Federal Diary Live
Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 17, 2004; Noon ET
What do the Bush administration's proposed regulations mean for civil
service employees at the Department of Homeland Security? Will the changes
in pay and personnel rules become a model for transforming the rest of the
government?
Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union,
joins The Post's Stephen Barr, who writes the Federal Diary column, at noon
on March 17 for a discussion of the reforms being planned for the
Department of Homeland Security.
NTEU is the largest independent federal sector union and represents
employees in 29 agencies, including many at the Department of Homeland
Security. Kelley, who began her career as an employee of the Internal
Revenue Service, was elected the union's president in August 1999 and
recently re-elected for a second term. A native of Pittsburgh, Kelley is a
graduate of Drexel University and holds a master's degree from the
University of Pittsburgh. She is a certified public accountant.
The transcript follows.
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.
Stephen Barr:
Thanks to all of you joining this discussion today. Our guest is Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union and a strong advocate for all federal employees, especially on issues of pay and benefits. NTEU represents a large number of employees at the Department of Homeland Security and, as we all know, big changes are planned for the department's pay and personnel system. To get this forum going, Colleen, let me start with this question: How do you describe the employee reaction to the regulations recently issued by the department? And thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to take questions and comments today on this important subject.
Colleen M. Kelley: Thank you, Steve. I am very pleased to be joining you today to discuss the many issues facing federal employees. There are surely many to discuss. And starting with the proposed DHS regs and the impact on ALL federal employees in the long run seems like a good place to start.
I am glad to see so many employee responses. They overwhelmingly echo the issues and concerns identified by NTEU throughout the process and I am counting on DHS' commitment to read and consider and act on them. Ignoring them would be a mistake and will ensure that the new system fails. Employee responses concerning pay make clear two things: there are not enough specifics about a new proposed pay system to raise specific issues, and the generalities that are included in the proposed regs are opposed by employees who recognize that the problems with the current GS system is not the system, but management's administration of the system. Employees have also overwhelmingly echoed NTEU's concerns that "due process" is lost in the proposed regs and that there will be not be any accountability or independent review of department actions. And gutting of the collective bargaining system has been cited by many. The flood of comments from DHS employees makes it clear they are outraged, insulted, and feel betrayed by the proposed regs. Employees who provided input during the "design" phase thru town hall meetings and focus groups can see no evidence that what they said then was heard or considered when these regs were drafted.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
All the NTEU members fully appreciate someone named Colleen Kelley working for us all at midday today. Happy St Paddy's Day. DHS-OPM ignored employee feedback and union collaboration through the Town Hall, Focus group process. Many employees believe that the employee comments on the Fed Reg will be ignored as well. What can we do next? Are WE REALLY going to be working under those draconian regs?
Colleen M. Kelley: The unions will be submitting comments of course, but the comment period is open until March 22 and I hope thousands more frontline employees will make the time to write and submit their thoughts to the response docket. I hope employees are contacting their Congressional representatives with letters and by sharing their docket comments. Ask your members of Congress to comment themselves and to contact DHS with their concerns. We are continuing our discussions with the department and Secretary Ridge, and the formal 30 day mediation period is yet to come. NTEU's goal is that the proposed regs DO NOT BECOME the final regs. This is far from over.
_______________________
Hyattsville, Md.:
Good afternoon! Isn't it true that DHS is free to implement the proposed changes without having to be concerned about Congress, the unions, etc? Wasn't this public comment period just an effort to make it appear that the Agency would really take into consideration any of the comments offered?
Colleen M. Kelley: Well, I guess we'll see if the comment period is just an exercise or if it will make a difference. I do not believe that Congress intended it to be just an exercise. A hearing was held a few weeks ago on the proposed regs and we had the opportunity to raise the overriding questions about pay, due process, and collective bargaining and we have been talking to many on the Hill who are not pleased with the extreme changes proposed. Our work continues every day to make sure every comment and every day of this process impacts the regs that become final.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Thanks for that opening description of the reg process. Why do you think DHS and OPM ignored employee comments in the town hall meetings? Would it not been wiser to shift to a modified GS system as a first step toward what they want? And what confidence level do you have that DHS will be able to conduct pay surveys and arrive at the right figures? Thanks.
Colleen M. Kelley: We do not know enough about how they plan to do this. So much about a new pay proposal is unknown and undefined in the regs. What is clear is their intent to dismantle the GS system. A lot more information is needed about the pay surveys, who will do them, how, by what areas, what occupations etc. before employees or NTEU will be comfortable that they provide a fair, credible, and transparent system. We believe the regs on pay should be withdrawn and reissued for a real comment period when more of a design exists to really comment on, although the department seems determined to proceed with a pilot of 8000 employees on an as yet undesigned system in 2005.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
At least one of the Administration's goals is to make it easier to management to deal with nonproductive employees. I am currently an exempt federal employee but previously I was civil service and the difference is night and day. I'm not going to pretend exempt is perfect but in the civil service I saw many employees who were "retired on the job" and the rules made it almost impossible to discipline or discharge such employees. The personnel system made promotions pretty much automatic for career ladder provisions up to GS-12 and even a remotely negative evaluation could be appealed. Thus most managers just tried to get what they could out of the productive employees and leave the nonproductive ones alone. Do the unions concede that it is too difficult to correct non-productive employees? I know they favor "carrots" but can't the "stick" be used more easily.
