What do the new pay and personnel regulations at the Department of Homeland
Security mean for employees? What do they mean for unions? What are the
chances that they will become a model for government-wide personnel
changes?
Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union,
joined The Post's Stephen Barr, who writes the Federal Diary column, to
discuss the Homeland Security regulations at noon Feb. 16 on Federal Diary
Live.
Kelley was elected president of NTEU, the largest independent federal
sector union, in August 1999. She had previously served as the union's
executive vice president. A Pittsburgh native, Kelley joined the Internal
Revenue Service after graduating from Drexel University with a bachelor's
degree in accounting. She has a master's degree from the University of
Pittsburgh and is a certified public accountant.
NTEU represents federal employees in 30 agencies, including the departments
of Treasury, Energy, and Health and Human Services and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Patent and Trademark Office
and Securities and Exchange Commission.
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 joining this dicussion today, especially our guest, NTEU President Colleen Kelley. This has been a big month--two large departments moving forward with changes to their pay and personnel systems. And it is clearly a contentious time. Unions have announced a lawsuit to block the final regulations at the Department of Homeland Security, for example. Colleen, what's in these regulations that has caused union opposition? Again, my thanks for taking time from your schedule to join us.
Colleen M. Kelley: Good afternoon, Steve. Glad to be joining you today to talk about these new regulations and the impact on employees. The areas of concern are: limitations on collective bargaining, no independent review of collective bargaining disputes, non-negotiability over department wide regulations, and a reduction in employee appeal rights. In the pay and performance area there are more questions than answers as a new system that will replace the GS system is as yet undefined.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
For many federal employees, pay for performance means being in favor with your supervisor and pay pool manager. The system makes it easier for managers to rate employees unfairly, based on their personal preference and not the employees performance.
A database should be created to monitor employee complaints against managers for power abuse and managerial misconduct, with review by the Agency Head.
Colleen M. Kelley: The concern you cite is one expressed by many employees. I think the idea of a system to monitor abuses is a good one and we will pursue that in our ongoing discussions with DHS. Thank you!
_______________________
Germantown, Md:
Ms. Kelley, I have worked for DOE for about 25 years. I am member of NTEU Chapter 228 and have served as Chief Steward of Chapter 228. My experience as a senior technical employee and chief steward has shown me that most first and second level supervisors are mediocre at best and lack managerial skills. Most of them prefer "Yes" people and hardly provide any meaningful supervision. They take their revenge during evaluation against those who don't carry out their commands, some of which are "bring me rock." Don't you think the mangers will get more authority without any meaningful avenue for the civil servants who want to do a good job? I am afraid that DoD and DHS personnel rules are coming to DOE before Mr. Bush completes his term. Do you agree with some of the lawmakers that only after reviewing the results at DoD and DHS that the new personnel system should be implemented in other agencies? Please do all you can to at least slow him down in dismantling the proven civil service system. Thank you for all you have done for feds.
Colleen M. Kelley: Your concern over the Administration's plan to roll out the DHS and DoD regulations governmentwide is one that I hope all federal employees are paying attention to. NTEU has already garnered the support of many on Capitol Hill as to what an unwise decision it would be, and I would say premature and irresponsible, to roll these out to other agencies before they have been implemented and monitored and questioned and proven to work, both for the employees and the agencies. NTEU will continue our work to stop the Administration's efforts to do this governmentwide.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
Why aren't the unions or anyone else for that matter asking employees for input regarding these new pay systems and those of us who chose to remain GS's. It is not being made clear to the even the public that this new pay system has been in effect for quite some time in other departments. Currently in my agency (NIH) we have been using a pay band system for at least 3 years and no one not even human resources is able to give me or my co-workers a complete answer as to how it is administered. I am still a GS and have been told "Though I more than qualify for the next grade I can not receive the increase because the GS system no longer exsist." No one has updated my classification specifications since 1972. When I or my co-workers ask for our job description we are given what they call a generic one. Human resources acts as if it's a chore to answer questions for us. I can't imagine management and human resources doing any better with a new system when management doesn't even administer the old one appropriately. -- A Second Class Federal Employee.
