AFGE Legislative Grassroots Agenda for 2004

1
AFGE Legislative Grassroots Agenda for 2004

• Legislative Issues Briefing

2
AFGE Legislative and Political Department Staff

• Beth Moten, Director, Legislative and Political
  Action Department
• Bob Nicklas, Director of AFGE-PAC and Issues
  Mobilization

3
AFGE Legislative and Political Action Department
Staff

• John Threlkeld, Assistant Legislative Director
• Linda Bennett, Legislative Representative
• Joseph Lopes, Legislative Representative
• Alan Kadrofske, Legislative Representative

4
AFGE Legislative and Political Action Department
Staff

• Kristin Nabers, Political Representative
• Amy Lloyd, Campaign Finance Compliance Specialist
• Valencia Newman, Legislative Assistant
• Mildred Hopson, PAC Assistant

5
AFGE Field Legislative and Political Action
Organizers

• Bob Mechan
• Fred McDuff
• Chris Kemm
• Yolanda Taylor

6
PRIVATIZATION
7
PRIVATIZATION

• John Threlkeld
• P 202 639-6466
• F 202 639-6492
• E threlj_at_afge.org

8
TOPICS

• Whats OMB up to now?
• OMBs bogus savings claims
• Whats wrong with A-76
• How we fought back in 2003
• What we can do in 2004

9
Whats OMB up to now?

• Quotas became goals--so what?
• Most agencies crafted their privatization goals
  when quotas were in effect!
• Still not based on research and analysis

10
Whats OMB up to now?

• OMB still judges agencies by numbers
• arbitrary numbers of competitions of jobs
• within arbitrary periods of time,
• not whether these privatization reviews actually
  serve interests of taxpayers and customers

11
Whats OMB up to now?

• Number of feds targeted has actually grown
  425,000 to 434,000
• Change in A-76s definition of inherently
  governmental means that number could increase
  further

12
Whats OMB up to now?

• BUSINESS AS USUAL!

13
OMBs bogus savings claims

• OMB competitive sourcing generates anywhere
  from 10-40 percent savings on average, regardless
  of whether the competition is won by a private
  contractor or the government.

14
OMBs bogus savings claims

• Economic Policy Institute Show Me the Money
• Center for Naval Analyses (CNA)
• RAND
• IBM Endowment for the Biz of Government
• Department of Defense (DoD)
• General Accounting Office (GAO)

15
OMBs bogus savings claims

• CNA
• only 16 studies in DoD, although DoD has
  conducted well over 300 studies, and all prior to
  1996
• very selective
• most studies discarded for poor documentation
• ignored small studies because the savings were
  too small and
• actual costs exceeded costs in contractor bids in
  every instance.

16
OMBs bogus savings claims

• RAND
• includes only 6 studies in DoD
• admits unfair overhead rate may have overstated
  savings and
• acknowledged that savings came from firing with
  minimum due process and reducing wages.

17
OMBs bogus savings claims

• IBM
• No original research. Based on flawed RAND and
  CNA studiesand a magazine article.
• Of the four cases in the magazine article, only
  one was subject to an external study, which
  reported no savings.

18
OMBs bogus savings claims

• Pentagon claims 33 savings.
• GAO has noted that such claims are
  unauditedbecause the cost accounting systems
  are not just of a state that we can form an
  opinion
• CNA criticized DoDs accounting systems that were
  used to create the savings claim.

19
OMBs bogus savings claims

• GAO says only that savings are possible.

20
Whats wrong with A-76 1

• Uses a quick-and-dirty 90 day streamlined
  process
• no Most Efficient Organization
• no Minimum Cost Differential (a.k.a. the 10
  rule)
• no savings research, bogus or otherwise, to
  support process

21
Whats wrong with A-76 2

• OMB retains direct conversion authority, i.e.,
  agencies can and still do give our jobs to
  contractors without competition when they secure
  OMBs permission.

22
Whats wrong with A-76 3

• Overstates in-house overhead costs (i.e., 12
  overhead rate),
• according to RAND and the Department of Defense
  Inspector General.

