By Karen Rutzick
Source: GovExec.com

The Senate on Thursday evening voted to grant a 3.1 percent average pay increase next year to white-collar civilian federal workers.

The pay raise was included in the fiscal 2006 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill (H.R. 3058), which passed on a 93-1 vote. The legislation also included a union-backed measure aimed at putting federal employees on equal footing with contractors in public-private job competitions.

The Senate bill would ensure that civilian workers receive the same pay increase as military service members. The Bush administration had proposed a 2.3 percent increase for civilians in 2006. The bill also contains language advanced by Sens. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., requiring agencies to allow in-house employees form teams to defend themselves any time more than 10 jobs are at stake in a public-private job contest. The in-house teams would be afforded the lower of a 10 percent or $10 million cost advantage in competitions.

Oct 23, 2005

Personnel pay raises to change
Source: Fredericksburg.com

I N JULY, the Office of Management and Budget began circulating the administration's proposed overhaul of the federal work force.

Billed as the biggest reform in more than 50 years, the "Working for America Act" would create a governmentwide personnel system based on pay for performance. It would effectively scrap the current general schedule system, which dates back to the 1940s.

The administration believes reform is needed because today's work force is far less uniform, and federal workers now perform a wider range of duties at very different proficiency levels.

This month, a House government-reform subcommittee held a hearing to explore the administration's proposal. Testimony was presented by the Office of Personnell Management, the Government Accountability Office and a number of groups representing federal workers.

The proposed reform package is massive--the sectional analysis which accompanies it is well over 40 pages. So in just one hearing, the participants could address only the plan's broadcast objectives.

OPM Director Linda Springer summarized what she called the "central elements" of the Working for America Act--preserving core civil service principles; establishing a results-driven, market-based pay system; and providing for a careful balance for labor-management relations.

Under the proposal, OPM would develop a "core compensation system" that defines broad groups of occupations with pay bands within each group that clearly identify a distinct level of work. In addition, "pass/fail" appraisal systems for all but entry-level jobs would be eliminated. The current general schedule and federal wage system would be permanently retired by 2010; most agencies would be required to have the new plans in place by 2008.

The Working for America Act met with some skepticism.

David Walker, the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office, indicated that while the office supports moving forward with appropriate human-capital reforms, the government currently does not have enough experience to address this scale of reform until the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense implement their newly mandated systems.

Walker advocated dividing this proposal into two parts--one addressing pay and performance and the other labor-management relations.

Representing more than 600,000 federal and District of Columbia workers, John Gage, the national president of American Federation of Government Employees, commented on what he characterized as the "so-called" Working for America Act. Gage said that forcing all agencies to "adopt pay-for-performance schemes," drastically reduces the rights of federal workers to union representation.

Gage is also concerned that OPM's discretion under this proposal would be so immense that salary increases for "so-called unskilled work" like "military equipment repair or serving meals to veterans" could be miniscule or forgone altogether.

In the coming months, it will be interesting to see what traction the Working for America Act will get. Bear in mind it is still a work in progress.

Supplemental insurance

If you have been waiting for OPM to unveil supplemental dental and vision insurance coverage, you will have to wait a while longer.

OPM has delayed for six months, until December 2006, its planned offering of this mandated supplemental coverage for federal workers, their dependents and retirees. I hope it is worth the wait!

Oct 21, 2005

AFGE APPLAUDS SENATE FOR PASSING FUNDING BILL WITH BIPARTISAN PRIVATIZATION REFORM PACKAGE

Bond-Mikulski Provision Levels Playing Field for Federal Employees in Job Competitions

( Washington)— The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) today praised the Senate for passing the FY06 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Bill, a piece of legislation that includes a bipartisan, government-wide privatization reform package crafted by Subcommittee Chairman Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.) and veteran Senate appropriator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). 

In all federal agencies for functions of ten or more employees, the Bond-Mikulski package would ensure the following:

"AFGE is pleased that the Bond-Mikulski package commands broad, bipartisan support in the Senate,” said AFGE National President John Gage. "Enactment of the package would be a big win for taxpayers and all Americans who depend on the federal government for important services because it promotes fair competition and generates actual savings.” 

Gage continued, “The bipartisan Bond-Mikulski Senate language ensures that federal employees and contractors can compete in a process that ensures all federal agencies can procure the services they need at the desired levels of quality and reliability. It also ensures the best possible terms for taxpayers using a process that has been in place at the Department of Defense, the department that does three-fifths of all service contracting.”

In passing its version of the bill earlier this year, the House of Representatives rejected the Office of Management and Budget’s pro-contractor rewrite of the OMB Circular A-76 privatization process for a third consecutive year and accepted an amendment from Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that would require the privatization process be rewritten to make it fairer to federal employees and more accountable to taxpayers.

