What does the new pay and personnel system at the Department of Homeland
Security mean for civil service employees? Will the changes weaken the
role of unions in the department? Will the changes create a streamlined
but fair system for disciplining employees?
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees,
joined The Post's Stephen Barr, who writes the Federal Diary column, at noon
Feb. 2 to discuss the proposed changes facing Border Patrol agents,
customs, immigration and agriculture inspectors and other Homeland Security
employees.
Gage began his career as a disability examiner at the Social Security
Administration. Before becoming AFGE's national president, he served in
leadership positions with AFGE Local 1923 and the union's 4th District for
more than 20 years. Gage, who briefly played baseball with the Baltimore
Orioles, is a graduate of Wheeling Jesuit University.
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 for joining this discussion today. A big thanks to our guest, John Gage, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. Mr. Gage, let's cut to the chase in opening this discussion today--are the new Homeland Security regulations good for the department's employees? Again, thanks for joining us and taking questions.
John Gage: These new regulations are neither good for employees or for homeland security. Basic rights of employees have been gutted employee participation has been banned and of course the new pay system in my view is simply a scheme to reduce overall federal pay.
_______________________
Emmitsburg, Md.:
Did the recent law suit filed by the four DHS unions object to the proposed pay system? The system will be a disaster. FEMA is part of DHS but ill-suited in what is a Law enformcement operational department. We are being bled to death with budget cuts, loss of positions and programs lost to turf battles. The new pay system would allow DHS to give higher raises to staff working in "priority" programs - this will hurt FEMA operations even more since FEMA is not a DHS priority.
The proposed pay system is scheduled to begin for the part of DHS I am in - FEMA/EPR in 2006. Hopefully in the appropriations bills fo fy06 Congress can get around the unaccountable DHS mgmt and mandate pay parity not only with military but with the rest of the civil service.
John Gage: The unions objected very strenuously to the new pay system. However, we have no legal basis as this time to support a lawsuit. We have sued the department on the parts of the rigs dealing with collective bargaining and due process. One reason the lawsuit didn't include pay is that so much is still unknown about the new pay system. THe department purposely did not include details of the new pay system in the regulations. The department let a contract for some 180 million to a private contractor to develop the details of the pay system. The unions will be watching closely the development of the pay system and stand ready to challenge in court or in congress any provisions we feel are contrary to law.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Gage. Thanks for taking questions today. Since you have filed a lawsuit against the department, I assume that you think union rights have been harmed. Could you give some real life examples of that harm, please?
John Gage: Union negotiating rights have been severly curtailed. For instance, any deployment of employees assignment of work anything to do with technology are simply off the table and collective bargaining forbidden. Disputes will now be handled by "company" board appointed by management and paid by management. Aribtrators will be given a new standard which virtually forbids them from mitigating any penalty given an employee.
_______________________
Cleveland, Ohio:
The Department of Homeland Security regulations are supposed to add flexibility to the personnel process. Why does your union object to them so strongly???
John Gage: This Administration uses a number of buzz words "flexibility" "pay for perfomance" "best and brightest" to mask the real details of these regulations. cronyism and favoritism are not the types of flexibilities that is needed in homeland security or any other government agency stripping civil service protections and employee and union rights are symbolic of a management of coercion and intimidation.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
The Post has a front-page article today describing DHS as dysfunctional and filled with weak management. Do you share that view? Why steps can unions now take to improve the department?
John Gage: We've argued that homeland security is the last department to try these untested personnel changes the department has tremendous challenges in bringing together 22 different agencies. Layering on top the implementation of this new personnel system I think is dumb.
We're going to continue lobbying to provide more border patrol officers more training better equipment for employees. Spending $180 million on this new performance system in just one contract is really wrong headed. That money could be much better used on our borders on our ports and in our cities.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md:
The new regulations allow the Department to declared null and void any part of the negotiated agreement that the Department wants to by merely issuing a management directive. What should AFGE locals do if/when management notifies us of a certain part of the negotiated agreement is now obsolete?
John Gage: Yes, that's true, now management can simply issue a directive to void contracts and established agreements on anything to do with working conditions.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Gage, As I understand it, AFGE was substantially involved in crafting the regulation, and based on the supplemental part of the new reg., many union concerns about the proposed regulation were listened to and incorporated. My question is simple and in 2 parts: why are you so surprised, and could the regulation be a lot worse than it is?
John Gage: Good question. We had particpated in a number of focus groups, town hall meetings, and surveys in which employees consistently and overwhelmingly said no to these personnel changes. In the meet and confer process, AFGE and NTEU were able to knock off some hard edges from the regulations. For instance, we maintained the ability to grieve and arbitrate in areas such as the new pay system. We also managed to retain the ability to arbitrate adverse actions. We offered good common sense solutions to all of managements concerns. We are disappointed that only lip service was given to employee and union solutions.
_______________________
Chicago, Ill.:
Since federal pay will probably be frozen this year, performance pay will be initiated on a smaller payroll base, and there probably won't be much extra devoted to fund any new system. What do you think about this?
John Gage: THe new pay for performance is advertised as a reward for the "best and brightest". We have no objection to properly award deserving employees. Our problem with this system is that it drops the bottom out of federal pay. managers will be able to set base pay at whatever levels a locality will support. For instance, if a a federal job is advertise in a particular location and if the number of applicants is high then the base pay can and will be lowered. Blowing up the classification system is not so much about improving the ability of management to reward good employees, but more to lower overall federal pay by lowing starting salaries and progression. Those who think this system is being set up to give federal employees a more pay are naive, federal employees who think this system will be better personnally for them do not appreciate the objectives of this Administration.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.:
Your union has really beat up on Bush's competitive sourcing agenda. Do you think contracting out has become too hot to handle and will fade away?