Colleen M. Kelley: NTEU has communicated regularly with our members in DHS over the plans to dismantle the GS system and the DHS plans to create a new system. Employee concerns, suggestions, and ideas have been collected, and are being collected as we speak via the NTEU DHS website. NTEU will continue to voice employee questions and concerns as DHS continues to develop the new system. Some in Congress have committed to help ensure that our voice is listened to. And just to clarify, staying on the GS system is not a choice for DHS employees. Congress gave DHS the authority to dismantle the system and they have made clear their decision to do so. Now the focus of our work must be to shape a new system that is fair, credible, and transparent to employees. And the HR and classification problems you describe in your agency, unfortunately, exist in most agencies, and these very real problems will not go away as DHS creates a new system.
_______________________
Atlanta, Ga.:
Can you give us a status report on the lawsuit NTEU and other unions have filed to prevent some of these personnel changes from taking effect at DHS?
Colleen M. Kelley: Our lawsuit has been filed, as you note, and the government now has the opportunity to respond. They have not done so yet. As soon as next steps are decided, we will be announcing those. Up to date information will be posted regularly on the NTEU DHS website at http://dhs.nteu.org
_______________________
Rouses Point , N.Y.:
DHS employees pay will be shifting from the current GS-scale
pay system to a pay-for-performance system under the new DHS
personnel regulations. How can a credible pay-for-performance
pay system work in an agency, such as DHS, that requires a
tremendous amount of teamwork to successfully accomplish
agency missions? Has the Department made you aware of any
large scale pay-for-performance system that has been
successfully implemented in a law-enforcement environment? And as a follow up, won't this create a morale problem that could have been avoided had the Department used one of the other solutions from the design team?
Colleen M. Kelley: There has been no showing that pay for performance schemes are effective in law enforcement environments. And we are very concerned as to the impact this could have on employee morale, teamwork, and the effectiveness of the agency.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
What is wrong with changing the method of awarding pay increases from seniority to performance? Should an employee be entitled to a raise just because they've been showing up every day for X period of time?
Colleen M. Kelley: In theory, there is nothing wrong with the premise. Most federal employees would welcome a pay system that would compensate and reward them for their performance and that is comparable to their private sector counterparts. What employees don't trust is that a system will be built to do so, that managers won't be trained in the importance of how to make distinctions between employees in those decisions, ensuring that all employees have the opportunities and assignments to excel, that the funding won't be available to properly compensate them when they do, etc. etc.
The current system, if implemented properly by management, should be providing pay increases to employees for their acceptable performance. If employees are only showing up and not performing acceptably, and management is not dealing with that, that is a management problem, not an employee or GS problem. And if management is not doing the job it should today, that problem will be exacerbated, with harm to the employees and to the agency, in a pay for performance system that is in name only, not in implemention.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
I work for an agency (represented by NTEU) that has nothing to do with national security and defense against terrorism. How likely is it that my agency will, nonetheless, be pressing for the kinds of radical, anti-union changes that are taking place at DoD and Homeland Security?
Colleen M. Kelley: The Administration has made it very clear, with language in the President's 06 budget proposal, that it intends to extend these DHS and DoD regulations to all agencies. That is their plan. NTEU will be working with Congress to stop that from happening. And I hope every federal employee will let their member of Congress hear from them on this issue.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
On a percentage basis, and I know this is a guess on your part, how much do the DHS regulations reduce union activities? It appears from Stephen's column that you can no longer bargain over the majority of issues, will be allowed to bargain over smaller issues only after management has made a decision to go ahead, but truly have no influence because DHS can write up anything it wants in a directive that cannot be appealed. Do I have this correct? And, if so, will unions have to retrench and consolidate to continue their existence in the federal sector?
