[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PRACTICES: HOW LONG DOES TEMPORARY LAST?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 30, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-95
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-948 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DARRELL E. ISSA, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
DIANE E. WATSON, California PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
Columbia BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JACKIE SPEIER, California
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
JUDY CHU, California
Ron Stroman, Staff Director
Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of
Columbia
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ------ ------
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
William Miles, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 30, 2010.................................... 1
Statement of:
Dougan, William R., national president, National Federation
of Federal Employees; Colleen M. Kelley, national
president, National Treasury Employees Union; Philip W.
Glover, legislative coordinator, Council of Prison Locals,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO;
Patricia Barts, member, Cherry Hill, New Jersey Chapter,
National Active and Retired Federal Employees.............. 36
Barts, Patricia.......................................... 74
Dougan, William R........................................ 36
Glover, Philip W......................................... 60
Kelley, Colleen M........................................ 51
Simpson, Jerry, Associate Director for Workforce Management,
U.S. National Park Service; Hank Kashdan, Associate Chief,
U.S. Forest Service; and Angela Bailey, Deputy Associate
Director for Recruitment and Diversity, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management....................................... 7
Bailey, Angela........................................... 20
Kashdan, Hank............................................ 13
Simpson, Jerry........................................... 7
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bailey, Angela, Deputy Associate Director for Recruitment and
Diversity, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, prepared
statement of............................................... 22
Barts, Patricia, member, Cherry Hill, New Jersey Chapter,
National Active and Retired Federal Employees, prepared
statement of............................................... 76
Dougan, William R., national president, National Federation
of Federal Employees, prepared statement of................ 39
Glover, Philip W., legislative coordinator, Council of Prison
Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
CIO, prepared statement of................................. 62
Kashdan, Hank, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service, prepared
statement of............................................... 15
Kelley, Colleen M., national president, National Treasury
Employees Union, prepared statement of..................... 53
Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 3
Simpson, Jerry, Associate Director for Workforce Management,
U.S. National Park Service, prepared statement of.......... 9
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PRACTICES: HOW LONG DOES TEMPORARY LAST?
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Connolly, Chaffetz,
and Bilbray.
Staff present: Jill Crissman, professional staff; Aisha
Elkheshin, clerk/legislative assistant; William Miles, staff
director; Rohan Siddhanti and Ian Kapuza, interns; Dan Zeidman,
deputy clerk/legislative assistant; Justin LoFranco, minority
press assistant/clerk; Marvin Kaplan, minority counsel; and
James Robertson, minority professional staff member.
Mr. Lynch. Good afternoon. And I apologize for the slight
delay. A little traffic on the way in.
The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia will come to order.
I welcome my friend, the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz of
Utah, members of the subcommittee, hearing witnesses, and all
those in attendance.
The purpose of today's hearing is to review the existing
temporary hiring authorities and current regulations and the
resulting impact on temporary employees' status and benefit
offerings.
The chair, the ranking member, and the subcommittee members
will each have 5 minutes within which to make an opening
statement. And all Members will have 3 days to submit
statements for the record.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is the duty of this subcommittee
to look after every single Federal employee, no matter the
level of pay or what type of schedule or seniority they may
have. I have called today's hearing to discuss issues relating
to temporary employees, who represent about 9 percent of the
total Federal work force.
We know that seasonal temporary employees play a critical
role in helping an agency accomplish its mission and carry out
its mandates, yet these employees are operating largely under
the radar screen.
Given the fact that in certain Federal entities, namely the
National Park Service and the Forest Service, seasonal
temporary employees can comprise approximately 40 percent of
the work force at any given time, it is important that we take
time to seriously consider issues and concerns currently
confronting this particular employee population.
Oftentimes, seasonal temporary employees have worked in the
same capacity year after year, decade after decade. However,
they receive no health care, retirement insurance, or other
regular benefits accrued by otherwise permanent or term
employees of the Federal Government.
While in the early 1990's regulatory changes were made to
reduce temporary employees' assignment time from 4 years to a
maximum total of 2, thereby eliminating the possibility of
temporary employee abuses, it is clear that renewed oversight
on this issue is needed.
As we explore existing temporary hiring authorities and
current regulations, I believe it is important that we consider
whether a path to permanency can be established for our
temporary employees, many of whom have worked for multiple
years and are fully cognizant of the merit principles in our
hiring. Additionally, we need to look at how we can harness the
sizable talent and information acquired by these temporary
employees.
Today's hearing will also provide us the chance to hear
from the employer as well as the employee side of the temporary
hiring issue. My intent is for this afternoon's hearing to
provide all of us with an opportunity to further the dialog on
various ideas and suggestions on how we can best reach a middle
ground on some of these issues so that our employees are
properly taken care of without agency budgets being overly
stretched.
It is my hope that the testimony and feedback we receive
from today's witnesses will provide the subcommittee with
precise guidance and direction. Again, I thank each of you for
being with us this afternoon, and I look forward to your
participation.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]
Mr. Lynch. I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz,
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here and the
preparation you put forward. This testimony is important, as we
dive into this issue.
