September 30, 2005

What’s New: NSPS Schedule Update

The Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management are in the final stages of revising the proposed NSPS regulations. Revisions are the result of over 58,000 comments received during the public comment period and input from DoD's employee representatives during the meet and confer period. The regulations will become effective no sooner than 30 days following Congressional notification and publication of the regulations in the Federal Register this fall. Continuing collaboration with employee unions on the implementing details will also begin following this 30-day period. Training of managers and employees is critical to successful implementation of NSPS, and development of a robust and comprehensive training program is underway. Implementation of the new labor relations system is scheduled for later this year, while transition to the NSPS human resources system for the first phase of employees (Spiral 1.1) will begin in late calendar year 2005/early calendar year 2006, including training the workforce.

Per President Gage:

NSPS regulations are expected to be published between October 15th and November 15th.  The regulations have been sent to OMB for final review. Below is an NSPS news update from DoD. As soon as they are published, the unions will amend the lawsuit we filed earlier to include the substance of the regulations as well as the earlier issues of process.

We expect the judge in the DHS case to issue her decision betweeen now and October 11th on whether to keep the injunction intact or allow the agency to move forward on most of the labor relations and appeal sections.  

September 27, 2005

HEARING ON PERSONNEL SYSTEMS SLATED FOR TODAY
Source: FedNews Online

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Government Management Subcommittee is scheduled to hold a hearing today examining alternatives to the federal government's current General Schedule and Wage Grade personnel systems.

The hearing will not only focus on the Department of Homeland Security's MaxHR personnel system, but also the Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System and the governmentwide Working for America Act, said Marcie Ridgeway, a spokesperson for Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who chairs the Subcommittee.

September 20, 2005

Dental and vision insurance pushed back until December 2006

Source: GovExec.com
By Karen Rutzick
krutzick@govexec.com

Supplemental dental and vision insurance for federal employees will be available starting December 2006, six months later than planned, the Office of Personnel Management announced Monday.

The coverage will be in addition to standard health insurance. It will be voluntary, and will not include any subsidy from the federal government. OPM said that the size of the federal population could be used as a negotiating tool to obtain lower rates.

The government is in the process of soliciting bids from both national and regional health insurance providers for the insurance.

Initially, OPM said the dental and vision coverage would be available to employees beginning July 2006, but the office said it is pushing the date back so that open enrollment will correspond with open enrollment for standard health insurance and Flexible Spending Accounts. The open season for all three will run from mid-November to mid-December each year.

In addition, OPM said the six-month delay will allow employees to "take into account tax and other financial planning considerations" because of the year-end timing. In OPM's August solicitation for dental and vision contracts, the office initially floated the six-month delay, citing, among other reasons, concerns about lower enrollment because of an unorthodox summer start.

In its solicitation of contracts, OPM said all dental insurance plans should provide preventive care such as oral evaluations, topical fluoride treatment and sealants for a "small co-pay;" greater services such as extraction and root canal therapy should be covered at 70 percent after a deductible; and major dental work such as permanent crowns, bridges and dentures should be covered at 40 percent after a deductible. Deductibles are not to exceed $100. OPM also said it expects contractors to provide orthodontia coverage of at least 30 percent.

For vision coverage, OPM said it would like providers to offer full coverage for annual eye examinations, including comprehensive exams for vision problems such as glaucoma, diabetes and ocular hypertension. Companies may contract to provide eyewear, such as contact lenses and eyeglasses, as well.

OPM is required by law to provide dental and vision coverage. The 2004 Federal Employee Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act required the government to offer employees this choice by, at the latest, December 2006. The coverage will be available to employees, retirees and their dependents.

OPM said in its request for bids that the base period for contracts will be seven years, with additional option periods also consisting of seven years. The government will not award a single company the contract, but will instead grant several contracts and allow employees to pick their supplier.

September 19, 2005

OPM ANNOUNCES 2006 FEHBP PREMIUM INCREASE, MORE PLAN OPTIONS
Source: Fednews-online

Office of Personnel Management Director Linda M. Springer last week announced a 6.6 percent average premium increase in the 2006 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and an increase in the number of plans available.

