June 29, 2006

Reverse Pay Parity
Source: GovExec.com
By Karen Rutzick

Military service members and civilian federal employees should receive the same annual pay raise, the same gesture of appreciation for their service to the country.

That's the argument lawmakers on Capitol Hill have used for years to buck the president's wishes that soldiers receive a higher pay raise than their civilian counterparts. Pay parity, they call it.

"Both our federal civilian and military employees fight on the front lines for our freedom, seek cures for diseases, respond to our natural disasters, protect the borders of our country, and provide needed government services to the American people," Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., trumpeted in a June statement.

Here's how it usually works: The president proposes two distinct pay raises in his budget -- a higher one for soldiers and a slightly lower one for civilians. Last year, for example, Bush proposed a 2.3 percent civilian raise and a 3.1 percent military hike.

Then a group of federal employee-friendly members of Congress, including Davis; Frank Wolf, R-Va.; Jim Moran, D-Va.; and Steny Hoyer, D-Md., call for pay parity between the two groups, and the civilian raise gets bumped up to match the military level. Congress passed a 3.1 percent raise for civilians, despite Bush's original recommendation.

It's a matter of principle, Davis said in June: "I want to thank the appropriations committee for once again recognizing the important principle of pay parity."

This year, however, the parity fight may be turned on its head. President Bush in his 2007 budget had for the first time proposed an equal raise for the military and civilians. Last week, the House approved a $427.4 billion Defense spending bill, including a 2.2 percent pay raise for military service members in 2007 - the level recommended by the president for both groups.

But just the week before that, the House passed a more generous 2.7 percent pay raise for civilians as part of the fiscal 2007 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill.

So, now it could be time for military advocates to play the pay parity card. What happened?

Congress began making noise about soldiers deserving a higher raise, especially in time of war, soon after Bush's budget was published. In May, the House approved a 2.7 percent pay raise for military personnel as part of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. An authorization act only sets the stage for the actual spending bill, however.

As soon as the authorization bill came through, Davis, Hoyer and their mostly Washington-area team -- supported by the federal employee unions and other civil service groups -- began their usual pay parity campaign, successfully, as it turns out. They secured the 2.7 percent figure in the Transportation-Treasury spending bill before the House passed its Defense spending bill with a military raise less generous than the authorized amount that had prompted their calls for parity.

Now Congress is in the position of possibly granting civilian government workers a better pay raise than their fighting peers.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet determined pay raises for either group. When it does, it may once again have to deal with the principle of parity.

June 28, 2006

AFGE TO LAUNCH NATIONWIDE RADIO SHOW
FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

"Inside Government" to focus on 6-C, Homeland Security, Privatization,
Other Issues Impacting Federal Workers

WASHINGTON—The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest federal workers' union, will launch a weekly nationwide radio/Internet program dedicated to issues that impact all federal employees.  In launching "Inside Government" AFGE becomes one of the first unions and the only federal workers' union to have a national broadcast program on the air.  

"Inside Government" will be a one-hour weekly radio/Internet program produced and owned solely by AFGE.  The program is scheduled to launch June 30, 2006, and can be heard Fridays at 10:00 a.m. EDT nationally on www.federalnewsradio.com or 1050 AM in the Washington, D.C., area.  The show will be distributed nationally to radio stations across the country.
Guests for the first show on June 30, 2006, will be AFGE National President John Gage and Washington D.C., Democratic Congresswoman Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
"Inside Government" will include interviews and commentary from several of the nation's prominent political leaders, opinion makers and journalists, AFGE members, AFL-CIO union leaders and celebrities.  

"Through Inside Government, we will be able to bring the issues which impact all federal workers to a wide national audience on a regular basis," said Gage, who is the show's creator and executive producer.  "This show will give the real story on what is happening inside our federal agencies and the rights of federal employees."  

Scheduled guests on upcoming programs include: 

July 7, 2006:  AFGE Council of Prison Locals President Bryan Lowry and AFGE Council of Prison Locals North Central Regional Vice President Randy Martin.
July 14, 2006:  AFGE National Council of Social Security Field Operations Locals President Witold Skwierczynski.
Attention Activists: Please e-mail questions you would like to be asked for shows on Bureau of Prisons and Social Security to InsideGovernment@afge.org.