Temporary employees provide Federal agencies with
flexibility needed to handle temporary increases in workload,
such as seasonal work and short-term projects, or to hire
people to fill in behind permanent employees during an extended
leave of absence, such as parental leave.
These positions are not intended to be used as tryouts or
as substitutes to buffer the full-time work force. Congress and
the Office of Personnel Management must continue to work
diligently to ensure that agencies comply with the statutory
and regulatory framework and limitations on the use of
temporary workers. At the same time, any statutory or
regulatory change must be approached with caution to ensure
there is an effective work force, while limiting spending and
maintaining the flexibility the system is intended to provide.
In 1998, the last time the Office of Personnel Management
estimated the cost of extending health and pension benefits to
temporary workers, it estimated the total cost of providing
these benefits to the 102,000-plus temporary employees would be
in excess of $784 million.
Today, there is something like in the ballpark of 183,000
temporary workers. And, like all Federal employees, their
salaries have grown significantly since 1998. In a year when
the Federal deficit is projected to exceed last year's record
high of $1.4 trillion and unemployment is in the range of 9.7
percent across the country, a billion-dollar increase in
spending would be, obviously, irresponsible.
I look forward to hearing suggestions from today's
witnesses on how the Office of Personnel Management and
Congress can work together to ensure agencies use temporary
workers in accordance with standing regulations and statutes. I
look forward to the interaction, and, again, I thank you for
being here.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the District
of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
you for this hearing and regret that this hearing is necessary,
because this issue came up not shortly after I came to Congress
almost 20 years ago, and I wonder if we are seeing progress.
I note that the number of temporary employees has gone up.
That doesn't, in and of itself, bother me, because there are
increasing numbers of temporary employees and it is a very
satisfactory status to many people. But I think, at this
hearing, we need to find out whether temporary status is being
abused or if it simply doesn't work the way we are implementing
it.
I am particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, that, in the
year in which we have just passed a monumentally historic
health care reform bill, these workers apparently still cannot
get access to health care unless they pay for it entirely. I
cannot understand how anybody working for the Federal
Government would be put in that position for any period of
time. And I would be very interested to know whether or not the
health care bill we just passed makes any difference with
respect to that status.
Very concerning, too, is the lack of any retirement
benefits. Now, a time limit was put on the number of years you
could serve as a temporary employee, and I don't have
objections to that. The reason I don't have objections to it,
at least as it stands now, is that we want to preserve the
merit system as the way to hire employees.
On the other hand, I am troubled by reports of temporary
employees who are working far longer than the 2-year limit
because that can be waived. And I think the reason probably is
that their experience is needed. I do join the ranking member
in understanding the need for flexibility here, but flexibility
should not come with abuse.
The case that first led to reforms involved a man from the
District of Columbia who worked three shifts over July 4th and
dropped dead from it. He had a wife and five or six children,
and nothing to show for it.
I went to the floor with a bill. And a bill for a single
individual is very rare in this House, but the House and the
Senate saw this as not only a signal that there was reform
needed but that something had to be done for this man, and we
were able to get some funds for him.
I regret to see now that perhaps too little was done, and
hope to learn more from this hearing about what more needs to
be done consistent with maintaining the flexibility of
temporary employment, which is employment that is not only to
the benefit of the Federal Government but many others who work
in part-time positions as well.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentlelady.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
continuing to tackle one of the more intractable challenges
facing our Federal work force.
Widespread agency abuse of temporary employee hiring
practices is both the symptom of a broken hiring system and an
ongoing impediment to the long-range recruitment and retention
of the high-caliber employees we need in the Federal
Government. The Office of Personnel Management needs to use its
administrative authority to the maximum extent possible to
crack down on agencies' abuse of temporary hiring as a logical
accompaniment to the implementation of the President's recently
announced hiring reforms, which I, for one, welcome.
One reform OPM could implement would be to close the
loophole allowing repeated temporary hires of seasonal
employees who work less than 6 months in a year. Temporary
hiring has all too frequently been abused as a de facto means
of retaining long-term employees to save money in the short
run, at the expense of both the Federal employee and Federal
efficiency in the long run.
It is not surprising that agencies use temporary hiring
authorities, including the misnamed Federal Career Internship
Program, to fill employment positions since the current hiring
process is so inefficient. Fortunately, President Obama and OPM
Director Berry are taking aggressive steps to reform that
process by eliminating KSA essay requirements and streamlining
hiring on USAJobs. These reforms will allow agencies to fill
job positions more readily with permanent employees hired under
merit principles.
For their part, agencies must take advantage of the
opportunity and begin making progress to reverse the 25,000-
position growth in temporary employment that occurred between
1992 and 2009.