Federal employees with self-only FEHBP coverage can expect an average bi-weekly premium increase of $5.30; for self and family coverage, the average bi-weekly premium will be $12.97.
In 2006, participants will have 279 plan choices -- 30 more than in 2005.

FEHBP covers approximately 8 million current and retired federal employees, as well as their dependents.

"Over the past several years, we have introduced initiatives that give enrollees additional health-care options to meet the insurance needs of their families and keep the program affordable. Through our efforts to control costs and improve benefits choices, we are maintaining a high-quality health-care program that provides excellent benefits at a reasonable cost,"
said Springer.

The federal government, on average, pays 72 percent of total FEHBP premiums with enrollees paying the remaining 28 percent. OPM predicts FEHBP premiums will total $31 billion by the end of FY 2005.

"While the 2006 total average premium increase is 6.6 percent, 80 percent of FEHBP beneficiaries are currently covered by plans in which premiums will raise between 2.5 percent and 15 percent," according to an OPM press release.

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., is worried about the increase.

"I am very concerned by OPM's announcement . of a significant increase in health insurance premium costs for federal employees. Federal employees are digging deeper and deeper into their own pockets to pay for their health care," said Hoyer.

Hoyer introduced H.R. 633 earlier this year, which would have increased the government's share premium payment from 72 percent to 80 percent. "I believe that today's announcement makes it even more important for Congress to adopt this legislation," said Hoyer.

"The federal government will not be able to recruit and retain the quality employees that this nation needs to stay secure and prosperous if we do not provide them with competitive benefits," said Hoyer. An FEHBP open season will occur from Nov. 14 through Dec.

To view information on plan costs, visit www.opm.gov/insure/health/index.asp
for information online.

OPM will work with agencies whose employees have been affected by Hurricane Katrina to accept FEHBP enrollments submitted after open season officially ends. OPM will also give the same consideration to federal annuitants and survivor annuitants affected by Katrina.

September 19, 2005

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM REVISITED
By Amy Fagan
Source: THE WASHINGTON TIMES\

Sen. Rick Santorum, in an attempt to revive the Social Security debate in the Senate, is pushing a new strategy to combat Democratic criticism and calm seniors' fears by legally guaranteeing that those born before 1950 will receive their promised benefits.

The chairman of the Senate Republican Conference soon will introduce legislation guaranteeing that people 55 and older will receive their monthly Social Security benefit check and an annual cost-of-living adjustment.

"It's basically a bill that attempts to take a step towards resolving uncertainty," the Pennsylvania Republican said. "No more scaring seniors. It's in the law."

President Bush has promised that his Social Security proposal wouldn't affect people 55 and older, and congressional Republicans have followed suit. But Democrats and outside groups such as the AARP have proven to be powerful adversaries.

Republicans haven't been able to win that public relations battle, so Mr. Santorum's bill aims to assure seniors that their benefits won't be cut.

Mr. Santorum said his bill will allow the debate to move forward. "I think we clear a political hurdle," he said.

His idea is to combine it with a bill from Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, that would create voluntary Social Security private accounts for individuals using the system's current surplus.

Mr. DeMint said the bills are "two simple first steps" and that combining them is good strategy.

The bills are narrower than Mr. Bush's proposal, which would allow workers to divert 4 percent of a person's Social Security payroll tax into an individual account.

Critics of Republican efforts said Mr. Santorum's new bill wouldn't stop future Congresses from simply changing the law, so it doesn't really protect anything. And they said seniors have rejected Republicans' private-accounts idea largely because they feel it will be bad for their children and
grandchildren.

"Tinkering around the edges isn't going to change people's minds," said David Certner, director of federal affairs at AARP.

Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, said the new bill doesn't change the fact that private accounts would weaken the system and eventually cause deep benefit cuts, massive debt increases, or both.

"The Republicans keep trying new gimmicks to save their flawed privatization scheme, but the American people will not be fooled," he said.

Sen. George V. Voinovich, Ohio Republican, will add yet another bill to the mix today when he introduces a Social Security lockbox measure.

One glitch for Mr. Santorum's bill could be the White House -- a Santorum aide said they were told the White House would oppose it.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, California Republican, is scheduled to attend Mr. Santorum's Social Security task force meeting this week. Mr. Thomas is crafting a broad retirement-security package that is likely to include a proposal similar to Mr. DeMint's
accounts bill.