“In requiring that contracting out decisions in all federal agencies be based on fair competition and generate actual savings, the Bond-Mikulski package is a significant attempt to address some of the bipartisan concerns about A-76 that have been raised by Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives,” said Gage.

Gage continued, “AFGE urges conferees to include the Bond-Mikulski package in the conference report to the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Bill.”

Oct 18, 2005

Act Now: Don't Let Victory Turn Into Defeat

Tuesday October 18, 2005

AFGE has succeeded in getting strong contracting out reform provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the Defense Appropriations and Transportation-Treasury Appropriations bills. AFGE’s success is a direct result of strong and aggressive grassroots pressure by AFGE activists. That pressure must now continue to prevent contractors and the Administration from pressuring lawmakers to remove the provisions in “conference”. That’s when House and Senate negotiators meet to iron out general differences in the separate versions of their bills.

The following is a summary of what’s happened and what you can do to prevent backroom deals from turning AFGE’s victories into defeats:

Contractors hate this provision and so does the Administration. In a letter to Senators the Administration stated its strong opposition by saying, “the provision would provide a disincentive for the private sector to participate in DoD’s competitions”. That’s too bad for contractors but great for AFGE members and the number one reason to lobby hard to keep the provision in the bill.

The Defense Appropriations bill gets even better. It contains language that prevents DoD from taking work from federal employees and giving it to contractors without allowing the in-house workforce to submit their most competitive bids. And it would require contractors to at least promise savings to offset the cost of a privatization review. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), Chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, deserves special thanks for his efforts at crafting legislation that included all three of these provisions.

Your Senators and Representative need to hear from you to prevent this victory from turning into defeat. Contractors and the Administration will lobby hard to remove the anti-contacting out provisions from the bill. Grassroots pressure from AFGE activists is critical.

Here’s What You Can Do:

Send this letter by fax or email to your Senators and Representative (Defense Apropriations Bill) The following Representatives and Senators are particularly important to contact because of their potential role as “Conferees” or negotiators of the final version of the Defense Appropriations bill:

Senators:

Bond (R-MO)
Burns (R-MT)
Cochran (R-MS)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-SD)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin(D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Leahy (D-VT)
McConnell(R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reid (D-NV)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)

Representatives:
Bonilla (R-23,TX)
Cunningham (R-50,CA)
Dicks (D-6,WA)
Frelinghuysen (R-11,NJ)
Granger (R-12, TX)
Hobson (R-7,OH)
Kaptur (D-9,OH)
Kingston (R-1,GA)
Moran (D-8,VA)
Murtha (D-12,PA)
Sabo (D-5,MN)
Tiahrt (R-4,KS)
Visclosky (D-1,IN)
Wicker (R-1,MS)
Young (R-At Large,AK)

Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Bill (T&T): The Senate version of this bill takes two key AFGE provisions in the Defense Appropriations bill and applies them government wide. Specifically, the Senate’s T&T bill would prevent agencies from contracting out work without giving federal employees the chance to compete and requires contractors to at least promise savings that offset the cost of the privatization study. This is another major victory in our effort to block the Administration’s contracting out agenda. Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) deserves special thanks for his leadership in developing a bill that included these provisions.

The Senate bill will soon move to conference with the House. The House version contains general contracting out reform language while the Senate language is very specific and has bipartisan support. That means AFGE activists must convince House conferees to accept the Senate provisions while encouraging Senate conferees to defend them. Contractors and the Administration will lobby hard against the provisions so your calls, emails and letters will be critical to winning this fight

Oct 14, 2005

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON TO SPEAK AT NATIONAL CELL PHONES FOR SOLDIERS COLLECTION DAY

D.C. VA Workers Host Effort to Provide Cell Phones for Soldiers

Who: U.S. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, AFGE National Vice President Dwight Bowman and AFGE members

What: National Collection Day for AFGE-sponsored Cell Phones for Soldiers Program, an initiative to help soldiers deployed overseas afford the cost of making expensive international phone calls to relatives and loved ones

When: Friday, Oct 14, 2005, 9:30 to 10:15 a.m.

Where: Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Washington , D.C., 50 Irving Street, NW, Front lobby

Washington —After launching its Cell Phones for Soldiers (CPFS) pilot program in early August, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is now expanding its version of the program nationally by holding a National Day of Collection at the Washington, D.C. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center. Through CPFS, participants can drop off used cell phones with attached batteries at designated drop-off sites. The donated phones will then be recycled for cash and used to purchase prepaid calling cards for soldiers who cannot afford to make costly long distance phone calls to relatives and loved ones in the United States.