I look forward to hearing the Forest Service's plans for
reforming abuse of temporary hiring authority. An extraordinary
53 percent of Forest Service employees who responded to a
National Federation of Federal Employees survey said that they
had been temporarily hired for five or more seasons, even
though the Merit Systems Protection Board advised that
temporary employment policies should be based on the assumption
that the employment will normally be on a one-time, short-
duration basis.
Many of these temporary employees are, in fact, long-term,
dedicated public servants. For example, Forest Service fire
crews who have served year after year from June to October, or
longer, may be seasonal but they surely are not temporary.
Many of these Forest Service positions involve hard,
dangerous labor. It is morally repugnant to exploit temporary
hiring authority to avoid providing Forest Service employees
the benefits that, in fact, they have earned through what is
frequently long-term service and certainly dangerous.
This is not principally an issue of workers' rights,
however, but rather Federal efficiency and productivity. We
must remain focused on recruiting and retaining the best
employees in what is frequently a very competitive job market.
In order to recruit and retain the best employees who will
serve our constituents, we must ensure that agencies are
offering basic benefits rather than long-term temporary
employment that does an injustice to both Federal employees
and, in the long run, the taxpayers themselves.
I yield back.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman.
Again, I want to welcome our witnesses.
It is the custom before this committee that all witnesses
are sworn in. Could I ask you to please rise and raise your
right hands?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Lynch. Let the record indicate that all of the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
What I will do is offer a brief introduction of the
witnesses, and then each will be afforded 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
Just for the beginning, the small boxes in front of you on
the table will indicate green while your time is proceeding,
then yellow when it is time to wrap up, and then red when you
should stop testifying.
And let me begin.
Mr. Jerry Simpson began his Federal career with the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1967. In 2006,
he left NASA to join the National Park Service. Mr. Simpson
currently serves as the associate director of work force
management for the National Park Service, where his duties
include ensuring effective utilization of Federal employees,
concession employees, co-operators, contractors, and
volunteers.
Mr. Hank Kashdan has served the National Forest Service for
35 years and is currently the Forest Service's associate chief.
During his tenure with the Forest Service, Mr. Kashdan has
served in a variety of roles, including his appointment as
deputy chief of business operations.
Ms. Angela Bailey was selected for the Senior Executive
Service in October 2007 after 26 years of public service. She
currently serves as deputy associate director for recruitment
and diversity at the Office of Personnel Management. Prior to
joining the Office of Personnel Management, Ms. Bailey worked
for the Social Security Administration and the Department of
Defense.
Mr. Simpson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF JERRY SIMPSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR WORKFORCE
MANAGEMENT, U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; HANK KASHDAN, ASSOCIATE
CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE; AND ANGELA BAILEY, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR FOR RECRUITMENT AND DIVERSITY, U.S. OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT OF JERRY SIMPSON
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear today to discuss issues facing temporary employees. In
the interest of time, I will summarize my written testimony and
then answer questions you may have.
For many years, the Park Service has relied heavily on a
seasonal work force to augment its permanent staff. Today, we
hire approximately 10,000 seasonal employees every year to
provide critical services, especially during peak summer
visitation. The variety of positions that we hire includes
maintenance workers; rangers, both law enforcement protection
and interpretation; fee collectors; biological technicians;
landscape architects; firefighters; and lifeguards, just to
name a few.
Seasonal positions in the Park Service are very
competitive, and the number of applicants usually far exceeds
the number of available positions. We use temporary hiring
authorities to fill many of these positions, often through
open, competitive examination procedures. However, we may also
give temporary appointments noncompetitively to certain
individuals, and we do make use of the Student Educational
Employment Program to noncompetitively fill positions
performing seasonal work.
The Park Service is concerned about the morale and the
equitable treatment of our seasonal work force. Because the
Employee Viewpoint Survey conducted by OPM is only distributed
to permanent employees, we recently completed a comparable
internal survey distributed to approximately 6,000 of our
employees who were hired after June 2009, including seasonal
employees.
According to the survey, our seasonal employees, like their
permanent coworkers, derive very high satisfaction from their
belief that the work they do is important and that they like
the work that they do. Their greatest dissatisfiers, however,
are with the lack of health and retirement benefits, the lack
of job security, and the lack of equity with permanent staff,
particularly where promotions and within-grade pay increases
are at stake.
Approximately 43 percent of those survey respondents
indicated they were considering leaving the Park Service within
the next year.
We have formed an internal work group to help address these
issues, and we will actively be working on those in the coming
year, within existing regulatory and budgetary constraints.
Though seasonal employees are not eligible for
participation in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program,
we do make available to all of our seasonal employees when they
first start work, information about private health insurance
that is available to them through the Association for National
Park Rangers, which is a nonprofit employee organization.
We are vigilant in monitoring our use of temporaries. We
conduct multiple audits annually to ensure compliance with the
temporary hiring laws, regulations, and the time limits imposed
on these appointments by OPM guidelines. Over the past 3 years,
the Park Service has conducted between 15 and 20 of these
reviews with an OPM staff member as a member of each review
team, and we have found no major compliance issues in these
areas.