Colleen M. Kelley: The new regulations will require that unions do business differently. We will continue to use every tool available including negotiating, consulting, conferring, representing, grieving, arbitrating, litigating, lobbying, educating, mobilizing. We will continue to do all of these things with and for those who we represent. I hope federal employees recognize that now is the time to stand with their unions to have their voices heard.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.:
Have proposed salaries been announced for the pay bands at DoD or DHS? I have read some of the pay banding pilot projects have greatly increased an individual's salary from what it was on the GS scale.
Colleen M. Kelley: Pay band amounts or proposals have not yet been announced for DHS and DoD, although I have no doubt that consultants working with the departments have floated ideas. As to a new system resulting in higher salaries, that is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, since -0- additional funding is being provided to the agencies to implement the new system. This is one of the very serious problems with this plan. No matter how well developed, and even if HR and managers were properly trained and supported on implementation, a new system will fail if it is not properly funded. And there is no intent by this Administration to do so.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Don't many large companies in the private sector use pay-for-performance scales of some sort? I understand your point that pay-for-performance can be subverted by bad management, but if management can be trained to administer such arrangements in the private sector, why shouldn't it be able to do so within the government?
Colleen M. Kelley: Even if a system were built that employees trust, the money still won't be there to properly reward.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
Under the new system, what are the limitations on pay-for-performance raises? Is there a chance that I will not receive any raise at all? On the other end of the spectrum, is there a ceiling on what I can receive? And are these employees still entitled to the annual cost of living adjustment?
Colleen M. Kelley: Nothing is guaranteed under the new system. Yes, there is a chance you would not receive a pay raise. The ceiling would be the top of your pay band. An annual cost of living adjustment is up to the department to decide, no entitlement or guarantee.
_______________________
Nogales, Ariz.:
Where do the wage grade employees fit into the pay and classification part of MaxHR? Will we be included in the pay banding portion of the new system, and also I have heard talk that the FWS system may be eliminated--is there any truth to this? If so, what will our new pay and classification system be modeled after? Thanks.
Colleen M. Kelley: Wage Grade employees are eligible for coverage under the DHS classification and pay system but will not be covered in the initial program implementation. That is the only info the regs provide to date.
_______________________
Jersey City, N.J.:
In your view what is a more serious threat to federal employees--the proposed pay for performance system, or the eviseration of collective bargaining and employee due process rights?
Colleen M. Kelley: We believe each is a very serious threat. That is why we are in court and on Capitol Hill and in meetings with DHS and doing everything possible to make positive change and to ensure that the regs are implemented with the least harm to employees.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.:
Pay for performance sometimes works well in the private sector because management and staff have the same goal - profit. However, with political appointees and their political motivations, different goals beyond just performance are introduced. It seems like a spoils system for political favorites could be a likely result of these GS changes. What do you think?
Colleen M. Kelley: I agree. This is one of the dangers, and a fear often expressed by federal employees.
_______________________
New Braunfels, Tex.:
Colleen, This may be a hard question to answer, but from your perspective, how long will it be before pay for performance comes to the rest of the federal government? You don't have to be exact, you can use a range of years.
Colleen M. Kelley: Of course, I am only guessing. But if this Administration has its way, they will move legislation to take this governmentwide in this legislative session. Then the question would be implementation timeline. Their plan is sooner rather than later. Of course, NTEU has a different plan and that is that federal employees will work with their unions and contact their Congressional representatives and ask for their support to block this irresponsible plan by the Adminisration.
Steve tells me we are out of time. Thank you for all of your questions. There are so many more I wish there were time to answer! Please keep asking the questions and working with your unions on these important issues. And for ongoing updates on implementation of the DHS regulations and the Administration's efforts to move these governmentwide, visit the NTEU website at http://dhs.nteu.org
_______________________
washingtonpost.com:
Thanks Colleen Kelley for taking questions today. Our thanks to those of you who participated and those of you taking the time to read this transcript. Diary Live will be back here at noon next Wednesday, so please join us then!
_______________________