Since the launch of the CPFS pilot program, AFGE locals have sponsored drop-off sites at VA medical centers across the country. The VA Medical Center in Washington, D.C., is one of the latest facilities to join the CPFS effort.

AFGE represents nearly 185,000 VA employees, many of whom are veterans.

By Karen Rutzick

Source: GovExec.com

A federal judge ruled Friday that the Homeland Security Department's labor relations reforms cannot go forward, despite an attempt by the department to remove portions of the proposal previously ruled illegal.

Rosemary Collyer, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, told DHS that its revised labor relations scheme did not go far enough in providing collective bargaining rights—specifically binding contracts—for department employees.

In her original ruling, Collyer focused on the department's authority to declare negotiated contracts void at any time after completion. The Homeland Security Department removed that language from its revised regulations, but the judge remained unconvinced.

October 7, 2005

AFGE, Other Unions Score Major Victory as Judge Denies DHS Motion to Gut Collective Bargaining

AFGE BEATS BACK AGENCY BID TO IMPLEMENT NEW WORK RULES
WASHINGTON--In a major victory for Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
employees across the nation, a federal court has denied a motion by DHS to allow
virtually full implementation of its new personnel system, known as MaxHR. For
the second time in two months, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia has upheld AFGE's position that DHS's new
regulations concerning collective bargaining so circumscribe the negotiating
process as to virtually eliminate it.

After hearing oral argument from AFGE and other unions in opposition to the
Department of Homeland Security's request to implement new work rules that will
impede whistleblower and other employee protections, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declined the agency's
bid, accepting the unions' argument.

In August, Judge Collyer issued a memorandum opinion that forbade DHS from
implementing the labor-relations portion of its new personnel system, MaxHR,
which is designed to replace the current General Schedule (GS) civil service
system. DHS countered with a motion for an amendment to the judge's opinion that
would permit the agency to go ahead with the new collective bargaining rules.
"The court cannot oblige," wrote Judge Collyer. "After thorough consideration of
the Agencies' proposed order, the Court concludes that the [Agencies'] proposal
is insufficient...As a result, the motion must be denied."

In January, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and four
other unions filed suit challenging significant parts of the proposed personnel
system on the basis that they violated the Homeland Security Act (the
legislation that created DHS), among other issues. In June, the unions filed a
motion to stop the implementation of the rules. On August 12th, the court issued
an opinion that forbade the agency from implementing those parts of the MaxHR
that address collective bargaining, mitigation of disciplinary actions, and the
role of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) as an arbiter of disputes
between management and employees.

DHS promptly responded to the court's decision by filing a motion to amend the
judge's order on the collective bargaining portion of the regulations, essentially asking her to allow the agency to proceed with implementation after making only minor changes. In today's decision, the court declined the agency's motion. "As demonstrated by the unions," Judge Collyer writes, "a number of provisions in [the collective bargaining portion of the rules] either permit or contemplate DHS's unilateral repudiation of pre-existing collective bargaining agreements."

"AFGE made every effort to design a fair and efficient personnel system in
collaboration with DHS," Gage added. "Unfortunately, our efforts and concerns
virtually were ignored, which left us with no choice but to file suit."

"It is indeed a triumph to be vindicated by the District Court on the critical
issue of collective bargaining," said AFGE Deputy General Counsel Charles
Hobbie. "If the current human resource management system is to be improved, I
urge DHS to listen to its employees in the 'renewed rulemaking effort' urged by
Judge Collyer."

In her opinion, Judge Collyer suggested that the agency and unions renew
discussions on how best to resolve the issues in contention.

"DHS should respond to their concerns," Hobbie continued, "rather than shutting
them out of the deliberative process by eviscerating collective bargaining and
employee protections."

AFGE is the Homeland Security Union representing the largest constituency of DHS
employees, comprising Border Patrol, Customs & Border Protection, Immigration &
Customs Enforcement officers; FEMA workers; and civilian Coast Guard employees.

By Karen Rutzick
krutzick@govexec.com

Some lawmakers and agency leaders are considering splitting a proposal to reform the personnel system in domestic agencies into two bills, one concerning compensation and another dealing with labor relations.

David M. Walker, comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office, told a congressional hearing Wednesday that the government does not have enough experience with labor reform to move ahead with a new labor relations scheme until the Homeland Security and Defense departments implement their new systems.

"I would divide this bill into two parts," Walker told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization. "We believe that it may be prudent for the Congress to consider what happens with DHS and DoD before we move forward on [the labor relations] part."