Colleen M. Kelley: Many think as you do but don't ask the question. I appreciate you asking so I can explain why NTEU disagrees with your conclusions about federal employees performance. Agencies and managers have available today the tools and processes to deal with the few employees who are "retired on the job" or any employee who is not performing acceptably. And for the record, of course, poor performers exist in the private sector as well as the public sector. Few managers deal appropriately when faced with this situation. They are not trained to deal with these difficult situations and they are often not supported by management above them when they try to. These are not poor performer problems, they are management problems.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
How come no one from the Federal empoloyee unions is raising any questions about John Kerry's proposal to dump the uninsured into the Federal Employees Health Insurance Porgram? This will be a disaster for Federal employees. Cost will skyrocket and many insurance companies will drop out of the plan. Nice to see the unions are so concerned.
Colleen M. Kelley: A little misinformation perhaps. Senator Kerry shared his health plan with us and while it does propose permitting other groups to have access to FEHBP, it would only do so by setting up separate risk pools for these other groups/new enrollees. Separate risk pools would ensure that federal employees and retirees rates will be based only on the experience/usage of the federal employees and retirees, and not impacted by new groups who might be eligible for FEHBP coverage.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Where can one go to submitt a comment on proposed changes to the personnel system?
Colleen M. Kelley: Comments can be submitted electronically to http://www.epa.gov/edocket
(Don't let the EPA throw you. DHS is using EPA's docket system to capture the comments. )
Comments can be submitted by mail to DHS/OPM HR System Public Comments, P. O. Box 14474, Washington DC 20044-4474
Check the electronic site for submission details. Submissions MUST BE RECEIVED BY March 22, 2004
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
I am an NTEU chapter president who wishes to thank Colleen and the National NTEU for its hard work and dedication to representing federal employees and fighting for changes to the DHS regulatory proposals. I have submitted comments on edocket and intend to submit several more. We will do what we can, the fight is not over. Again, thanks Colleen, you really do a wonderful job.
Colleen M. Kelley: Thank you very much. NTEU members have been supportive and stood with us throughout, understanding what is at stake for ALL federal employees, not just DHS. And the fight is not over!
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Ms. Kelley, you said earlier in this chat that the problem with the current (GS) system is the administration of it, i.e. management. I wholeheartedly agree with you. What is the NTEU pushing for specifically that ensures that management gets the proper training to implement the new systems fairly?
Colleen M. Kelley: At this point NTEU believes that to change to a new system will be very disruptive to the entire workforce and will detract from the daily focus of the department's mission. We don't think they should be dismantling the GS system at this time. Even if left in place, managers need training today, and I take every opportunity to make that case for managers on Capitol Hill and with the department, and I will continue to do so. The training needed to implement the newly proposed yet undesigned system will be at least 10X as much as training needed to properly implement the current system.
_______________________
Charlestown,W.Va.:
Future pay raises? Will they be alloted, such as 3 persons, per year? MY organization is fraught now with favoritism, and low morale. Will our future be, the favorite ones always get the "special" raise? And I, one of the many hard- working ones, subsist on our yearly 2-3% COLA? I am too busy, doing my usual precise, excellent, job, to hobnob with the powers to be, in anticipation of a reward. Thanks...
Colleen M. Kelley: At this point, much is speculation since no specifics are available for the system. While the department says there will no forced distribution of "rewards", we do know a few things:
*I don't think you can count on a yearly COLA (annual ECI + locality) as you do today.
*setting and adjusting pay raises will be entirely discretionary in the proposed regs
*employee comments repeatedly reference your experience of favoritism overriding such a system, with no accountability built in
Again, not many specifics, but the generalities proposed solve none of the stated problems and dismantle a system that is understood by employees.
_______________________
Seattle, Wash.:
Several years ago before we had a union (DOD), I was reassigned by my managers to travel to sixteen northern states and Canada for three of every four weeks. I was a divorced Mom with two little girls. I had to resign and find other work. It sounds like the newly defined "core management rights" could again be used to effectively reassign someone out of a job. What do you think?
Colleen M. Kelley: I agree with your reading of the proposed regs. The department has hidden behind the need to deploy personnel and assign work for mission reasons, and has proposed to eliminate collective bargaining that would have the unions negotiating over fair and objective procedures to assign employees to the type of work you describe. NTEU's work to have the final regs reflect this is ongoing.