23
Whats wrong with A-76 4

• Rewards contractors who provide inferior health
  care benefits
• DoD Appropriations Bill

24
Whats wrong with A-76 5

• Has a disproportionate adverse impact on women
  and minorities
• DoT, DVA, National Parks Service

25
Whats wrong with A-76 6

• Does not test and evaluate use of subjective
  best value process.
• Because they were so concerned, HASC and SASC
  Chairmen Duncan Hunter and John Warner insisted
  that best value be put on an extended limited
  pilot project for DoD.

26
Whats wrong with A-76 7

• Establishes one-sided requirements on feds for
• acquiring new work,
• keeping existing work, and
• length of contracts / performance agreements.

27
Whats wrong with A-76 8

• Requires automatic competition on feds when we
  default--but not on defaulting cons

28
Whats wrong with A-76 9

• No legal standing for feds before GAO and CFC
• Cons No standing for feds because
• Too difficult and cumbersome
• Contractor employees dont have standing
• Standing should only be given to Agency Tender
  Official

29
Whats wrong with A-76 9

• Watch our for fake standing
• just for GAO (and not CFC as well)
• just when we lose (instead of throughout the
  process like contractors)
• just for ATO (instead of the employees actually
  affected)

30
Whats wrong with A-76 10

• Narrows definition of inherently governmental
  by literally rewriting the law.

31
Whats wrong with A-76 11

• Discourages agencies from considering
  alternatives to privatization,
• such as reorganizations, consolidations,
  labor-management partnerships,
• that might generate more savings,
• because agencies get credit from OMB only for
  doing privatization reviews.

32
Whats wrong with A-76 12

• Fails to ensure that feds can compete for new
  work and contractor work, despite OMBs
  rhetorical support for fairness.

33
Whats wrong with A-76 13

• No new systems to track costs from contracting
  out
• No new resources to administer contracts
• No new resources to pay for privatization studies
  and transitioning the work (although more
  agencies will ask for money in their budgets,
  e.g., DVA)

34
How we fought back in 2003

• Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Bill (can
  have govt-wide impact)
• House Van Hollen Amendment (220-198), defund new
  A-76, Vote 3
• House Hastings Amendment (205-211), revise new
  A-76, Vote 2
• Senate Mikulski Amendment (47-48), defund new
  A-76, Vote 3

35
How we fought back in 2003

• Transportation-Treasury Appropriations
  Conference Istook-Shelby-Mikulski-Hoyer
  Compromise
• all agencies must allow feds to submit best bids
  (MEOs)
• all agencies must require contractors to promise
  savings sufficient to offset costs (MCDs)
• all agencies must allow affected feds standing to
  appeal to GAO

36
How we fought back in 2003

• After White House veto threats
• only agencies funded by Transportation-Treasury
  must allow best bids (MEOs)
• no agencies required to force contractors to
  promise savings (MCDs)
• no agencies required to give affected employees
  standing before GAO

37
How we fought back in 2003

• Department of Defense
• Senate Kennedy-Chambliss Amendment MEO, MCD,
  exclusion of health care costs
• House Dicks-Lewis Provision MEO and MCD
• Conference MEO and MCD

38
How we fought back in 2003

• Department of Army
• Third Wave indefinitely suspended

39
How we fought back in 2003

• Department of Interior
• House Taylor Provision No new outsourcing
• Senate Reid Amendment No new outsourcing,
  44-51, Vote 2
• Conference MCD and limitation on funding new
  outsourcing

40
How we fought back in 2003

• Department of Agriculture
• AFGE Local 3354 Bond Provision no outsourcing
  of rural development and farm loan programs

41
How we fought back in 2003

• Whats AFGE Local 3354s secret?
• Republican lawmaker was their champion
• Who was on right committee
• Who was up for re-election,
• And AFGE Local 3354 WORKED VERY HARD and had help
  from allies

42
How we fought back in 2003

• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Senate Bond-Mikulski No funding for VHA
  outsourcing
• House Walsh-Mollohan No funding for VHA
  outsourcing
• Conference No funding for VHA privatization
• Must do it again in 2004