Parts of DHS' labor relations reforms were ruled illegal by a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in August. The Pentagon has not yet released its final regulations for reform.

Office of Personnel Management Director Linda Springer, who also testified at the hearing, said splitting the bill is a possibility.

"I think that's an option that could be considered," Springer said. "But having said that, I think we have drafted the bill with the thought that the two pieces do go together, and we think they both could be accommodated in a much, much reduced way from DHS." In the governmentwide reform bill, the labor relations part "is scaled down considerably" from what DHS has proposed.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C, and Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., who attended the hearing, all emphasized that the governmentwide proposal, dubbed the Working for America Act, is in draft stages, and is open to revisions.

Attendees debated whether the approximately 90,000 employees currently in alternative personnel systems, either through demonstration projects or in agencies with exemptions from civil service personnel rules, provide adequate examples for how personnel reforms work, or if legislators need to wait for DHS and Defense to try out their proposals.

Springer said results of demonstration projects and about 25 years of experience do provide a sufficient guide for crafting governmentwide reform. Walker, however, said that theory holds true for merit-based pay and classification systems, but not labor relations.

"Congress should move more cautiously in connection with labor-management relations and adverse actions and appeals reforms," Walker said in written testimony to the subcommittee. "Selected federal agencies have been implementing more market-based and performance-oriented pay for some time--some organizations for well over a decade--and they have built a body of experience and knowledge...On the other hand, the federal government has had far less experience in changes regarding labor management relations and adverse actions and appeals."

The American Federation of Government Employees, one of the largest unions representing federal workers, said separating the labor relations portion won't make the bill bulletproof.

"AFGE opposes both the labor relations and adverse actions and the pay system aspects of the WFA bill, so if the bill were split but otherwise unchanged, we would be opposing both bills," said Jacque Simon, director of public policy at AFGE. "Nevertheless, I do think it is a good idea, because they are entirely separate issues."

National Treasury Employees Unions President Colleen Kelley said no one has approached the union with a formal proposal for splitting the bill, and she has mixed feelings on the idea.

"I'm very pleased to see that GAO and Congress are looking very carefully at this system," Kelley said. "But I think addressing the problems in the pay for performance is as important as addressing the flaws that have been identified in the labor relations and adverse actions."

Experts and employee representatives also testified on a number of issues concerning the bill, including funding and the unused resources already in place, such as quality step increases and cash award bonuses, that supervisors are not using.

October 6, 2005

Contact: Emily Ryan                                                       
(202) 639-6421                                                            
eryan@afge.org

THROW OUT MAX HR, AND WORK TOGETHER TO IMPROVE PERSONNEL SYSTEM, AFGE TELLS DHS SECRETARY CHERTOFF
Solution to improving regulations is joint collaboration

( Washington)—Scrap the proposed Department of Homeland Security regulations, and work together to improve the DHS personnel system (known as MAX HR), American Federation of Government Employees National President John Gage told DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff in a recent letter. “Shall we continue to debate the personnel system in the Congress, through litigation or shall we jointly design a system that works? We ask you to throw out the regulations. Sit down with us and let us improve the DHS personnel system together,” Gage wrote.

Gage pointed out that 98 percent of the people who commented in response to MAX HR, mostly DHS employees, were against the regulations. “Nobody cares more about the mission of DHS than do these employees,” Gage said. As the union representing employees throughout the department, AFGE’s approach to these issues is grounded in that fundamental belief.

“Our voice is their voice. The concerns we offer are their concerns. When we offer criticisms or portray anger, it reflects what we hear from them. If you shut out our voice, you are shutting out their voice. If you reject our concerns, you are rejecting their concerns. If you dismiss the ideas we offer, you are dismissing their ideas and if you ignore the anger we portray on their behalf, you are really ignoring their anger,” he wrote. 

“The frontline employees are now looking to you wondering if you stand for their interests or against them,” Gage added.

October 5, 2005

Working For America Act - WITNESS TESTIMONY

October 5, 2005 Hearing

Linda Springer—OPM

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Springer.pdf

 David Walker—GAO

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Walker1.pdf

 Rep. Jeff Flake

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Jeff%20Flake.pdf

 Teresa Shaw—US Department of Education

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Terri%20Shaw.pdf

 Max Stier—Partnership for Public Service

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Max%20Stier.pdf

 W. Scott Gould—Business Consulting Service

Linda Bilmes— Harvard University

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Gould.pdf

 Federal Managers Association—Michael Styles

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Michael%20Styles.pdf

 AFGE—John Gage

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/John%20Gage.pdf

 National Treasurer Employees Union—Colleen Kelley

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/kelley.pdf

 

Click here to read more from the hearing