|
Federal Diary Live
With Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 2, 2003; Noon ET
The Post's Stephen Barr is the author of The Federal Diary, which runs Sunday through Friday in the Metro section. Steve has been a reporter and editor at The Post since 1979, including stints as Federal Page editor, congressional editor and a staff writer covering the federal bureaucracy. He takes the column live to answer your questions Wednesdays at noon ET.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests
and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
The transcript follows.
Stephen Barr: Thanks to all of you joining me in this free-for-all discussion today. Today's Federal Diary column ended with two questions: What civil service changes do you think should be made? What challenges face the Department of Homeland Security? I'm interested in your responses, partly because I think it will be all too easy for federal employee voices and experience to get lost as Congress moves to address pay and personnel issues. It's entirely possible that the new workforce rules for the Homeland department will influence how the rest of the government goes. So let me know what you think, today and later as these issues unfold. Again, thanks for joining in this discussion.
Washington, D.C.:
I am cheered by what I am reading about the approach Homeland Security is taking to the development of a new personnel system. Unions are represented, employees involved, two succint guidelines. Someone there is doing it right.
I think the the U.S. needed a dramatic burning bed scenario to get Congress, the Executive Branch and unions to attempt something new in the federal personnel management arena arena. Hopefully, once the rest of us have seen the HSD folks go through the process, our agencies and Congress will be ready to apply the broader lessons/best practices across the entire government. washingtonpost.com:
Work Begins on Rules for New Department -- and Perhaps All of Government (Post, April 2, 2003)
Stephen Barr: Well said. I'm hopeful we're at a turning point in how Congress and the White House deal with federal employees and how the public perceives the civil service. Tom Ridge is a former big-state governor who knows that give-and-take is important with employees and that he should get some of what he wants and employees should get some of what they want. Let's hope these "design teams" for the new department truly have a voice. But, I'm afraid to say, many employees will be skeptical of this process. They figure the White House has pre-cooked this stew and whatever the employees come up with will be left simmering on the stove. Time will tell.
Alexandria, Va.:
It's been hard to keep up with, so I'm assuming that TSA is still working hand in hand with DHS. I've read that TSA is letting go a chunk of their workforce, after all the trouble of getting the new screeners hired in such a short period of time. Any insight?
Stephen Barr: TSA is a big part of the new Homeland department. Rep. Rogers of Kentucky thinks too many TSA employees are just standing around at airports and he successfully attached a provision last year that limits TSA to 45,000 full-time employees. TSA, of course, has hired way beyond that; in some cases, employees have been brought in on contracts and temporary appointments. TSA has announced it will reduce the number of federal screeners by 3,000 this year. The goal is to avoid layoffs, but we'll have to wait and see if they get enough turnover to help avert RIFs.
Washington, D.C.:
You mentioned Voinovich and Davis in your column today, but did not explain what they have planned. What gives?
Stephen Barr: Some of their plans are still being developed. Sen. Voinovich hopes to create a streamlined demonstration project authority that will allow Cabinet departments to experiment with pay banding and other personnel changes. Rep. Tom Davis thinks it is time to move for pay reform in the government, but has not made up his mind what approach to pursue. Both will likely support Bush administration efforts to overhaul the Senior Executive Service as a way to show the rank and file that pay can be tied to job performance evaluations.
Washington, D.C.:
Hi. I am wondering why federal employees in the Houston metro area get aid so well. On the GS tables that were just published (and I noticed this last year also), Houston federal salaries are the second-highest in the nation, just behind San Francisco, and ahead of New York metro.
Not to rain on my Texas colleagues' parades, but Houston is not by a long shot as expensive as D.C. or Chicago or Los Angeles. Why are they being paid so much? This strikes many of us here in D.C. who have noticed as unfair, since the cost of living in Houston is in fact about 40 percent less than in DC. One might cynically suspect some kind of Texas political tie-in (if one were that kind of person). What gives, and why is this permitted to continue?