 

June 27, 2006

AFGE Wins Again in Legal Battle Over DHS Regulations Court of Appeals Adds to Prior Victory; Union Looks For Victory in Similar NSPS Case

"This is a good day for federal employees and the unions that represent them,” American Federation of Government Employees General Counsel Mark Roth said. Earlier today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sustained and expanded an injunction of the District Court that essentially gutted the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) personnel regulations.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that DHS's attempt to reserve to itself the right to unilaterally abrogate lawfully negotiated and executed agreement is unlawful. Second, the Court held the final DHS personnel rules violate the act insofar as it limits the scope of bargaining.

“Today’s ruling validates the right for federal employees to have a voice over their working conditions,” Roth said. “This is a tremendous win and gives us momentum for honest and meaningful discussions with the administration.”

In the ruling, the Court stated that “DHS’s Final Rule defies the plain language of the [Homeland Security] Act, because it renders “collective bargaining” meaningless; and it is utterly unreasonable and thus impermissible, because it makes no sense on its own terms.”

AFGE and four other unions had challenged the personnel system on the basis that it was unconstitutional, among other issues. In August, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an injunction that forbade DHS from implementing the labor-relations portion of its new personnel system. DHS had designed its new system to replace the current General Schedule (GS) civil service system.

AFGE also has filed a lawsuit regarding the Department of Defense’s National Security Personnel Regulations (NSPS). “This decision should be a road map for the NSPS decision,” Roth said. “In the NSPS case, Judge Sullivan relied heavily on Judge Collyer’s earlier ruling and essentially enjoined the entire labor relations section of the NSPS. Additionally, everything that was found in our favor today also would apply to NSPS.”

For more information on AFGE’s campaign to ensure DHS workers’ rights,

call 1-800-701-9792.

June 27, 2006

Unions win broad victory over DHS labor relations system

Source: GovExec.com

By Karen Rutzick
An appeals court on Tuesday rendered a severe blow to the Homeland Security Department's attempt to curb collective bargaining rights for employees, unanimously upholding and even broadening a lower court decision to strike down large parts of the department's new labor relations system.

The unions that brought the lawsuit said the decision could mean they would now have the ability to bargain over pay -- something only a few federal agencies do -- if DHS continues to implement its new pay-for-performance system.

A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found, like the lower court, that DHS' proposed system would illegally curtail collective bargaining rights for employees by giving management the ability to cancel negotiated agreements after the fact.

But the panel, which includes two Republican-appointed judges, went even further than the lower court by ruling that DHS unlawfully limited the scope of employee bargaining.

"The regulations effectively eliminate all meaningful bargaining over fundamental working conditions," Judge Harry Edwards wrote in the opinion. "In no sense can such a limited scope of bargaining be viewed as consistent with the [Congress'] mandate that DHS 'ensure' collective bargaining rights for its employees."

Edwards' strongly worded decision called the labor relations system "utterly unreasonable" and said it "makes no sense on its own terms."

A group of five unions sued DHS last year when it published final regulations to implement a newlabor relations system as part of a larger human resources overhaul authorized by Congress when it created the department. Last summer, District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer enjoined the labor system before it even began, and the department appealed.

Lawyers for the National Treasury Employees Union and the American Federation of Government Employees, two of the largest unions in the group that brought the case, said the appeals decision is likely the last word. The government could ask the full appeals court, the Supreme Court or both to reconsider, but the unanimous decision and its agreement with the lower court make the acceptance of such an appeal unlikely.

DHS officials are "discussing the impact of today's ruling and potential next steps with the Department of Justice and the Office of Personnel Management," a department spokesman said He said DHS is pushing forward with training and logistics for the pay portion of the personnel overhaul.

Without a new labor relations system to accompany pay for performance, market-based pay, paybands and other personnel reforms included in DHS' larger package, the department actually may have to bargain over those reforms with labor groups, union lawyers said.

"To the extent they now have the discretion...to decide how people are paid or compensated, then in theory they are required to bargain with the unions over setting pay," said Elaine Kaplan, a lawyer for NTEU. "It's something we would want to take a close look at. It certainly opens up possibilities over the union's ability to negotiate over the new pay system."

The appeals judges also agreed with Collyer that DHS changed the role of the Federal Labor Relations Authority -- an independent agency that oversees federal management-labor disputes -- without having the authority to do so. DHS set up its own internal Homeland Security Labor Relations Board, with members appointed by the secretary, to handle the disputes, and relegated the FLRA to an appellate role.

