roth said. "Management viewed this as a take-back contract - that under this administration, they were going to get rights back."

Roth said the most controversial points of the contract include:

- Replacing the pass/fail performance evaluation system with a tiered, three-step rating. The union's concern is that the contract permits supervisors to create their own performance standards and that the union cannot become involved in a worker's objection to a rating until after a formal grievance has been filed.

- The end of rosters that rotate overtime opportunities among employees. Under the contract, managers may pick the employees that whom want to fill extra shifts.

- No longer guaranteeing "priority consideration" for minority applicants and those who have repeatedly failed to get promotions despite strong qualifications.

Although management retains these rights, Roth said, he was not sure they would be implemented. Removing the overtime roster and creating varying performance standards between departments could generate unwanted grievances and headaches for management, he said.

Roth also said he hoped that officials and union members would restart talks away from the pressure of the bargaining table, to ease hurt feelings.

On Pentagon changes

Hundreds of federal workers took to Washington's streets Tuesday to protest personnel changes scheduled for the Pentagon this year.

AFGE, the country's largest federal union, organized the event to encourage members of Congress to block changes that would replace the General Schedule with a pay-for-performance system and limit collective bargaining.

News releases promoted the protest as including workers from every federal agency and also addressing changes coming to the Department of Homeland Security. But leaders of the National Treasury Employees Union, AFGE's partner in some of the court filings to stop the changes, were not invited.

Talks between the unions over representation of customs and border protection employees at DHS broke down last month. A vote by workers to select their union should take place by the end of the year.

AFGE spokeswoman Enid Doggett said the dispute had not stopped the union from building an even broader labor coalition for the rally, adding that the rally focused only on changes at the Pentagon, where the work force is not represented by the NTEU.

"The United Department of Defense Workers Coalition sponsored the rally," she said. The NTEU "isn't part of the coalition or the AFL-CIO."

The writer welcomes your comments and story ideas. She can be reached at melissa. harris@baltsun.com or 410-715-2885. Back issues of Federal Workers can be accessed at www.baltimore sun.com/federal.

2005 The Baltimore Sun

July 13, 2005

At Rally, Searing Rhetoric Against Overhauling the Defense Personnel System
By Stephen Barr

Washington's hot and humid weather served as a battle cry for several speakers at a union rally yesterday in a Senate park across Constitution Avenue from the Capitol.

"It is hot out here," Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the Democratic whip, told the crowd of federal union members, "but you want to make it hotter."

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) urged the union activists "to apply some of the heat in this plaza to members of Congress."
"Raise some hell," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) advised.
The heated rhetoric was aimed at the National Security Personnel System, an ambitious Pentagon plan to overhaul pay and personnel rules for Defense Department civil service employees. Rally speakers denounced the NSPS and urged union members to lobby Congress to block them.

"We think Congress has been snookered and misled," Byron W. Charlton , an AFL-CIO official helping lead the United Department of Defense Workers Coalition, told the crowd.
The union effort to roll back the Pentagon's plan may be too starting too late, however.
The Pentagon published a proposed regulation four months ago that would toss out the decades-old General Schedule pay system and replace it with the NSPS, a performance-based system that Pentagon officials contend will better reward the department's best workers. The NSPS also would revamp how employees appeal disciplinary actions and would limit the power of unions to bargain over workplace rules.

Although Congress has held a handful of hearings on the Pentagon plan, lawmakers have shown little interest in stopping the workplace changes, which were authorized in legislation two years ago. Republicans have signaled that they may consider modifications, if unions can provide specific examples of rule changes that appear unfair or go further than Congress intended.

Pentagon officials, meanwhile, continue to move forward with their NSPS plan. They appear on track to publish a final regulation by the end of August and launch the first wave of changes in October.

The officials also say they are open to feedback on their plan. Yesterday, Gordon England , the acting deputy defense secretary, and Linda M. Springer , director of the Office of Personnel Management, met with Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, to discuss the NSPS and other issues, congressional aides said.
John Gage , president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said yesterday that he thinks union members and federal employees have only started to grasp that the Pentagon plan would give more discretion to management and that his union has no choice but to keep pushing against the NSPS. Federal unions, including AFGE, have filed a lawsuit to stop parts of the NSPS.

The rally was sponsored by the coalition of Defense unions and included other labor organizations, such as the federal employee council of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Among the speakers were Reps. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.) and James R. Langevin (D-R.I.); Richard L. Trumka , the AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer; Ronald E. Ault , president of the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Gregory J. Junemann , president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; and several AFGE officials, including Gage.
"You have done a great job for this nation," Jones told the union members. "NSPS will not work. It is not fair to you."

Hoyer and other speakers said the NSPS could be a return to the days of political patronage in government, when civil service employees got raises and promotions based on who they knew rather than their knowledge and skills. Pay raises, Hoyer said, should be based "on merit and not on whim."

Rally organizers had predicted a large turnout, but estimates by participants ranged from fewer than 200 to about 400. Some union members said they had trouble guessing the size of the crowd because numerous union members gathered under trees to avoid the sun and either arrived late or left early because of the heat.

July 13, 2005

Union members rally against Defense, DHS personnel changes
Source: govExec.com
By Karen Rutzick
July 13, 2005

Hundreds of union members gathered near the Capitol on Tuesday to protest new personnel regulations in the Defense and Homeland Security departments. Protesters decried the changes to the collective bargaining system and the replacement of the General Schedule with a pay-for-performance system they say is unfair. The unions argued that these changes will result in less pay, the elimination of whistleblower protections and lowered worker morale. The systems in question are the proposed National Security Personnel System at the Defense Department and projected rules to be implemented Aug. 1 at DHS.