Stephen Barr: Good question. You're right about Houston. Employees there are getting a 4.77 percent raise this year while Washington-Baltimore employees get 4.27 percent. In fact, by my count, employees in 17 cities are going to get a higher raise this year than D.C. employees. There is no easy answer, and I don't think politics plays a role. Houston has done better under the locality pay system for several years, partly because NASA is based there. When the wage surveys try to match federal and private-sector jobs, most of the matching involves Houston companies that are high tech (like Compaq) or in the oil-gas business (engineers). For federal employees, Houston is one of the best places to work: highly paid professionals living in a low-cost city. You can't beat that. Many employees call me to question the locality rates because they assume they are tied to consumer prices, housing and cost of living. As most of you know, federal pay is supposed to be linked to the Employment Cost Index, run by the Labor Department, and supplemented by job surveys for locality pay purposes. The methodology behind the surveys has been faulted, and pending a new system, OPM uses old data to compute locality adjustments. The real politics are in Congress and at the White House, where "pay parity" with the military has become the pace setter on pay. By now, I've either confused you or you've given up reading. This is a complicated area for short answers. Hope this helps.
washingtonpost.com:
Average General Schedule Salary in Washington Area Tops $72,000 (Post, March 27, 2003)
Well Into 2003, Government Employees to Receive Their Raises (Post, March 24, 2003)
New York, N.Y.:
What challenges face the Department of Homeland Security?
Among the captive employees the department has NO credibility. Our collective bargaining rights are gutted. The union reps attending this week's "flexibilities" sessions reference in your article are there as OBSERVORS only. This Homeland Security Department is a farce foisted upon a gullible and panicked post 9-11 public. This Administration will use the Dept. to continue its war on workers. THEY know it, and most employees realize it. And you are correct, Mr. Barr. The Homeland changes WILL be used as a government wide template.
Stephen Barr: From my vantage point, the biggest challenge facing Tom Ridge is keeping front-line employees focused on terrorism and countering threats and not allowing them to get distracted by fears of what can happen to their pocketbook and their families if asked to take a transfer to a new duty station. People I've met in Customs and the Border Patrol are incredibly dedicated to their jobs, and that may just save us, regardless of what personnel changes are made. But, if a perception takes hold that employees are not treated fairly in the department, I suspect DHS will find recruitment of top talent to get harder and harder over time.
Minneapolis, Minn.:
It is a perennial question (at least lately) whether Federal employees are underpaid or not. I am firmly convinced that we lag market rates of pay. Retirement and other benefits don’t make up for it when you compare to fortune 500 companies. However, there is one aspect of Federal employment that may have been compensatory up until now: namely the relatively higher level of job security historically enjoyed by Federal employees. That is changing, DHS and the President’s management agenda are going to smash the fragile notion of job security. After that the Bush administration will start feeling the sharper end of the market forces they are clamoring for—either they will increase pay or see a mass exodus as people realize they no longer have a “job security differential.”
Stephen Barr: An excellent point. Lots of folks see job security as a part of their employment contract. I'm hopeful that concept won't change, since I believe it strengthens the independence of the civil service. But unintended consequences abound when you start tampering with pay. For instance, would a new pay system lower "high three" and overall retirement income? Is it fair to change the rules in mid-stream for all employees? Much to consider in this debate.
Arlington, Va.:
The civil service should be restored to its original purpose. The concept of job security was connected with the responsibility to maintain ethical standards in government. The deliberate weakening of the civil service and the movement toward "at will employment" is simply a restoration of 19th century "spoils" systems.
Stephen Barr: A number of employees tell me they fear the return of a political spoils system. Some claim to see it already in contracting out decisions. The solution may be tighter performance management systems that make it easier to trim the deadwood. But that opens up another can of concerns. As you can see, I've no smart answer on this issue.
Rockville, Md.:
There needs to be a better way to get rid of the dead wood -- workers that are just not pulling their weight.
Stephen Barr: Many apparently agree with you. The new OPM survey of 100,000 employees found that only 27 percent of employees think management takes steps to deal with poor performers. The survey also found that only 43 percent hold their agency leaders in high regard. Seems to me the government many need to rethink how it recruits and trains managers.
Washington, D.C.:
I think New York is overstating the issue. Among union members in the tradiotion border agencies -- APHIS,INS, and Customs -- the issues for years have been overtime guarantees (most are living ie: acquired debt) on their salary plus overtime.
That issue is null. If anything employees in these at the ports are working more not less overtime.
The other issues are compatibility in law enforcement status which affects salary and retirement benefits. Ridge has already committed publicly to addressing those issues.