The unions suffered one setback, although it may be temporary. Collyer had ruled that DHS' standard for the Merit Systems Protection Board -- a quasi-judicial independent federal agency -- to lessen penalties for employee misconduct was too tough. DHS' system would only allow the MSPB to do so if the penalty was "wholly without justification." The appeals judges, though, reversed Collyer's decision because the issue was not ripe for review, and said the unions should bring it to court again when a specific employee has a case.

The appeals decision may have legal implications for a similar case regarding the Defense Department's proposed labor relations reforms. The Pentagon lost its first round of that case in the district court, and the appeals court has yet to set a date for arguments.

"There's just no question that this decision will be the roadmap for that decision," AFGE lawyer Mark Roth said. "One appeals panel is bound by a previous appeals panel's decision. So in this case it would be highly unlikely, almost unprecedented, for the [National Security Personnel System] panel to issue a decision contrary to the DHS decision."

A spokeswoman for NSPS said the department is reviewing the DHS decision.

Casting drama over the already stirring situation, the FLRA on Tuesday morning began to count ballots in a race between NTEU and AFGE to represent 20,000 employees in the Customs and Border Protection unit of DHS. If NTEU loses, it will represent at most a few employees in the whole department.

NTEU President Colleen Kelley told reporters she is operating under the assumption that her union will win, and is sending a letter Tuesday to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff asking for a meeting to discuss the decision. AFGE officials said this decision leaves them satisfied with status quo, and they have not requested such a meeting.

June 26, 2006

Senate Committee Acts To Restore Protection For Whistle-Blowers
Source: The Washington Post

By Stephen Barr

In a breakthrough for advocates of whistle-blower rights, the Senate has approved an amendment that would tighten up protections for federal employees who expose waste, fraud, abuse and threats to public safety.

A bipartisan group of senators, led by Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), won unanimous consent last week to include the amendment in the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill. The amendment was based on a whistle-blower bill introduced by Akaka last year.

Federal employees "who put their country before their personal well-being should not be restrained because of fear of retaliation for doing what's right," Akaka said in a statement.
Numerous federal whistle-blowers have complained in recent years that agencies fail to handle their cases in a confidential manner and to ensure they do not suffer reprisals from their superiors.

The Akaka amendment would permit federal employees to claim whistle-blower protection for "any" disclosure they make of wrongdoing. According to Akaka, the amendment would restore and clarify congressional intent as to what type of whistle-blowing is protected and where it may take place.

The 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act sought to protect federal employees from reprisals and retribution for speaking out on waste, fraud and abuse inside the government.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that federal employees have no protection for disclosures made to immediate supervisors or co-workers, for statements made in connection with their normal employment duties, or for statements of publicly known facts.

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that public employees cannot seek First Amendment protection in sounding an alarm but must rely on federal and state laws to protect them from reprisals.

Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said the amendment "reverses the steady erosion of whistle-blower protections caused by employment practices that circumvent current protections and adverse court decisions."

Akaka and Collins were joined by Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) in sponsoring the amendment. Akaka praised Collins for helping "forge the consensus needed" to pass the amendment. "The need to act now was heightened because of last month's Supreme Court decision that limits whistle-blower protection under the First Amendment. It's unacceptable for the courts to add another deterrence to federal whistle-blowing," Akaka said.

The House version of the defense bill does not address whistle-blower rights, which means that the Akaka amendment will be taken up by House-Senate negotiators who will write a final defense bill. But whistle-blower groups called the Senate action a milestone event in what has become a six-year campaign to strengthen employee protections.

"We're elated," said Tom Devine , legal director for the Government Accountability Project.

Retirements
Anthony H. Gamboa , general counsel at the Government Accountability Office, will retire at the end of the month after 45 years of government service. Gamboa joined the GAO in 1996 as a senior associate general counsel for procurement law, heading the bid protest office. In 2001, he was named general counsel. Before joining the GAO, Gamboa served more than three decades in the Army, on active duty and as a civilian employee.

Jerry Mitchell , a U.S. Postal Service letter carrier, will retire July 3 after 40 years of delivering mail in the Hillandale area of Prince George's County.

Evelyn Petschek , chief of staff to the commissioner of internal revenue, retired June 6 after 13 years with the agency. She also served as commissioner of the tax exempt/government entities division of the Internal Revenue Service, and was awarded a distinguished presidential rank award in 2004 and a meritorious presidential rank award in 1999.