43
How we fought back in 2003

• Department of Commerce Seafood Inspection
  Program (SIP) is commercial
• Senate Hollings Letter (20)
• House Frank Letter (25)
• Department of Commerce SIP is Inherently
  Governmental

44
How we fought back in 2003

• Department of Homeland Security
• Immigration Information Officers
• Senate Lieberman Letter (34)
• House Gutierrez (105) and Baca (20) Letters
• Allies in immigration community
• Laying the groundwork for 2004

45
How we fought back in 2003

• Federal Aviation Administration
• Cartographers
• Senate Mikulski (20) Letter
• Allies in the aviation community
• Laying the groundwork for 2004

46
What we can do in 2004

• Government-wide effort (Transportation-Treasury
  Appropriations Bill)
• Agency-specific efforts (e.g., IIOs,
  Cartographers, VHA)

47
What we can do in 2004

• House TRAC Act (H.R. 3426) / Sponsor
  Representative Al Wynn (D-MD) (SEE HANDOUT)
• Track costs and
• Require fair competition for
• fed work,
• new work, and
• contractor work

48
What we can do in 2004

• That would
• allow feds to always submit best bids
• require contractors to be 10 more efficient to
  take work from feds
• exclude pay and benefits costs if contractor
  provided less pay and worse benefits

49
What we can do in 2004

• Senate TRAC Act to be introduced by Senator
  Richard Durbin (D-IL)

50
What we can do in 2004

• How did your lawmakers vote on our amendments?
• If they were right, thank them, particularly if
  they are Republicans.
• If they were wrong, find out why.

51
What we can do in 2004

• Encourage lawmakers to cosponsor TRAC
• If they wont find out why?

52
What we can do in 2004

• Tell your lawmakers to be prepared for
  privatization amendments later in the year.

53
Federal Pay General Schedule Blue Collar

54
Federal Pay General Schedule Blue Collar
.

• President Bushs budget for Fiscal Year 2005
  proposes a 1.5 pay raise for civilians.

55
Federal Pay General Schedule Blue Collar
.

• President Bushs Fiscal Year 2005 budget has
  recommended an average pay raise for military
  personnel of 3.5.

56
Federal Pay General Schedule Blue Collar
.

• In virtually every year out of the past two
  decades, Congress has maintained the tradition of
  parity between civilian and military personnel.

57
Federal Pay RaiseGeneral Schedule Blue Collar

• Representatives Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Tom Davis
  (R-VA) have introduced H. Con. Res. 356 which
  says that civilians and military should get the
  same pay raise.
• Senators Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and John Warner
  (R-VA) introduced companion legislation S. Con.
  Res. 88

58
Federal Pay RaiseGeneral Schedule Blue Collar

• Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) is expected to offer an
  amendment to provide for pay parity when the
  House Budget Committee marks up the FY 2005
  Budget Resolution.

59
Federal Pay RaiseGeneral Schedule Blue Collar

• Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) is expected to
  offer a pay parity amendment when the Senate
  Budget Committee marks up its version of the FY
  2005 budget resolution.

60
Federal Pay RaiseGeneral Schedule Blue Collar

• Military and civilian personnel work side-by-side
  for the same government.
• We are not asking for identical compensation
  packages (military get better health and
  retirement benefits as well as housing
  allowances).
• We just want the annual raise to be the same.

61
Federal Pay RaiseGeneral Schedule Blue Collar

• What you can do
• Ask your representative (especially Members of
  the Budget and Appropriations Committees) to
  cosponsor H. Con. Res. 356.

62
Cosponsors of H.Con.Res.356

• Republicans
• Davis, T. (VA)
• Wolf (VA)

63
Cosponsors of H.Con.Res.356

• Democrats
• Hoyer (MD) -- lead sponsor
• Moran (VA)
• Norton (DC)
• Cardin (MD)
• Cummings (MD)
• Ruppersberger (MD)

64
Cosponsors of H.Con.Res.356

• More Democrats
• Van Hollen (MD)
• Wynn (MD)

65
Federal Pay RaiseGeneral Schedule Blue Collar

• What you can do
• Ask your Senators (especially Members of the
  Budget or Appropriations Committees) to be a
  cosponsor of the S. Con. Res. 88 introduced by
  Senator Sarbanes.