So, in summary, the use of temporary hiring authorities is
critical to the Park Service. They play a role in our seasonal
recruitment efforts, and they allow us to meet our NPS mission.
We strive to ensure that our use of authorities is in
compliance with Civil Service laws and regulations, but we
would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee and
other agencies and departments to explore potential solutions
to the issues that will be discussed today.
So, Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I
would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Kashdan, welcome. You are now recognized for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HANK KASHDAN
Mr. Kashdan. Thank you, Chairman lynch, Mr. Bilbray, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Connolly. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today to talk about a very critical segment of the work force
that delivers the Forest Service mission, that being the
temporary seasonal work force.
In addressing the subcommittee's concerns about temporary
hiring authorities and benefits, legislative issues, and
qualification for permanent jobs, I think it is important to
just lay out an employment profile for the agency.
At any given time in the Forest Service, we will have up to
about 30,000 career employees. At this time of the year, the
end of June, early July, we will increase that number to almost
45,000, adding 15,000 temporary seasonals to the work force.
And that typically hits its height right about this time of the
year. These employees are primarily field employees. They will
work in wildlife habitat management, watershed restoration,
recreation management, forest products, and the big employer
being wildfire suppression.
Our field seasons vary. In the southern tier of the United
States, that field season may last all year. In the Northeast
and the Northwest, as well as Alaska, that field season can be
fairly short, 3 or 4 months. So, in addressing the question of
how long does a temporary last, I would like to address it from
a strictly plain and simple business-model standpoint, as well
as an empathetic standpoint, trying to put myself in the shoes
of a temporary employee.
From the business-model standpoint, I think there are some
basic attributes that we have to consider. Most of the Forest
Service field work is, in fact, seasonal. Winter-type or non-
season office work is different than seasonal field work.
As an executive in the agency that manages the work force,
I think there is an important aspect of the budget profile that
necessitates having a reasonable level of discretionary costs
compared to fixed costs. As an executive, I look at 20 to 30
percent of our budget profile being discretionary as a
reasonable level to achieve.
Seasonal employees are in the discretionary category, along
with grants, agreements, contracts, and procurement. Permanent
employees would be in the fixed-cost category, along with
infrastructure. Now, that is the very plain and simple budget
profile.
In the work force profile, it is very important for the
agency's employment profile to represent a variety of sources
from which employees are derived. This includes veterans,
interns in college, placements from Job Corps, Presidential
Management Fellows, returning Peace Corps volunteers, and from
the ranks of seasonal work force. And let me just add that
seasonal work force provides about 44 percent of our current
career work force in the agency. So it is the single largest
component.
Now, that is the business model that I think it is
important to pay attention to.
From the empathy standpoint, I do identify with seasonal
employees who want career jobs. I started as a seasonal. The
chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, was a seasonal. We
both moved into the career ranks and achieved the positions we
have today. Many seasonals desire career positions. We want
seasonals to fill career jobs.
But it is also important to note that some seasonal
employees do not look for a career in the Forest Service. There
is a good percentage of employees that are attending school;
they work in the summertime. There are teachers who teach
during the school year and work in the summertime. And then
there are others who have other pursuits that is complementary
to a seasonal work force.
Now, back to the employees that do want a job, I do have a
personal empathy. My son is a 5-year seasonal. He is very
frustrated with the process of trying to become a career
employee. He told me just last week he is sick of filling out
job applications. So I can identify with that.
We have had some tough-love conversations about this very
issue, and what I tell him are the four things that I tell
anybody who asks me about getting a career job: You have to go
where the jobs are. You may have to do a job you don't want in
order to get your foot in the career employment category. You
should consider serving your country in the military and
getting veterans' preference or joining the Peace Corps and
coming back with a noncompetitive placement authority. Or
consider going back to school. If you can't do one or more of
these things, the reality is that you do limit yourself in
pursuing a career position.
So, in closing, Mr. Chairman, let me just acknowledge that
the union, particularly, and I have discussed the issue of a
pathway to permanence. Right now, we don't have the authority
to do that. Should the administration and Congress consider
those types of incentives for long-term seasonals, we are happy
to provide our input and take part in that dialog.
So that concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kashdan follows:]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Kashdan.
Ms. Bailey, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA BAILEY
Ms. Bailey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Office of Personnel Management regarding temporary employment
in the Federal Government.
Federal agencies use temporary appointments when they do
not need an employee's services permanently. These appointments
are used in a variety of circumstances, including when an
office is scheduled to be reorganized or abolished, to complete
a specific short-term project or to meet peak workload demand.
Some employees serving under temporary appointments are
employed seasonally--that is, they work during certain times of
the year on a reoccurring basis. The term ``seasonal'' refers
to the employees' work schedules and not their appointment
type. Some seasonal workers are temporary while others serve
under permanent appointments. I will elaborate on that in a
moment.