June 21, 2006

When it comes to unions, respect can be the key

By L.M. SIXEL

When you boil it down, there's a simple solution for companies that want to make it harder for unions trying to organize their workers.

It has to do with respect.

Sure, workers want good pay and benefits, but sometimes treating workers with respect can be more important in warding off unions.

Shouting, calling them names and depriving them of the basic dignities, well, you might as well pass out union business cards.

"I got into the union movement because my principal used to yell at me and yell at the other other teachers at faculty meetings," said Richard Shaw, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO and former teacher.

"I felt horrible," Shaw said, recalling the principal's tone. "I felt unprofessional. I felt little. I didn't think I deserved it." Shaw taught middle-school English from 1969 to 1975 and, along with some other teachers, put the Houston Federation of Teachers together in 1973.

"As I organized teachers over the years, it was about dignity and respect," Shaw said. "They all knew they wouldn't get rich."

Cesar Calderon, an international representative with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, knows how much disrespect upsets employees. So after talking with some bakery employees at Fiesta Mart earlier this year, he believed he had a solid organizing opportunity on his hands.

The workers — mostly immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico — complained of verbal abuse, Calderon said. Supervisors called them "stupid" and "good for nothing," he said. Wages are important, too, Calderon said. The 131 employees who work at the centralized bakery start at about $6.25 an hour.

But respect is very important.

"We are aware of the situation, and we are managing it," Fiesta spokesman Bernie Murphy said.

Workers at the Fiesta bakery will vote June 30 on whether they want union representation.

The statistics It may seem counterintuitive that wage and benefit issues sometimes aren't as powerful a rallying cry as respect, said Mark Jodon, an employment lawyer who represents management with law firm Littler Mendelson. But he has statistics that show just that.

Overall, unions win elections about 60 percent of the time, Jodon said.

In the cases where wage and benefits is the issue, the union wins an election only a third of thetime, he said. When the leading issue is respect, fairness and dignity, the union typically wins about 80 percent of the time, Jodon said.

And, he added, it doesn't matter if the employer is treating the employee lawfully or if the employer believes the employees are being treated with dignity. It's a matter of perception by employees, he said.

"I tell my clients that you basically have to live by the golden rule," Jodon said. "If you treat people like you would like to be treated, you won't have the union knocking at the door or employees filing grievances."

He recalled one client who had a supervisor who yelled at the employees. The employees contacted a union, but once the company found out and fired the supervisor, the union drive didn'tsucceed.

It's important to give employees a voice, such as a hot line to report problems and an open door to management, he said. If employees feel they can go to a supervisor, a human resources executive or even an executive, that goes a long way.

So do bathroom breaks.

Miles Anderson gets calls regularly from retail and other workers who can't get a break to go to the bathroom.

Anderson, organizing director for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 455, which represents retail, poultry and catfish processors as well as nursing home aides, said some workers they've organized reported soiling themselves because their bosses wouldn't let hem break away.

Work culture

"When it comes down to it, money is just the last straw," said J.P. Magill, president of the Achilles Group, which serves as the human resource director for a variety of small and midsize companies involved in manufacturing, distribution, food service and energy.

Union campaigns start because of the culture and the workplace environment — the intangibles, he said.

"I tell my managers if you treat people as adults, as human beings, you can't go wrong," he said.

And that doesn't mean handling them with kid gloves — it's telling them the good and the bad.

He likes to think it comes back to what we all learned in kindergarten: play well, share and taketurns.

It can be that simple.

 

June 21, 2006

 National Security Personnel System  

Last night the House of Representatives accepted by voice vote an amendment sponsored by Representatives Jay Inslee (D-WA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Walter Jones (R-NC) to eliminate funding for the labor relations and employee appeals portions of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) regulations established by DoD. While we had expected a roll call vote, having worked for weeks specifically on conservative Democrats and pro-labor Republicans, in the end leaders on the Appropriations Committee urged Rep. Inslee to accept a victory through a voice vote, with the promise that they would “keep it (the provision) in,” presumably through conference.

The action now shifts to the Senate. We will go first to Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), Chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to urge him to include the ban on funding in his bill. I urge AFGE members to start contacting their Senators on this matter, especially appropriators, to gauge their willingness to support an amendment, should the opportunity present itself.