Stephen Barr: I hope Tom Ridge moves quickly to send a signal on ending disparities in law enforcement pay and retirement. But it appears departmental officials want to wait until the end of the year, when they plan to announce pay and personnel changes for all DHS employees. I know the Ridge staff wants to do it right, but I still think it would be nice if they could send a signal on pocketbook issues.
Gainesville, Va.:
Let's face it, most of the security measures we are throwing so much money at are wasted: the only way to render federal facilities truly secure would be to disperse them over a much larger area, as unlikely as that move is, and all the security guards in the world are just window dressing since the main dangers are truck or car-borne dirty bombs and missing Soviet suitcase nukes.
Stephen Barr: It's a difficult balancing act. Federal employees should work in secure federal buildings, and the public should be able to enter those buildings to conduct their business. Many agencies are investing in the Internet as a way to deliver services, but not all taxpayers want to conduct their transactions that way.
New York, N.Y.:
"The biggest challenge facing Tom Ridge is keeping front-line employees focused on terrorism and countering threats"
Mr. Barr, Customs, INS, and Border Patrol front line employees are all screaming at their union reps to help them to turn the so-called "War On Terrorism" into a reality. Sadly, many dedicated front line employees se each day that the "War On Terrorism" is as big a bureaucratic dog and pony show as the "War On Drugs" has been. Mr. Ridge's biggest challenge may be trying to keep this as an in house secret.
Stephen Barr: No doubt this transition is difficult and may be near impossible to pull off. My colleage at The Post, Christopher Lee, reported today that new homeland security duties appear to be pulling the Coast Guard away from its traditional tasks, including search and rescue. I think it is important to remember that Tom Ridge has only took true control of the department last month, when the merger took place. Shouldn't we give him some time to make this work?
Dayton, Ohio:
The thing that I found most interesting about the OPM study recently released was the level of satisfaction with pay. What surprised me looking at the data was the lack of differentation by job series. OPM has complained that the uniform national pay scales do not work and we should switch to market driven compensation based on profession and then they do this big study and can't even segregate the data.
Stephen Barr: Superb point. I was surprised that 64 percent said they are satisifed with their pay. The survey was conducted in the summer of 2002, with a dropping stock market and a slumping economy. General Schedule employees had received a pay raise of more than 4 percent that year--not bad when private sector companies were struggling. But you're right, we need more than an employee survey. We need some big-time research on compensation according to occupation and how that stacks up against the private sector.
Arlington, Va.:
Rep. Rogers should be aware that since deregulation forced airlines into hub-spoke operations, many airports have been forced into "peak-valley" scheduled operations that are basically inefficient. All forms of ground handling go into alternating between "peaks" when people are overworked, and "valleys" where they do very little. Congress created the peaks and valleys.
Stephen Barr: Excellent point. TSA faces rush-hour demands at the airports. It's also important to remember that the agency staffed up in only one year, and the rush to meet congressional deadlines didn't leave much opportunity to test and research how best to staff airports.
Midwest:
The Bush administration working with toothless federal unions? I find the whole TSA employment/personnel issues ironic considering that the Bushies are trying to replace hordes of federal workers with more expensive Northern Virginia-based contractors under the (un)FAIR Act. And last week we read where some in the regime are now scared that 1/3 of the federal labor force might leave within three years. That's before we get the boot. Doesn't seem like there's any coherent personnel strategy in this administration other than to get rid of anyone not working for TSA.
Stephen Barr: I can't disagree. The administration needs to work harder at connecting the dots between its desire to overhaul federal pay and reward the best workers and its other desire to contract out federal work.
Washington, D.C.:
The issue is how the governmment develops leaders. The traditional manager is what is now generally seen as the dead wood.
Stephen Barr: Thanks for that perspective.
Gaithersburg, Md.:
Not only are those people in Texas making more, they keep thousands more. No state income tax in Texas. Also most military don't pay state income tax because they have flexiblity in determining their state of residence and many states don't tax the military when they are stationed out of state.
Stephen Barr: All true. But I'm not ready to move to Houston....
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Barr;
With all the talk going on now with outsourcing. 2 questions
1.Is anyone in Congress/Unions still pushing for the (TRAC Act) Truthfulness, Responsibility and Accountability in Contracting .
2.Does any out their know where Feds can find any classes/seminars on A-76 that specifically address how federal worker can compete against the private sector for their jobs.