66
Original cosponsors of Senate Pay Parity
Resolution

• Republicans
• Warner (VA)
• Allen (VA)
• Collins (ME)

67
Original cosponsors of Senate Pay Parity
Resolution

• Democrats
• Sarbanes (MD) Murray (WA)
• Mikulski (MD) Durbin (IL)
• Akaka (HI) Johnson (SD)
• Dayton (MN)
• Levin (MI)
• Kennedy (MA)

68
President Bush Opposes Pay Parity

• OMB 2/2/04 Clay Johnson wrote a letter to
  lawmakers on the Presidents behalf. Giving the
  same salary increase to everybody, civilian and
  military, has never been shown to be an effective
  incentive for quality people to hire-on, stay
  and/or perform at a high level. Recognizing
  performance and using targeted increases to make
  specific jobs more attractive, on the other hand,
  have been shown to be effective.

69
Bush Pay Agenda Pay for Performance

• The new laws for the Department of Homeland
  Security and the Department of Defense allow
  these agencies to take employees out of the
  current pay systems and put them under
  pay-for-performance systems.

70
Bush Pay AgendaPay for Performance

• We expect DHS and DoD to design pay systems in
  which salary is determined by individual merit
  and value to the organization, rather than time
  served

71
Bush Pay AgendaPay for Performance

• In other words, we expect DHS and DoD to design
  pay systems to put your annual pay raise and your
  step increases at risk. Only your supervisor
  will decide whether you get a raise at all, and
  if so, how much.

72
Bush Pay AgendaPay for Performance

• And of course, you will have no appeal rights on
  that issue.

73
Bush Pay AgendaPay for Performance

• Bushs FY 2005 budget proposes a 300 million
  fund (government wide) for awarding extra base
  salary increases to individuals according to
  contribution.
• The fund could cover cover both supervisory and
  non-supervisory, as well as politicals.

74
Bush Pay AgendaPay for Performance

• Bush Plan would abandon principle of Equal Pay
  for Equal Work that assigns salaries to
  positions, not individuals.
• Equal Pay for Equal Work means that everyone
  hired for a given position has roughly the same
  base salary, whether theyre Democrat or
  Republican, male or female, union or non-union,
  White, Black, or Hispanic.

75
Bush Pay AgendaPay for Performance

• Be sure to let your Representative and Senators
  know your views on replacement of the General
  Schedule with a so-called Pay for Performance
  Plan
• Performance or output is difficult to measure
  objectively, especially by untrained managers.

76
Bush Pay AgendaPay for Performance

• The General Schedule has been mischaracterized by
  the President. Within grade increases arent
  automatic they reward performance and are a
  retention tool.
• Politics and bias are inevitable when political
  appointees and the managers who report to them
  have discretion to set salaries, and award or
  withhold raises.

77
Bush Pay AgendaPay for Performance

• AFGE will fight for the checks and balances of
  collective bargaining to keep any new system
  honest.
• Adequate funding to avoid downward spiral for
  some and upward spiral for others would be
  enormously costly, but absolutely necessary.

78
Dismantling the Civil Service

79
Dismantling the Civil Service

• The Homeland Security Act gave Bush broad
  managerial flexibility to change 5 areas of
  civil service law, including
• 1. Pay
• 2. Classification
• 3. Performance appraisal

80
Dismantling the Civil Service

• 4. Appeal rights to the MSPB regarding adverse
  actions.
• 5. The right to union representation through the
  process of collective bargaining.

81
Dismantling the Civil Service

• Last year, the Defense Authorization bill
  included a section establishing a new National
  Security Personnel System which gave DoD similar
  authorities to DHS.

82
Dismantling the Civil Service

• However, the DoD law also allows the agency to
  change premium pay, including pay for weekends,
  holidays, and hazardous duty.