I am grateful for all the work that has been done in the field to educate Representatives about the NSPS. It makes all the difference in the world when it’s time for a vote. Not once in my visits did anyone make an argument against our position. That can only happen if they know how much their voters care about an issue back home.

The arguments we made successfully are shown below. They can be used as talking points for Senate lobbying.

Background

On November 1, 2005, DoD published final rules to create the NSPS. These sweeping regulations would replace current provisions of Title 5, U.S. Code, affecting pay, classification, personnel management, employee appeal rights, and collective bargaining for 700,000 civilian employees in the Department. DoD’s authority to create an alternative personnel system -- within certain parameters -- was granted under the FY 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 108-136).

The law required the NSPS to be established jointly with unions through a “meet and confer” process. Despite months of meetings, DoD failed to take the process seriously, and for all practical purposes, ignored the unions’ proposals. DoD made clear they simply want unlimited uthority with no effective outside review. DoD's NSPS regulations are unilateral, arbitrary and go well beyond the original intent of the law. AFGE and other unions sued to block the regulations, and on February 27, 2006, Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan ruled that DoD had, in fact, exceeded its authority under the law, and blocked the regulations affecting labor relations and employee appeals from going forward.

Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining

The Sullivan decision requires any new labor relations system to include genuine collective bargaining. Chapter 71 of Title 5, U.S. Code governs labor relations and collective bargaining in the federal government. Although the statute allows DoD to waive Chapter 71, the regulations dramatically scale back the scope of collective bargaining over issues that go to the very heart of mployee concerns, including overtime, shift rotation, flexitime and compressed work schedules, safety and health programs, and deployment away from the regular worksite. These and many other issues have been negotiated successfully for years by employee representatives with Department management officials. The result of that bargaining has been the creation of smooth systems which both ensure that the work gets done and that employees are able to enjoy safe workplaces and properly balance their work lives with their responsibilities to their families. Sullivan also agreed with the unions that the regulations eliminate the statutory right to collective bargaining by providing the Secretary unlimited power to remove any subject from bargaining by unilateral “issuance.”

Further, the regulations replace the current independent, statutorily-created Federal Labor elations Authority and the Federal Service Impasses Panel with an internal board whose members are selected solely by the Secretary. The board’s composition ensures that it will lack impartiality and thus undermine the credibility of the new collective bargaining system among employees. This internal board is not independent, as required by the statute. Again, the Sullivan decision affirmed the union’s argument.

Employee Appeal Rights

Under Title 5, federal employees have the right to appeal an agency’s adverse actions to the independent Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The NSPS statute mandated that DoD protect due process rights and ensure that any new adverse action procedures be “fair” to employees. The statute authorized DoD to create a “streamlined” procedure for employee ppeals. The coalition’s lawsuit contended that the process created was unfair. The court agreed.

The NSPS regulations do not streamline the process, but actually add steps to the process. Under Title 5, arbitrator decisions in discipline cases are subject to immediate judicial review. However, the NSPS regulations subject arbitrator decisions, as well as MSPB Administrative Judge (AJ) decisions (in cases where employees do not elect arbitration), to two layers of administrative review. The first review is by DoD itself and allows the Department the unilateral right to overturn the decision of the independent AJ or arbitrator before the case can even be appealed to the full MSPB. Instead, decisions will become essentially advisory subject to DoD review and then may be reviewed by the MSPB, thus reducing the rule and power of arbitrators nd AJs. This is entirely insupportable and contrary to Congressional intent. Since DoD wins close to 90% of its current MSPB cases, there is simply no justification for eliminating a fair adjudicative process for employee appeals. This change will dramatically increase the MSPB workload, delay results, and cause inefficiency in the system.

Further, the NSPS regulations prohibit an AJ or arbitrator from mitigating DoD’s penalty unless it is “totally unwarranted.” This new standard, never before used, is clearly designed to prevent DoD from ever having a disciplinary action mitigated, no matter the circumstances.

The National Security Personnel System, as envisioned by the November 1st DoD regulations, is contrary to the statute. The regulations are unfair to employees, and if implemented, they will undermine the contribution to mission that DoD civilians have demonstrated so ably over the years. The federal court has ruled that the department cannot go forward with these regulations.

June 20, 2006

Amendment to Defund NSPS Wins on Voice Vote, thanks in part to AFGE lobbying efforts

 The House today accepted an amendment to defund the National Security Personnel System (NSPS).  The Inslee-Van Hollen-Jones amendment to the House FY2007 Defense Appropriations Bill to defund NSPS was accepted by voice vote, i.e., without a recorded vote.  AFGE members owe thanks to Jay Inslee (D-WA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Walter Jones (R-NC), the sponsors of the amendment.