John Gage: I thank you for your question and realizing how well the union has done in fighting contracting out. This year we will see an increased effort to contract out core government functions. It's hard not to see that contracting out is simply a give away of taxpayers dollars to corporate interests. We will continue to demand accountability for government work given to contractors.
_______________________
White River Junction, Vt.:
With thousands of troops deployed, Veterans Affairs hospitals will be facing a new generation of patients--Veterans with complex healthcare, and increased prosthetic needs. I am concerned about the lack of funding for VA in our present administration. What are your thoughts, and what can be done to promote fully funding VA in FY06 and beyond?
John Gage: I am extremely concerned with VA funding. There budget last year was hypicrical and devoured of reality. Not a word or a dollar for Iraq and our wounded troops. Despite aging veterans, nursing home beds were slashed, despite the 10,000 wounded research on artificial limbs slashed, I don't see the commiment to our veterans reflected in the VA budget. We are going to demand full funding for the VA and not because we represent VA employees, but because our VA employees, many of which are veterans, tell us that these budgets will not fullfill the promise to our veterans.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Frankly, I am not surprised at your assertion that the new pay system at DHS was set up to lower pay to federal employees, not raise. Doesn't your union only represent employees at the GS-11 or less (or equivalent)? Analyses I have read about federal pay indicate that it is at the highest levels of pay (GS-12 and up or equivalent) that higher skilled federal workers are severly underpaid, and at the lower levels of pay, lower skilled workers may be overpaid. In short, you are only protecting those who pay your dues. Dare to comment?
John Gage: We represent employees at virtually all grade levels. There is no grade 11 cap on union representation. We fight for fair pay for all federal employees. Actually, some of the lower graded federal employees are the farthest behind in pay comparable to the private sector.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Since this project is touted as some sort of model for the future, please explain what advantage there is to empoyees under the new system. There are already problems with awards, including QSIs, going repeatedly to the same employees. How will this help? Also, since it sounds like everyone who gets an acceptabe rating will get a raise; how exactly is this different from the way we all get raises now? Thanks.
John Gage: I see really no advantage to employees under thenew pay system. Management now has the ability to reward high performers. Our suspicion in this new system is that it will be a tool for deficit reduction. Federal employees pay will be sacrificed to the starve the beast mentality of this administration.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
I have yet to hear a straight answer about pay under the new system. Are the current GS-levels banded, so that the top scale (GS-15) is the top pay, or is the limit different (higher or lower) than the current GS-15-10?
John Gage: New pay bands will be established. THe classification system as we know it will be abolished. Movement within the bands as well as yearly pay raise and any other pay raise will be dependent upon your supervisors evaluation.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
A column (Howard Kurtz) in the Post documenting various previews of the State of the Union speech tonight mentions one topic will be "overhaul of the goverment retirement system." Any idea what this is?
John Gage: We anticipate a tax on the retirement system. And every other federal employee benefit. The details of these attacks are unknown however we suspect changing the high three formulation to be a given.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Today's Post reported that agencies will need 37,515 new hires for security-related jobs over the next two years. Do you think the DHS regs will speed hiring at DHS?
John Gage: I do think the new regulations will speed hiring. Basicly because qualifications and standards can be waived. This can be a good thing however I'm concerned about the whole issue of cronyism in the new hiring authorities.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.:
How much hope do you have for the new labor relations system, compared to third party neutrals, such as the FLRA? Also, is your lawsuit viable?
John Gage: This administration has packed the FLRA as well as the FSIP with idealogues. There has been nothing fair or neutral about there decisions over thelast 4 years. In that regard DHS setting up an internal board to decide disputes will probably be even worse. Our lawsuit claims that the regs do not meet the provisions of the authorizing legislation which called for the continuance of collective bargaining. The regs used the word bargaining but define it as anything but collective bargaining. Our lawsuit I think is a good one but whether we win or not we're going to continue our fight in every forum until these rights which have been stripped are returned.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Gage, With all due respect, why have the unions adopted a "guilty until proven innocent" position towards the new regulations? For example, on the one hand, the unions have stated that the regs are too broad to know what is going to happen, but on the other hand the unions have unanimously agreed that whatever happens will be harmful.
John Gage: We certainly know what the regs contain in the labor management area and employee rights area. The details for the pay for performance are conspicuously absent. The history of pay for performance has shown that in many occupations especially law enforcement that it simply doesn't work. Pay for performance in the private sector where employees share in the profits of the company may be fine, in the government where salaries are appropriated where deficit reduction is a reality, they pay for performance will simply be a cannibalism among employees of a shrinking pool of federal pay.
_______________________
Falls Church, Va.:
AFGE has put out a lot of imformation blathering about whistleblower protections. I don't see how the union fits into this--considering that such protections come from federal law, not unions.
John Gage: Unions provide the day-to-day protection for federal employees that extend beyond federal whistleblower protections. The new system within DHS allows the agency much latitude to put the squeeze on employees: the ability to mess with pay, work schedule, appeal rights, etc. This is where unions come in. Again its the day-to-day protection against these more mundane forms of retaliation.
I'm told by Steve Barr that we are running out of time. Thanks again, Steve for the opportunity to chat. For more information, please visit www.afge.org or visit www.unionblog.com for news you can use.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com:
Our thanks to John Gage for sharing time with us on the DHS regulations and what they mean for the department's 110,000 civil service employees. Our thanks to all of you taking the time to read this transcript, and to those of you who sent in comments and questions. See you here at noon next Wednesday!
_______________________