Temporary appointments are limited to 1 year or less. They
can be extended for a maximum of 1 additional year. Generally,
an agency may not fill a position by temporary appointment if
that position has been filled by temporary appointment for an
aggregate of 24 months with the preceding 3-year period.
OPM regulations require that the supervisor of each
position filled by temporary appointment must certify that the
need for the position is truly temporary and that the
appointment meets the regulatory time limits. The certification
must include the specific reason for using a temporary
appointment.
Let me review why these limitations were imposed. Until
1985, temporary appointments were much like they are today.
Appointments were limited to 1 year, with a maximum 1-year
extension. In 1985, OPM made several policy changes to give
agencies greater flexibility to meet mission and budgetary
challenges. From 1985 through 1994, temporary appointments
could be extended for up to 4 years in 1-year increments. There
was no limit on the number of times the position could be
filled using temporary appointments.
One of the consequences of this situation was that many
temporary employees developed an expectation of continuing
employment because agencies could appoint them to successive
temporary appointments, sometimes for decades.
One example of this was the tragic case of James Hudson, an
employee of the National Park Service, who died on the job.
Because he was a temporary employee, albeit with more than 8
years of service, his family was not eligible for certain
benefits they would have received had he been serving under a
permanent appointment at the time of his death.
OPM reexamined the use of temporary appointments and, in
1994, revised the rules governing them. We prescribed the
limitations I outlined in order to ensure that temporary
appointments will be used for truly short-term hiring needs and
to avoid the perception by employees that temporary employment
could last indefinitely.
Our regulations provide for limited exceptions from the
time limits. Agencies can ask OPM for exceptions on a case-by-
case basis only when required by major reorganizations, base
closings, or other unusual circumstances. OPM requires agencies
to submit a work-related justification for each request.
In addition, OPM regulations provide an exception to the
time limits for work that is expected to last less than 6
months each year. The reason for this exception is that some
agencies need to be able to bring back some employees on a
seasonal basis. In contrast to seasonal employees who work more
than 6 months in a year, and who therefore must be employed
under permanent appointments, those who work less than 6 months
a year may be given temporary appointments that may be renewed
multiple times. This exception allows agencies to limit the
number of permanent employees they hire while retaining the
flexibility to employ seasonal workers whose services are
needed for less than 6 months each year.
A concern that is often raised with respect to employees
serving under temporary appointments is that they are excluded
from coverage under the retirement programs for Federal
employees. Retirement coverage is generally not in the interest
of either these employees or the agencies they work for. This
is true because of the requirement that an individual must work
for at least 5 years in the covered employment in order to
become entitled to an annuity. Most temporary employees never
fulfill this 5-year requirement, so it does not make sense for
them to have contributions to the retirement system withheld
from their pay.
As is the case with the retirement coverage, the laws
governing the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Federal
Employees Group Life Insurance programs authorize OPM to
exclude certain categories of employees from coverage based on
the nature and type of their employment. Consequently,
employees serving under temporary appointments are generally
excluded from coverage under the health and life insurance
programs.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss with you how
temporary employment is used in the Federal Government and how
and why it affects employee benefits. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bailey follows:]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Ms. Bailey.
I want to welcome Mr. Bilbray to this hearing.
Let me start with you, Mr. Simpson. I understand from your
testimony that a substantial number of your employees serve on
a temporary basis. I do have to note the oxymoron, I guess, of
``career temporary employee.'' You know, you have folks who are
doing career-related jobs but on a temporary basis. You have a
general policy that was articulated by Ms. Bailey that says a
person can work for a year with 1 additional year and that's
it, except that we allow a waiver, and now it is perpetual,
apparently, for some of these employees.
But I am just wondering, the impact on the employees, the
morale of the employees, productivity, how they approach the
job, and the impact on their families and the workers, and the
peace of mind in terms of, you know, the management and the
work force there, given the fact that a lot of these people are
in limbo, they are continually reemployed as temporary workers
without any benefits.
How is that impacting the work force, and how is that
impacting the conduct of your responsibilities in the
workplace?
Mr. Simpson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty clear
that there are employees that are impacted by that. As Mr.
Kashdan mentioned, similar to the Forest Service, we have a
wide variety of circumstances represented in our seasonal work
force, and those issues are not true for all of our seasonals.
But for those that it is true, it certainly can't be denied, it
has an impact on morale.
Mr. Lynch. You mentioned earlier you are oversubscribed for
these temporary positions. So is it just too bad, if you don't
like it, we have somebody else who wants that job? Is that how
we look at it?
Mr. Simpson. I wouldn't say that we would look at it that
way, no. Every manager makes their own decisions about who they
hire. And there are a lot of individuals that are hired back
because they want to come back and their manager that they
worked for the previous season wants to have them back. That is
one of the reasons why we have far more applications than we
have available slots for the competitively advertised positions
that we fill.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Kashdan, in your closing remarks, you said
that if the administration were willing to, you know, look at
this rule again and change its policy, you would be happy to
participate. Well, this committee is doing just that.