John Gage, National President of AFGE, which represents 200,000 DoD civilian employees, said, “I am pleased to see the House of Representatives show its support for the findings of the court that the department has overreached in its labor relations and appeal rights regulations. It’s a credit to Jay Inslee, Chris Van Hollen, and Walter Jones that the House passed this important amendment."

 

June 20, 2006

AFGE TO LAUNCH NATIONWIDE RADIO SHOW FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

"Inside Government" to focus on 6-C, Homeland Security, Privatization, Other Issues Impacting Federal Workers

WASHINGTON—The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest federal workers' union, will launch a weekly nationwide radio/Internet program dedicated to issues that impact all federal employees.  In launching "Inside Government" AFGE becomes one of the first unions and the only federal workers' union to have a national broadcast program on the air.  

"Inside Government" will be a one-hour weekly radio/Internet program produced and owned solely by AFGE.  The program is scheduled to launch June 30, 2006, and can be heard Fridays at 10:00 a.m. EDT nationally on www.federalnewsradio.com or 1050 AM in the Washington, D.C., area.  The show will be distributed nationally to radio stations across the country.
Guests for the first show on June 30, 2006, will be AFGE National President John Gage and Washington D.C., Democratic Congresswoman Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
"Inside Government" will include interviews and commentary from several of the nation's prominent political leaders, opinion makers and journalists, AFGE members, AFL-CIO union leaders and celebrities.  

"Through Inside Government, we will be able to bring the issues which impact all federal workers to a wide national audience on a regular basis," said Gage, who is the show's creator and executive producer.  "This show will give the real story on what is happening inside our federal agencies and the rights of federal employees."  

Scheduled guests on upcoming programs include: 

July 7, 2006:  AFGE Council of Prison Locals President Bryan Lowry and AFGE Council of Prison Locals North Central Regional Vice President Randy Martin.

July 14, 2006:  AFGE National Council of Social Security Field Operations Locals President Witold Skwierczynski.
Attention Activists: Please e-mail questions you would like to be asked for shows on Bureau of Prisons and Social Security to InsideGovernment@afge.org.

 

June 17, 2006

Social Security cuts could worsen backlog


Susan Jaffe
Plain Dealer Reporter , Cleveland Ohio

More than 11,000 people from Northern Ohio are waiting for a hearing to appeal denial of their Social Security disability, with some imposed as many as two years ago, even though the Cleveland appeals office has added four judges.

The applicants wait an average of 597 days -- up more than 50 percent from 344 days in January 2004 -- but some run out of time. Local lawyers have reported that dozens of their clients have died while waiting for a hearing date.

Despite the Social Security Administration's efforts to speed up the process, agency chief Jo Anne Barnhart told a congressional committee this week that budget cuts could make things worse. If Congress carves $200 million from the Social Security Administration's budget, the agency would not be able to replace hundreds of workers or verify whether thousands of people granted disability benefits are still eligible, Barnhart said.

A congressional committee approved the cuts Tuesday, and there could be more to come.
Barnhart said an additional 1 percent cut -- like the one the agency received last year in a last-minute effort to save money -- could force her to send Social Security employees home for a week without pay.

"It's very serious," she said.

The cuts would make it difficult to keep pace with the enormous backlog of appeals, she said, "let alone work it down."

The Cleveland appeals office backlog of 11,026 is the fourth-worst in the country, along with that of Indianapolis, according to the Social Security Administration. Tampa, Fla., has the most -- 14,547 -- followed by Birmingham, Ala., and Buffalo, N.Y.

Under questioning from Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat of Cleveland, Barnhart said she would like to hire 100 more judges but will hire none next year without additional money.

Marcia Margolius, a Cleveland lawyer who represents people appealing the denial of disability benefits, said the agency has struggled for years to get adequate funding.

"I think this is going to have a devastating effect on people waiting for hearings," she said.

Some of her clients waited as long as two years for a hearing, she said. They can lose their homes, and some end up living in homeless shelters. Others lose health benefits or can't afford to pay gas and electric bills.

Barnhart devoted most of her prepared testimony to the House Social Security subcommittee describing the progress in streamlining the disability application process. New measures include an electronic filing system, hiring more judges, expediting decisions for people who "are clearly disabled," increasing the use of video-conference hearings and bringing in temporary judges from around the country.