September 15, 2005

Court calls DHS challenge to MSPB's mitigation power 'unfair'

By Seth A. Supran
cyberFEDS® Legal Editor

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: In National Treasury Employees Union v. Chertoff,105 LRP 38379 (D.D.C. 08/12/05), the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia rejected the Department of Homeland Security's new regulations limiting the Merit Systems Protection Board's mitigation role in adverse actions.

Under current law, the MSPB reviews the reasonableness of an employing agency's penalty determination and will mitigate that penalty only when it is clearly excessive, disproportionate to the sustained charges, or unreasonable. Under the new DHS regulations, the MSPB would be able to mitigate a penalty only when it is "so disproportionate as to be wholly without justification." The court found this new standard would unfairly insulate DHS adverse actions from independent review.

Based on this and other concerns, the court issued an injunction preventing the DHS from implementing an entire portion of its MAXHR system. The DHS has filed a motion asking the court to narrow its injunction and allow it to begin implementing some aspects of the new MAXHR system that the court upheld. That motion, however, does not address issues involving the mitigation of penalties.

Fairness is a necessity

The National Treasury Employees Union and other unions challenged the new standard, arguing it violates5 USC 9701 (f)(2)(C). The court agreed. Section 9701(f)(2)(C) requires any regulation modifying procedures under Chapter 77 to "further the fair, efficient, and expeditious resolution of matters involving the employees of the Department."

The court concluded the change to the mitigation standard fails the test of fairness and doesn't advance Congress' intent.

"First, the court seriously doubts that by insisting on fairness, the Congress meant that DHS could discipline or discharge employees without effective recourse. Second, rather than afford a right of appeal that is impartial or disinterested, the Regulations put the thumbs of the Agencies down hard on the scales of justice in their favor," the court stated.

The court noted the mitigation standard now used by the MSPB is "a generous standard in an agency's favor," but under the new standard, MSPB review would be "almost a nullity." For this reason, this mitigation provision clearly violates Title 5 and the judge ruled in favor of the unions on this issue.

Procedures don't have fairness problem

The judge did not have the same concern with DHS' new rules for summary judgment, discovery, time limits, and review of mandatory removal offenses. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer noted that Chapter 77 is "remarkably short," and does not address the particulars of time to appeal or discovery processes. It merely specifies that "an appellant shall have the right to a hearing for which a transcript will be kept."

Concluding that Congress authorized DHS to waive or modify these provisions, she held that the agency acted within its authority when it adopted regulations establishing a summary judgment procedure in cases where there are no contested facts. As to the larger question of whether Congress authorized DHS to modify the internal regulations of MSPB, the judge agreed with DHS that the Homeland Security Act empowers it "to modify procedures under chapter 77." Therefore, the court rebuffed the unions' request to reject the procedural changes.

September 15, 2005

Fourth Major Union Pulls Out of AFL-CIO
Source: Washington Post

Unite Here, the 440,000-member union of hotel, restaurant and garment workers, announced its withdrawal yesterday from the AFL-CIO, joining three other major unions that have defected from the federation to form the Change to Win Coalition.

The departures leave the AFL-CIO with about 9 million members, down from 13 million before the Service Employees International Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters and United Food and Commercial Workers announced this summer that they were pulling out. All together, these unions had paid a total of $29 million in annual dues to the AFL-CIO, which had a $120 million budget.

John W. Wilhelm, one of two co-presidents of Unite Here, said the union is committed to spending half its revenue on organizing campaigns, and that a principal focus will be persuading immigrant workers to join unions. "Unions are the only institution in 21st-century America that can reverse the decline of the standards of living of most Americans," Wilhelm said. "Immigrants are refueling the labor movement."

Unite Here and the other breakaway unions say they have left the AFL-CIO because the federation has failed to stem the steady decline in the number of workers represented by labor organizations. In 2004, 12.5 percent of all workers and 7.9 percent of private-sector workers were members of unions.

"The Unite Here leadership made the wrong decision today for their members and for all American working people," said Lane Windham, spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO. "Now more than ever, American workers need a united labor movement."