You know, we have a lot of complaints from workers that,
you know, they have been in this limbo for a long time. They
get rehired. They look at other folks that are doing the same
jobs that they are doing, albeit they are full-time, full-year,
but these folks are doing it over and over and over again
multiple years.
And, at the end of the day, you have the situation that was
illustrated earlier about an employee who, you know, for all
intents and purposes, was continually reemployed but was denied
all these benefits because he fell in a different class.
How do you feel--I mean, you are saying that 44 percent of
your career positions are being occupied by temporary
employees. Is that just a result of the seasonal nature? Or are
we looking at a strategy employed by management to really try
to reduce their costs, and so if we can keep 44 percent of the
people with no benefits, you know, no health insurance, no
retirement, no annuity, then, you know, we can manage our
budget a lot better?
Mr. Kashdan. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify. I guess I didn't
state that fact very well. What I meant to state was that, of
our career work force, those who have career status, in other
words permanent employees, 44 percent of that career work force
came from the ranks----
Mr. Lynch. Ah, OK.
Mr. Kashdan [continuing]. Of employees who previously were
temporary seasonals.
Mr. Lynch. OK. So there is a path to----
Mr. Kashdan. Yes. And it is the largest single segment. I
do think it is critical to have a variety of employment
sources. Temporary seasonal employees are a very, very large
part of the current career profile. That is where they came
from. It is a very important source.
Mr. Lynch. And that is not withstanding the fact that, as
in your testimony, you said earlier, you have veterans groups
that you give priority to, you have folks coming in from the
Peace Corps, so they have other, I guess, noncompetitive
status, you know, right to appointments as well, and you are
still getting 44 percent from the temporary work force into
career status?
Mr. Kashdan. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. In fact, if you
appreciate that a certain segment of our career work force is
administrative in nature, say, 5,000 or 6,000 employees that
don't have seasonal counterparts, those positions that are
natural-resource-related, actually, their number is up in the
55 to 56 percent range.
Mr. Lynch. OK. I have exhausted my time. I am going to
yield for 5 minutes to Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you.
On the average, how many individuals do we have who apply
for permanent positions? Anybody know? In your department.
I would like to see a comparison between the permanent
applications and the temporary applications. Can you give me
some kind of reference? Do you have any idea of that?
Ms. Bailey. Well, each year, we fill approximately 350,000
positions. Of those, 150,000 are permanent. At any one given
time, we are averaging around 450 people per job announcement.
And I know that, on average, we have somewhere around 2 million
people apply for our jobs each year. That is across the board,
governmentwide.
Mr. Bilbray. I mean, this discussion, sort of, sparked my
interest. I spent 6 years as a seasonal worker. Of course, it
is scary to think that somebody, when I started off in 1970,
and he was an elderly person, almost 30 years old, was
lifeguarding, that they are still out--the same people that I
worked with in 1970, a lot of them are still seasonal workers
doing the same thing.
I guess the discussion is, one thing we don't think about,
many seasonal workers, this is not their only employment--a lot
of teachers, a lot of different types of seasonal professions--
and they mix and match.
Do you have any numbers at all of what portion of our
seasonal work force this is a second income?
Ms. Bailey. No, I do not.
Mr. Kashdan. I don't have any specific data.
From my experience in working in the work force, I would
estimate that about half or more of our seasonals would
ultimately desire a career job in the Forest Service. There
are, certainly, those who don't that I described in my
testimony. There is even the one or two I run into now and then
who look forward to working for 6 months and going to Mexico
for 2 months. And I start to wonder where I went wrong in that.
But, for the most part, there is a sizable number that
ultimately want to achieve a career appointment in the Forest
Service.
Mr. Bilbray. Every time I go down to Latin America, I agree
with them, OK?
Yeah, I think there is legitimate concern here, the fact
that this is not just a situation where people are living off
of a few months of work. I just know that there are real estate
agents who do this type of thing, there are people who are
teaching. There is a whole lot of different professions that
find that ability. People who are in property management can
get into this. So I just think that a lot of this discussion is
somehow focused on a perception that may not be reality.
But the other issue is, with this 44 percent, you know, I
am just wondering how much of the complaints are people who
think that, if they get seasonal and work for a few years, that
puts them in the pecking order to basically be moved up--which
should be true if they are employees who we want to
participate. But seeing that we have--how many applications do
we have for temporary service in your department? What was the
number that you gave out?
Ms. Bailey. Well, I was just saying that, of the 350,000
that we fill each year, 200,000 of those are temporary or
seasonal.
Mr. Bilbray. But you don't know how many applications you
have for those----
Ms. Bailey. No. On average, though, today, we get around
450 applications for every job that we announce.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. So, in other words, the market out there
is very large. It is an employer's market, when it comes to
working for the government, even if it is seasonal, right?
Ms. Bailey. Correct.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. So there is enough people on the outside
of the system who really think this is a really good deal, even
though there may be those in the system, once they are in,
feeling that it is not a very good deal.Is that fair to say?