James Hill, president of the Cleveland chapter of the National Treasury Employees Union, testified and praised Barnhart's plan to speed up the system.

He said claimants will greatly benefit from it. He represents attorneys who review appeals and draft decisions.

But he did not know that budget cuts threatened the improvements until he heard Barnhart's responses to the committee's questions.

"We deplore any furlough for any period of time," he said. "If we're on furlough, we're not serving the public."

To reach this Plain Dealer Reporter:
sjaffe@plaind.com, 216-999-4822
2006 The Plain Deale

June 16, 2006

A Very Good Week For FedsSource: Mike Causey’s Federal Report

If your back and arms are sore from heavy lifting, and punching, there is a reason.
You've had a tough, but great week in Congress. Odds are that most of the heavy-lifting and punching was done by friendly politicians, lobbyists for federal unions and associations and grass-roots dues-paying members acting on your behalf.
If you belong to one of those groups, pat yourself on the back. Your dues money has already paid off. If not, find somebody who is a dues-paying member and, maybe, take them to lunch. They go by the initials AFGE, NTEU, FMA, NFFE, etc.
They deserve a thanks because...

 

Friday June 16, 2006

Perhaps Worst A-76 Privatization Review Ever Can Still Be Killed—with Your Help!

Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) will offer an amendment to the House FY07 Defense Appropriations Bill when that funding measure is considered later this week to kill what many observers believe to the worst OMB Circular A-76 privatization review ever. Even if you are not directly adversely affected, please take the time to urge your lawmakers in the House of Representatives to support the Norton Amendment. The feeling among contracting out experts is if the agency is able to get away with this botched and biased A-76 review, then anything is possible. So be thankful it’s not happening to you, but don’t ever forget that you could be next.

The victims of this A-76 privatization review are 350 older, blue-collar, overwhelmingly African-American employees of the Department of the Army, many of them veterans. In September 2004, the Army decided that these employees should continue performing base operations support services. However, in January 2006, the Army reversed course and decided to contract out their work.

This privatization review

1. is so expensive that the costs of conducting it are now in excess of any promised savings.
2. is so unfair to the employees that the Deputy Garrison Commander asked the affected employees’ union in writing to pay for outside counsel to appeal the January 2006 decision to contract out to the Government Accountability Office.
3. is so problematic that the Garrison Commander wanted to conduct further research and cost comparisons three months after the January 2006 decision to contract out—but was instructed not to do so by the Army.
4. has been so botched—the original solicitation was amended 16 times and the last such amendment included 1,500 changes—that the Army asked the Pentagon for permission to shut it down—but was mysteriously refused this request.
5. is so old that it actually began in the Clinton Administration, in June 2000.
6. is so clearly illegal. While it was conducted, the Defense Appropriations Bills first limited the length of A-76 reviews to 48 months and then to 30 months, in order to hold down the often significant costs of the A-76 process, which leaves the Walter Reed A-76 privatization review in clear defiance of the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Representative Norton’s amendment would prevent the Army from carrying out this botched and biased privatization. Please call your lawmakers in the House of Representatives and urge them to support the Norton Amendment to the FY07 Defense Appropriations Bill. Click here to tell your lawmakers in the House of Representative to support the Norton Amendment.

June 15, 2006

What's At Stake?Our Freedom to Form Unions--at Risk

Have you ever showed a colleague at work how to perform a task? Have you ever been asked to look over someone else’s work? If so, the federal labor board is poised to further limit your freedom to form a union and join with your co-workers to bargain collectively for a better life.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), currently dominated by pro-corporate Bush-appointees, soon will decide three cases that could further attack workers’ basic rights in America. If the NLRB rules against workers and broadens the definition of “supervisor,” hundreds of thousands of workers could be stripped of their contract protections and even more workers could be denied their freedom to form unions.

Contact your representatives in Congress today and urge them to stop the assault on your freedom to join a union. Tell them to urge NLRB Chairman Robert J. Battista to hold oral arguments on these important cases.

In the upcoming decisions, skilled and experienced workers such as nurses, who give instructions to co-workers about how and when to perform certain tasks, are particularly vulnerable to reclassification as supervisors.  For example, registered nurses who tell nurses aides to do certain things for particular patients and journeymen/building trades workers who direct other workers on a crew are at risk.