83
Dismantling the Civil Service

• On Friday DoD gave AFGE its first proposal on a
  new labor-management relations system.
• The elements of the proposal show a clear
  attempt to marginalize the role of unions and to
  eliminate representation for many employees.

84
Dismantling the Civil Service DoD

• Collective bargaining is effectively eliminated
  and replaced with consultation.
• The scope of consultation, and the issues which
  unions could be consulted about, could be
  determined by management on an ad-hoc basis.

85
Dismantling the Civil ServiceDoD

• This would replace collective bargaining
• 1. Management proposes a change.
• 2. Parties consult over management proposal.
• 3. 60 days later, management implements.
• 4. No third-party resolution of impasses.

86
Dismantling the Civil Service DoD

• DoD would eliminate contracts after they expire,
  and there would be no new contracts.
• DoD would no longer use the FLRA. Instead, they
  would create an independent Defense Labor
  Relations Board.

87
Dismantling the Civil Service DoD

• With the elimination of collective bargaining,
  there will be no negotiated grievance procedure.
• All employee-management disputes would be decided
  unilaterally by a management-appointed board.

88
Dismantling the Civil Service

• Bush has made no secret of the fact that he would
  like to extend these same managerial authorities
  to the entire Executive Branch.
• In one year, civil service reform went from being
  about how to make the federal government a better
  employer, to how to make it more like Wal-Mart.

89
Dismantling the Civil Service

• National Security was the rationale used to
  eliminate the right of employees at NIMA and TSA
  to union representation through collective
  bargaining.
• And it was the argument used to justify that the
  personnel system for Department of Defense should
  be changed.

90
Dismantling the Civil Service

• Secretary Rumsfeld said last year
• We use contractors rather than civilian
  employees, again because you can manage a
  contractor more efficiently.

91
Dismantling the Civil Service

• The quote shows that privatization and civil
  service reform as flexibility are two sides of
  the same coin.

92
Dismantling the Civil Service

• What to tell your Representative and Senators
• The idea of giving over to managers and
  politicals the power to implement new pay,
  classification, and performance appraisal
  systems, without Congressional input, is wrong.

93
Dismantling the Civil Service

• It will politicize the federal workforce, and
  erase hard won battles to establish a civil
  service free of patronage and corruption.
• Taking away the right to appeal adverse actions
  to the MSPB removes a vital source of the
  integrity of the civil service system that
  prevents corruption.

94
Dismantling the Civil Service

• Eliminating the right of federal employees to
  have meaningful union representation through
  collective bargaining only means taking away our
  ability to keep management honest, and protecting
  one another from being victimized by
  mismanagement.

95
Dismantling the Civil Service

• And if federal employees can no longer resolve
  disputes with their agencies through their unions
  and collective bargaining, then AFEG will bring
  each individual complaint as well as complaints
  on behalf of groups of employees to our
  Representatives and Senators.

96
Dismantling the Civil Service

• One at a time.
• Day after day.
• Until we get our rights back.

97
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
98
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

• In 2004, average premiums for enrollees increased
  12.
• Over the past 5 years, the average increase in
  enrollee premiums has been 65.

99
FEHBP

• Premiums for Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard
  Option (the most popular plan in FEHBP) have
  risen over 70 over the past six years.
• Mail handlers High Option total premium went up
  by 25, but the enrollee share went up by 49 for
  singles and 55 for families.

100
FEHBP

• Affordability is a big problem.
• At last count, 250,000 full-time federal
  employees do not participate in FEHBP and are not
  covered by another plan. They are uninsured.

101
FEHBP What agencies pay now

• The average premium split between the government
  and enrollees has now fallen to
• 70 government
• 30 enrollees

102
FEHBP

• Uncle Sam pays 85 of FEHBP premiums in the
  Postal Service and the Federal Deposit Insurance
  Corporation (FDIC).
• Why? Their unions can collectively bargain over
  the premium split.