What is the turnover with our seasonal?
Mr. Kashdan. Overall, in the Forest Service, in the career
ranks, we are looking at around a 5 or 6 percent attrition
rate.
Mr. Bilbray. That is extraordinary.
Mr. Kashdan. It is fairly small.
In the seasonal ranks, it is very hard to put your finger
on because you are bringing in the factor of those who are not
looking at it as continuous, long-term, season-after-season
approach. So I don't really have any data on----
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Just for the record, I find it
extraordinary that we would want to limit seasonal workers, for
some reason, to how many years. I'm sorry, I still think the
old guys that are there, that have been there for 30 years, are
probably still the best lifeguards on that beach. And, frankly,
just because they keep coming back indicates that they do enjoy
it, and that we keep hiring means they are doing a good job.
And I worry about this attitude that basically says that,
you know, we don't expect seasonals to be around long. I think
we wouldn't do that with our full-time employees; I hope we
never do that with our seasonals.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.
The chair now recognizes--we have been called for votes, so
Members will be leaving and coming back in. And I am going to
ask Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton to chair in my absence.
But I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chairman.
Let me ask Ms. Bailey, is it your testimony today that
abuses have, in fact, occurred using temporary hires?
Ms. Bailey. No, it is not my testimony today that----
Mr. Connolly. So, then, no abuses have occurred?
Ms. Bailey. No, we do not believe that abuses have occurred
using this temporary appointment authority. Given our oversight
and accountability role in this and working with the agencies,
we do not believe that there have been abuses.
Mr. Connolly. No abuses?
Ms. Bailey. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. OK.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. We do the census
every 10 years. I would ask it of the panel. Now, clearly,
hiring temporary census workers for a period of a few months to
undertake the initial data collection and/or to followup on
that data collection because it was inadequate or incomplete
somehow goes on every 10 years. And that, I think we would all
agree, is clearly a temporary position.
Would you consider it temporary, however, if we did a
census every year and we hired that person for 6 months every
year? Is that a temporary hire, as far as you are concerned,
perfectly legitimate and could go on until that person retires?
Is that a correct use in the Federal workplace of this
category, temporary hire?
Mr. Kashdan.
Mr. Kashdan. I'm sorry, Mr. Connolly, I thought that was a
question for Ms. Bailey there.
Mr. Connolly. I'm sorry, I was just opening it up to any of
you.
Mr. Kashdan. OK. We use an appointment, we call it a 1039.
I think the correct term is a--less than 1,040 hours. It is a
type of temporary authority we use that is specifically used
for work that is seasonal and temporary in nature.
Sometimes I think we overlay the issue of benefits with
that. We do not use this authority for the purpose of denying
benefits. If benefits were part of that, we would still use the
authority.
We use this authority because it is particularly the one
that is geared for work that is temporary and seasonal in
nature. And we have quite a few of our seasonal employees that
do work almost that--right up to that 1,040 hours.
Mr. Connolly. But----
Mr. Kashdan. And that's not to say it is not something that
many of them are frustrated with.
Mr. Connolly. I am just asking a different question,
though. I'm glad you told us about the practice, but at what
point do we have to agree we are sort of doing an end run on
the system in calling somebody ``temporary?''
And what is the time limit for somebody to be in that
status? I thought Federal regulations--you went through, Mr.
Bailey, in your testimony, you know, changes in the law going
back to the 1980's. But is the current practice or the current
law, as you understand it, literally ad infinitum? There is no
limit?
Ms. Bailey. Actually, if I could address your initial
question with regard to the census takers and, if we hire them
back each year, is that really, truly temporary. In that
particular case, what the current law and what our regulations
allow for is, an agency could make a decision to hire them
either as temporary employees or as permanent employees, and
either one could carry what we would call a seasonal work
schedule.
So, in other words, if something is reoccurring every year,
we would probably suggest to an agency that, rather than use
temporary employment, that you would make those permanent
seasonal employees or permanent because it is reoccurring.
Mr. Connolly. Does the Forest Service do that?
Mr. Kashdan. In certain areas. Actually, particularly
California is an example where we have career seasonals for
exactly the reason that we are talking about here. The fire
season could go very long, could go 6 months, it could go
longer than that. And, also, for other reasons of trying to
have a work force that we have been able to retain over a
longer period of time, provide retention incentives. So there
are areas where we do have career seasonals.
Now, along those northern-tier States where the work is
primarily field, you will find less of a profile that are
career seasonal and more temporary seasonals. So it really
varies with the work and the fluctuation in the work. You know,
in the forest products area, that work may fluctuate from year
to year and we don't know how many seasonals we will need. In
fire, it is fairly predictable.
Mr. Connolly. My time is almost up, but, Mr. Simpson, I
want to give you a chance to respond.
Mr. Simpson. I would echo what Mr. Kashdan said. We also
have a mixture of seasonals who are on career appointments as
well as seasonals who are temporaries, for the same reasons.