_______________________
Lanham, Md.:
Ms. Kelly, I work at IRS in MITS organization. As you know in the winter of 2002 we had a most dreadful reorg. Now we are being told that our 2004 budget was cut an additional 7%, Special Act award money has been redirected to program support, and that the outlook for the future is bleak. Rumors of Buyouts and even RIFS have begun to ciruclate. I have almost 18 years of service. I am worried about the future.
I commend you and the NTEU for your stalwart support of Federal employee rights.
Colleen M. Kelley: IRS employees are currently facing 9 announced RIFs with the potential of affecting over 5,000 employees due to reorganizations within the IRS that make no business sense, MITS for budget reasons, and others due to competitive sourcing/outsourcing projects. I appreciate your email and the support of all IRS employees as we do everything possible in the courts, on the Hill, and at the bargaining table to mitigate negative impact on employees and to turn these bad business decisions around. Thank you!
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
Forgetting the smaller issue of management training re the proposed pay changes. Limited budgets and the ability to redirect large portions of the pay pool monies toward the higher ups makes the DHS-OPM proposal = a systemically corrupt pay system. They played the same game with the earlier GM system for nonbargaining in Customs years ago.
Colleen M. Kelley: There are serious issues and valid concerns about the amount of money that will be available for pay in general, and the different components the regs lay out. The limitations on appropriated funds that exist today will exist with a new system too. And how the available money is spent/allocated among employees, whether it be "higher ups" vs. frontline, or occupations, or clusters, or locality, or manager, or pool...............Yes we see this as a very serious problem, and there is no clear definition of what they really intend to do.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
DHS wants to get this system in place by the end of 2005. Is that possible, in your view?
Colleen M. Kelley: We don't believe so, at least to do it right. Time is needed first to design the as yet undesigned system. Then training for the managers who must implement and training for the 8000 employees who will be covered by it in the initial pilot. Then I would hope for a baseline appraisal, and at least one if not two appraisal cycles to understand what is working and what is NOT working. I don't believe it can be done right or well by 2005.
_______________________
Making Comments on Regulations:
As a former reg writer, we received so many comments where people were trying to simply vote yes or no for a regulation. Votes do NOT count. What matters is writing a letter that outlines well-reasoned and supported arguments. The agency then has to address each one of your arguments. Cite sources, if necessary. Thanks.
Colleen M. Kelley: I agree with you. The comments need to reflect the experiences and hopes and expectations of employees. This is not intended to be a vote process. Comments that are thoughtful, specific, and preferably signed by employees, are what the department needs to hear and should have to deal with.
_______________________
Hyattsville, Md.:
This has been a very informative session; however, I must say that I feel less confident now about our future in DHS than I did before. In any event, it is comforting to know that we have organizations such as NETU representing us and our interests. Thank you!
Colleen M. Kelley: Thank you for your comment, but please don't despair. As I said earlier, this is far from over. I hope you will talk to your fellow employees about this issue and this session and ask all of them to submit their personal comments and to stand with us as we continue to do everything possible to impact these proposed regs.
_______________________
Rouses Point, N.Y.:
No question just a comment: There were several of the 52 options that met the interest of the agency and would have been far less disruptive to the agency to implement. Several, if not all of the pay options would have given the department the flexibility it claimed it needed and still provided an incentive for the employee's who dutifully come to work and do their job. It is appalling to think that the department would cast aside the interest and the needs of the majority of their employees to create a system for creations sake. Lastly, there were several town meetings conducted at the behest of the department. Overwhelmingly, employees, while having some issues with the GS system, realized and requested that it stay in place. They requested so, because they realized that it was the fairest way to pay employees so that we could focus on the mission instead of a new pay plan that is unproven. Thank You.
Colleen M. Kelley: Yes, employees at the town hall meetings told the department what they needed to draft appropriate regs. Unfortunatly, they did not. That is why the comment period is so important, to reinforce the valid feedback provided earlier to the department, but ignored. It sounds like you were at one of those town hall meetings and spoke up. And I'm sure you are on record, or will be, with your comments to DHS this week. Thank you!
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
Before the DHS rushes to impose a performance pay system upon its employees, shouldn't it study the IRS's experience with its three-year old pay-banding system for its executives. Colleen, can you describe how well the IRS's executive pay-banding system has been working and what lessons it holds for the DHS?
Colleen M. Kelley: The IRS experience is just one of many that should be studied with honest open eyes and what would be found throughout are many flaws. Interestingly, the IRS has repeatedly decided NOT to move forward with paybanding for frontline employees, even though it has the authority to do so after bargaining with NTEU. And there is one primary reason, MONEY. And that very real issue is not going to go away in DHS or DoD or any other agency. It is an issue that cannot be ignored and yet its impact is never, or not adequately, factored into decisions about paybanding, including at DHS.
_______________________
Stephen Barr:
Once again, we've run out of time, with questions and comments still coming in. Thanks to Colleen Kelley for giving us her time and insights, and thanks to all of you who took the time to read this transcript. We'll be back here at noon next Wednesday!
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
| 