103
FEHBP Legislative Relief

• Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has introduced
  legislation (H.R. 577) to change the FEHBP
  premium split from 70-30 to
• 80 government
• 20 enrollees

104
FEHBP Legislative Relief

• Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has introduced
  legislation (S. 319) to change the FEHBP premium
  split from 70-30 to
• 80 government
• 20 enrollees

105
FEHBP What you can do

• Ask your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 577
  (Hoyers FEHBP bill).
• Ask your Senators to cosponsor S. 319 (Mikulskis
  FEHBP bill).

106
FEHBP What you can do

• Keep track of premium increases for plans at your
  local installation (particularly HMOs) and let us
  know the impact these costs are having on your
  bargaining unit members.

107
FEHBP Other bad ideas

• OPM is also promoting Health Savings Accounts
  (HSAs) which combine very high deductible plans
  (1000 for singles and 2500 for families) with
  pre-tax money deposited in a special account.

108
FEHBP HSAs

• The money rolls over each year and remains tax
  free. These plans are tax shelters for the
  wealthy and healthy, and drive up the cost of
  health care for everyone else, since they are no
  longer participating in the kind of group
  insurance that allows everyone in the plan to
  subsidize one another.

109
Overtime Regulations
110
Overtime Regulations

• WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
• In March 2004, the Department of Labor(DOL) will
  issue a drastic revision of the federal overtime
  pay regulations.
• Under these new regulations, many American
  workers - in both the private and public sectors
  - could work longer hours for less pay.

111
Overtime Regulations

• For years, American workers have been entitled to
  overtime pay.
• But last year, the DOL proposed new regulations
  that would make it easier for employers to
  reclassify workers making between 22,100 and
  65,000 as executive, administrative, or
  professional employees - and thereby strip them
  of their overtime pay rights.

112
Overtime Regulations

• For example, workers could be reclassified as
  executives if they managed a department,
  directed the work of 2 or more other workers, and
  have their recommendations about hiring firing
  given particular weight.
• Thus, a 23,000-a-year supermarket produce
  manager could be refused overtime pay.

113
Overtime Regulations

• The impact of such a change on American workers
  will be harsh. Tens of thousands of federal
  workers and at least 8 million workers nationwide
  will lose their overtime pay rights.
• Workers likely to lose their overtime pay rights
  mid-level office workers, nurses, corrections
  officers, and others.

114
Overtime Regulations

• II. WILL THESE NEW REGULATIONS AFFECT FEDERAL
  WORKERS?
• YES! -- Just not directly.
• Its true that these new DOL overtime pay
  regulations will directly cover private sector
  workers.
• Its also true federal workers are directly
  covered by FLSA, which is administered by OPM.

115
Overtime Regulations

• But OPM administers the FLSA in conformity with
  DOL regulations.
• Thus, OPM will almost certainly issue its own
  overtime pay regulations to conform to the new
  DOL overtime pay regulations.

116
Overtime Regulations

• III. WHAT DID AFGE DO TO OPPOSE THE NEW
  REGULATIONS?
• In the House, AFGE supported the Obey amendment
  to the FY 2004 Labor Appropriations bill to
  prevent the DOL from issuing the new overtime pay
  regulations.

117
Overtime Regulations

• However, the House defeated the Obey amendment,
  210-213 on July 10.
• In the Senate, AFGE supported the Harkin
  amendment to the FY 2004 Labor Appropriations
  bill to prevent the DOL from issuing its overtime
  rules.
• The Senate approved the Harkin amendment, 55-45,
  on September 10.

118
Overtime Regulations

• But the Harkin amendment never made it into the
  final FY 2004 Labor Appropriations bill.
• President Bush threatened a veto if the Harkin
  amendment was included.
• On November 21, Sen. Arlen Specter bowed to White
  House pressure and agreed to remove the Harkin
  amendment from the final bill.

119
Overtime Regulations

• IV. WHAT CAN AFGE ACTIVISTS DO?
• AFGE activists are urged to contact both
  President Bush and Members of Congress to oppose
  the new overtime pay regulations.
• The new DOL rules tilt too far in the direction
  of employers. They should be withdrawn and
  redrawn in a more balanced way.