Stephen Barr: I'm not sure the Trac Act is getting much traction on Capitol Hill, especially with Republicans in control of Congress. As for seminars, I don't know of any available to employees, but, as a general rule, when agencies decided to conduct A-76 competitions, they bring in contractors to run the process and help employees compete for their jobs.
Omaha, Neb.:
Many of our government's responses to terrorism have been appropriate and welcome. But they are now going to destroy all protections of the civil service system in the holy name of anti-terrorism, and it's just a smokescreen for patronage and favoritism.
The managers and supervisors here will use these so-called "reforms" as their excuse to be arbitrary. Our upper level people will use "reforms" as an open door to fire people who they don't like, to hire their friends and relatives, and to financially reward their pets. They try to do these things now, but civil service rules still thwart some of their actions. When the traditional rules are gone, you will see patronage and favoritism as the dominant forces in federal human resources. Welcome to the jungle.
Stephen Barr: Thanks for sharing your view. I hear this from a number of employees around Washington.
Washington, D.C.:
None of the best in the public service I have known ever expressed a concern for compensation. What motivated them was beyond such considerations I think.
Stephen Barr: You're correct. Most public servants want to make a difference in the lives of Americans and view pay as a secondary motivator. But people have to pay the rent and send kids to school. You tend to get what you pay for these days, and I think the government will be more competitive in hiring if it pays more.
Washington, D.C.:
Hi Stephen, I am a new federal employee in DC and read your column each day. I was in an HR meeting a few days ago and an executive said: "we are losing a lot of talented personnel in the upcoming years / many are already eligible for retirement / we need to recruit and create incentives for young people to stay on board". Selfishly, I view this as a tremendous opportunity. My question: is this issue specific to my Agency or will there be similiar growth opportunities / promotion potential with other Agencies throughout the Federal Government in DC? Thank you.
Stephen Barr: The retirement wave should provide new career opportunities for many people. I think the trick is to figure out how much funding Congress provides various agencies. Right now, the Defense Department, Homeland Security and law enforcement agencies seem to be the top funding priorities. I fear some non-defense agencies are going to find it difficult to keep pace if forced to assume more of the burden of the budget's red ink.
Silver Spring, Md.:
Will you use your forum to help those in the Thrift Savings Program (TSP) who are entitled to contribute an extra $2,000 to TSP this year?
Although Congress passed a TSP "catch-up" that allows federal employees aged 50+ to contribute an extra $2,000 to TSP in 2003, the provision will not be implemented until August, if then. The TSP managers plan to implement it as part of a software program change that is years overdue. A lawsuity is pending over the software delay. Since the "catch-up" contributions must be done by payroll deduction, even if implemented in August, most will not be able to contribute the full $2,000. It appears the Government Affairs Committee has not done anything to help resolve a delay in a provision that should have been easy to implement by now.
Stephen Barr: Too much for me to deal with here, except to say that, to some extent, you appear to be mixing apples and oranges. TSP will start catch-up contributions this summer, probably the first full pay period in August. The delay has less to do with the new computer system than with the creation of a new catch-up form and the reprogramming of agency payroll computers. We still don't have a firm, official date, for the launch of the new record-keeping system, although it should come on line later this year.
Washington, D.C.:
When are we going to get the most recent 1 percent raise in our paychecks?
While it was finally approved by Bush, there is still nothing different in our paychecks after all of these weeks.
Stephen Barr: I'm afraid you are at the mercy of your agency payroll people. This 1 percent raise ripples into insurance and other deductions, so making the retroactive calculations will likely take some time at payroll processing centers. There's no official word from OPM on when the extra 1 percent will kick in.
Rockville, Md.:
"None of the best in the public service I have known ever expressed a concern for compensation. What motivated them was beyond such considerations I think."
Perhaps, but I bet it's just that they liked the terms of compensation -- including job security. Now that that may change, who knows if the shear interest in 'serving the public' will be enough.
Stephen Barr: A good point to make. The Bush administration has put a lot of balls in play and provides precious few examples of how proposed pay and personel changes will impact the rank and file.
Once again, we've run out of time. Thanks to all of you who helped make this a lively forum today, and thanks to all of you who are reading the transcript.
Next week, Federal Diary Live hopes to discuss investing in the TSP in these troublesome times. Please join us at noon next Wednesday!
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