These decisions have the potential to affect a wide range of workers, including those in the building and construction, broadcast, energy, shipping and other industries. This is just another case of the Bush-appointed NLRB working to remove the power of working people by excluding many from union eligibility while cutting the bargaining power of those who remain.

You can make a difference. Contact your U.S. representative and senators today and tell them to urge the NLRB to hold oral arguments on these crucial cases so workers have a voice.

June 14, 2006

House backs 2.7 percent civilian pay raise for 2007

By Karen Rutzick
Source: GovExec.com
 
The full House Wednesday evening approved a 2.7 percent pay increase for civilian federal employees in 2007.

Representatives voted for the raise as part of the fiscal 2007 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, which passed by a vote of 406-22.

President Bush proposed a 2.2 percent raise for both military and civilian employees, but in May, the full House approved a higher 2.7 percent military raise as part of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act.

Shortly after that action, 10 members, led by Reps. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., sent a letter to appropriators asking for the same hike for civilians.

"Both our federal civilian and military employees fight on the front lines for our freedom, seek cures for diseases, respond to our natural disasters, protect the borders of our country and provide needed government services to the American people," Davis said in a statement following Wednesday's vote.

A policy statement released by the administration said the president "strongly opposes" the higher raise, citing an additional $600 million cost and noting that the 2.7 percent exceeds the average increase in private-sector pay as measured by the Labor Department's Employment Cost Index.

The bill expressly included Homeland Security and Defense department civilian employees in the 2.7 percent raise. Those two departments have new pay-for-performance systems in the works that are intended to eliminate automatic pay raises for all employees.

In a statement following the vote, Hoyer said the "Washington area delegation works hard every year to provide federal employees with a fair pay adjustment that follows the principle of pay parity, including Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security employees."

The president's statement specifically urged deletion of the 2.7 percent raise for those departments because of the personnel system changes -- particularly those at the Pentagon, which rolled out its new system for the first 11,000 employees in April.

"The provision is ambiguous as to how the increase would be applied to employees covered under these departments' modernized pay systems and will unnecessarily complicate their implementation," the statement said.

This year was the first time that President Bush proposed equal pay raises for both groups, but the move did not forestall the annual pay parity battle in Congress.

 

 

June 14, 2006

      
Social Security Union President Says
Congress Should Delay implementation of New Disability Rules

WASHINGTON—Social Security union president, Witold Skwierczynski, today called on Congress to delay implementation of the new rules for processing disability claims until the full cost of the proposed changes – not just to SSA, but to the states and to the U.S. District Courts as well  –  can be determined.  Additionally, the union recommended that the changes be implemented as a pilot program first.  In testimony before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, Skwierczynski rejected a plan by Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart to change the process by which Americans are evaluated for disabling conditions and by which claimants may appeal a denial of benefits.  Implementation of the new rules is scheduled to begin August 1.

AFGE long has argued that the new rules do little to improve service to disabled Americans while virtually guaranteeing that the entire disability application process will become more litigious.  Under Barnhart’s plan, the Social Security Administration would hire an army of attorneys to evaluate denied cases as they come in the door from the state officials who make the initial determination of eligibility.

“It’s never a good sign when someone says ‘I want you to meet my lawyer,’ but that exactly how these new rules would greet disabled Americans who appeals their case in the event of a denial by state officials,” said Skwierczynski.  “The entire plan is a misplaced, misguided effort.  The real focus should have been on correcting the disparity of disability approval rates from state to state.  Approval of federal benefits should not depend on in which state an American lives.”

Skwierczynski cited SSA data on disability benefit approval rates from state to state.  In Maryland only 35 percent of disability claims are approved compared to 53 percent for the District of Columbia.  Eight states have approval rates that are less than 30 percent (Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Ohio, Alabama, Missouri, and Oregon).

Skwierczynski said service to the public, including disabled Americans, will be harmed further by a new policy of replacing only 1 field office employee for every 8 who leave.  According to Skwierczynski, every other segment of SSA has a higher ratio for filling vacancies.  In some offices the number of staff is actually growing.

“SSA is a people-intensive agency.  Our members interact with the public face-to-face or over the phone, answering questions, taking claims and providing other assistance.  The agency has become increasingly short staffed in recent years.  With the oncoming baby boomer retirement tidal wave, now is the absolutely wrong time to cut staffing levels at SSA,” said Skwierczynski.
###