July 12, 2005

Representative Steny H. Hoyer Statement at AFGE Rally

HOYER: BUSH ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL POLICIES MAY WEAKEN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

Democratic Whip Calls on AFGE/DOD Members to Unite Against Flawed Bush Administration Personnel Policies

WASHINGTON, DC - House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement today at a rally of the American Federation of Government Employees/United Department of Defense Workers Coalition:

"Let me begin by thanking Richard Trumka, John Gage, Ron Ault, Greg Juneman, Rick Brown, Gerry McIntee and the entire 'United DoD Coalition' for hosting this important rally.

"You, the civilian professionals at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, are performing a critical role in protecting our nation, supporting our combat troops, and waging the war against terror.

"Your nation thanks you, and I thank you. Without you, our military forces and domestic security agencies simply could not function.

"Yet despite all you do, these are not the friendliest of times for the nearly 900,000 civilians employed at Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

"For that matter, these are not the friendliest of times for the other 900,000 women and men employed in other federal agencies.

"If ever there was a time for federal employees to be united in a cause, it is now.

"Like you, I am deeply concerned about the Bush Administration's misguided and reckless proposal to gut the civil service system.

"I am particularly troubled by the new personnel regulations at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security that the administration now wants to extend government-wide.

"As every one of you knows, these rules will significantly limit basic employee rights and protections, including collective bargaining rights of employees.

"When Congress authorized a restructuring of the personnel systems at Defense and Homeland security two years ago, it envisioned a new personnel system that would enable Defense and DHS employees to rise to the challenge of defending our nation in a post-9/11 environment.

"It was understood that department managers and employee representatives would work collaboratively, through the 'meet and confer process' to develop a personnel system that was fair, flexible, and transparent.

"I am thus disappointed that the new regulations fall short of this objective. Indeed, they may actually be counterproductive.
"We must resist this administration's efforts to weaken collective bargaining rights and civil service protections.

"These rights and protections are all we have to ensure your work is compensated fairly and performed in a professional, non-partisan manner.

"Simply put, the cornerstones of NSPS and the DHS personnel regulations involve replacing the GS pay scale with a 'pay-for-performance system' and eliminating collective bargaining and appeal rights.

"Once implemented, these changes will result in lower salaries, the elimination of whistle blower protections, and lowered worker morale.

"My greatest fear is that these misguided changes will lead to a severely compromised state of national security.

"I intend to work closely with the 'United DoD Coalition' to monitor the implementation of the new personnel systems. I will not hesitate to call on Congress to take appropriate action if the new system creates havoc."

July 12, 2005

DHS Defends Personnel Rules Against Unions' Assault

By Karen Rutzick

The Homeland Security Department responded Friday to an attempt by a group of labor unions to halt the introduction of new personnel regulations, arguing the effort is unwarranted and contrary to public interest.

The department filed a motion opposing an injunction that several unions requested on June 22. The National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Government Employees and three other unions filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking a judge to stall the slated Aug. 1 implementation of the rules.

If the unions are successful, DHS employees would continue to operate under current regulations until the legality of the new regulations are decided. A hearing on the motion is scheduled before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on Thursday.

Full story: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0705/071105r1.htm

July 7, 2005

Red Pen Scare
Source: GovExec.com
July 7, 2005
By Karen Rutzick

Officials at the Homeland Security Department are weeding through pre-existing collective bargaining agreements to seek out unenforceable provisions, according to a DHS employee.

"Unenforceable," according to the labor management directive from DHS, means those "provisions in a collective bargaining agreement that are inconsistent" with the department's personnel system.

Michael Knowles of in the Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau and an American Federation of Government Employees representative, said that human resources officials have been "basically going [through] with a red pen saying this is unenforceable or this is not consistent."

Knowles was asked by AFGE to attend several meetings with DHS human resources officials designed to open communication with the unions on the new system. These ongoing meetings are being held in the run-up to the Aug. 1 deadline for the implementation of the labor relations section of the new personnel system.

The collective bargaining agreements now in place are holdovers from agencies that existed before the creation of the Homeland Security Department. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service, for example, had an agreement from 2000 that is still in effect.
Homeland Security spokesman Larry Orluski said the search for unenforceable provisions will help managers and employees, not hurt them.

The process of going through existing bargaining agreements is to "make it clear for employees and managers and supervisors. They need to know what portions [of their agreements] still pertain and what portions don't...Managers have to know where things stand, and that's the idea," Orluski said.

"I don't know where the red pen thing came from," Orluski said. "But it's going to go to them in an Excel spreadsheet."

Charles Showalter, president of AFGE's National Homeland Security Council, said the process is not so benign.

"Right now, the agency is under the direction of some of these people designed to break the backs of unions," Showalter said. They are "looking to the contract, seeing what they think they can get away with, seeing what some of the authorities granted by Congress are and how far they can push those. It's a matter of some people within the agency trying to make it so they can do whatever they want with impunity."

After the Aug. 1 implementation, employees and their unions can appeal the decisions on what provisions are unenforceable to the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board, the members of which are appointed by the department's secretary. Nominations can be submitted by unions.

Charles Showalter
President
National Homeland Security Council
AFGE Council 117
Phone: 412 874-0089
Fax / Office: 724 857-0817
cwshowalter@comcast.net
www.nhsc117.org