-- Thomas B. Edsall
2005 The Washington Post Company

September 15, 2005

HOYER STATEMENT ON INCREASE IN FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS

Contact: Stacey Farnen Bernards
202-225-3130

WASHINGTON, DC - House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement tonight regarding the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) announcement of a 10% increase in health insurance premiums for federal employees, a 5.2% increase for the government, and an average weighted increase of 6.6%:

"I am very concerned by OPM's announcement tonight of a significant increase in health insurance premium costs for federal employees. While the smallest in several years, it comes on the heels of five years of dramatic increases in costs. As a result, federal employees are digging deeper and deeper into their own pockets to pay for their health care.

"I introduced a bill earlier this year, H.R. 633, which would increase the federal government's average share of a federal employee's premium to 80% from 72%. I believe that today's announcement makes it even more important for Congress to adopt this legislation.
"The federal government will not be able to recruit and retain the quality employees that this nation needs to stay secure and prosperous if we do not provide them with competitive benefits."
Over the past five years, federal employees have seen their health care premiums increase by over 50 percent, while salaries adjustments have been much smaller. FEHBP Premiums increased 10.6 % in 2004, 11.0% in 2003, 13.0 % in 2002, 10.5% in 2001, 9.3% in 2000, 9.5% in 1999, and 7.2% in 1998.

 

September 15, 2005

DAILY BRIEFING

Employee share of health insurance premiums to climb 10 percent
Source: GovExec.com
By Karen Rutzick

Enrollees in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program will see an estimated 10 percent average increase in premiums for fiscal 2006, the Office of Personnel Management announced Thursday.

In dollar amounts, the average FEHBP single enrollee will pay $5.30 more every two weeks, which amounts to an additional $137.80 for the year. An enrollee with family coverage will pay an extra $12.79 biweekly, or $332.54 annually. FEHBP provides health care coverage for about 8 million federal employees, retirees and their families.

Because FEHBP is a choice-operated plan - with enrollees using more than 200 separate providers - the actual premium increase will depend on the provider. OPM said that excluding extreme outliers who will pay much higher or much lower premiums next year, 80 percent of employees will fall in the 2.5 percent to 15 percent premium increase range.

The government, which subsidizes about 72 percent of total FEHBP premiums, will see a smaller increase this year, amounting to 5.2 percent. OPM said the difference in premium increases is a result of oversubsidizing in fiscal 2005. The office said because a large number of enrollees moved to less expensive plans last year, the government's estimate was too high. The premiums for fiscal 2006 will rebalance the government's subsidy back to 72 percent, OPM officials said.

"That just gets us back to the right balance, so we're not oversubsidizing," said OPM Director Linda Springer in a news conference. According to these estimates, the government will pay an addition $7.71 in premiums for individuals and $16.83 for families.

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said the trend among workers to shift to less expensive plans worries her.

"These lower-premium plans can mask hidden costs for federal employees," Kelley said in a statement. "The cheaper premium is usually coupled with higher deductibles, meaning federal workers will simply pay higher out-of-pocket costs or avoid visiting the doctor."

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md, who introduced legislation (H.R. 633) earlier this year to increase the government's share of premiums from 72 percent to 80 percent, said he is "very concerned by OPM's announcement tonight of a significant increase in health insurance premium costs."

The total premium increase, combining the government's 5.2 percent and enrollees' 10 percent and weighting for government's larger piece of the pie, is 6.6 percent. That number represents the smallest average overall increase in nine years. Premium increases peaked into fiscal 2002, when they reached 12.7 percent between employees and the government.

Springer attributed the overall decrease primarily to more affordable prescription drugs, especially enrollees' use of less expensive generic drugs.

Federal employees and retirees can change their health insurance plans during the open season, which will run from Nov. 14 to Dec. 12. The open season will correspond exactly with the open season for Flexible Spending Accounts, which allow employees to put a fixed amount of money aside for health and dependent care costs, free from tax. The number of health plans will rise to 279, with 30 new insurance plans joining the FEHBP in 2006.

OPM said it will not post any information regarding fiscal 2006 - such as prices for individual plans - on the FEHBP Web site until closer to the November open season.