Mr. Connolly. My time is up, Madam Chairman, and I thank
you.
I just want to say, I am stunned by Ms. Bailey's testimony
that they have never found, are not aware of any abuse of the
use of temporary hires. That is an extraordinary statement for
a work force as large as the Federal Government. Even a work
force as normally perfect as ours, there has to be abuse now
and then. And I think that is a challenge, frankly, for this
committee.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bailey, would you like to revise your statement in any
way? I mean, you have just--my colleague says that you have
just come up with a perfect system.
Ms. Bailey. Well, yes. Thank you, ma'am.
I think it is safe to say that we do have--through our
oversight role, if we do find a situation where there is an
abuse that is occurring, we will absolutely go in and work with
that agency in an informal manner. We can do all kinds of
things, from training the hiring managers to training the HR
specialists----
Ms. Norton. Do you keep records of where you have found
abuses?
Ms. Bailey. Actually, yes. As part of our oversight and
accountability, we keep records of all agencies where we have
found a finding of a violation. And then we make a record of
that for both the agency and for OPM.
Ms. Norton. Well, Ms. Bailey, it would be very helpful if
you would submit to the subcommittee within the last, let's
say, 2 years to give us some sense of what kinds of----
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Norton. Yes, Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Would you yield just for one point?
Ms. Norton. Indeed.
Mr. Connolly. I thought Ms. Bailey's testimony, in answer
directly to my question was, we have found no such examples,
none. And now I am hearing Ms. Bailey say, well, actually, when
we find them, we do take corrective action.
And if you wanted to correct your statement, please feel
free to do so. But I am leaving here with your answer under
oath to my question that you have found no examples of the
abuse of the use of temporary positions in the Federal work
force.
Ms. Bailey. And that, sir, I do not want to change. That is
correct. We have not found one instance of an abuse under this
authority.
Ms. Norton. Apparently, GAO data showed that 11 percent of
the temporary employees had worked more than 5 years. Would you
consider that an abuse?
Ms. Bailey. Well, it really depends on exactly under what
conditions these folks are working.
Ms. Norton. Well, they got a waiver. They keep getting a
waiver. Wouldn't automatic waivers constitute an abuse?
Ms. Bailey. I am not aware of any instance where an agency
has abused the automatic waiver situation. They have applied it
appropriately. Wherever we have actually used our oversight
authority, they have applied it appropriately in accordance
with the OPM regulations.
Ms. Norton. Well, then you are back to Mr. Connolly's
point, that if they have applied it appropriately, you wouldn't
have to go in and retrain and otherwise correct the abuse. That
is the problem we have with your testimony.
Ms. Bailey. OK----
Ms. Norton. But I think it will be clarified if you just do
what I asked you to do. For the last 2 years, would you submit
for the record--I understand we may have a definitional
problem, you may regard what an employee has--what a manager
has done as a mistake. Whatever it is, we are not trying to
play any ``gotcha'' here. We are just trying to see how the
system works.
So if you would provide for the chairman within 30 days a
record of those instances where you, OPM, have gone in to
assist managers or employees with respect to temporary hires,
that would assist our record.
Now, as I see it, this hearing is really about two things.
One is benefits, and the other is the merit system.
We see temporary employees as valuable, in fact, in some
places, as indispensable, as in the National Park Service, for
example, or Forest Service.
I would be interested to know, though, Ms. Bailey, because
we here have before us managers from more typical temporary
service agencies, I would like to know what percentage of
temporary employees are outside of the seasonal area that we
have just heard about and where we see the critical need in
order to function.
Ms. Bailey. I am not sure of the exact percentage, but----
Ms. Norton. We understand that they are in virtually every
category, that agencies far from just the National Park Service
or the Forest Service, the IRS and you name it, all feel free
to use temporary employees.
It would benefit our record to know what percentage come
outside of these seasonal employees and yet are temporary
employees that are used across the government.
Within 30 days, would you submit that information to the
record?
Mr. Kashdan, I was interested in your testimony. Seems
reasonable that there were a fair number of people, even
yourself, who came into the government first as seasonal
employees and then became full employees.
Now, our concern, of course, is, how does this key with the
merit system? Could you tell us, in your case, how you were
able to become a merit system employee while beginning as a
temporary seasonal employee? How were you able to compete?
Mr. Kashdan. Sure, Ms. Norton. Let me just clarify that,
even in the 6-month seasonal, there is an initial period where
there is a competition, and you do have to go through a process
where you consider such things as veterans' preference, that
kind of thing. But your probability of getting into the
seasonal work force is much more enhanced. And then, after
that, you can be recurringly appointed if you are not exceeding
the 1,040 hours.
In my particular case, I applied--I don't even know if they
have these anymore, but back in my time I applied for what we
called OPM rosters, and I was on a recurring list for civil
engineering technicians. And, at the point that the forest that
I had, in fact, moved to in order to enhance my chances of
getting a career job, they decided to fill the career job, went
to the roster, and I was available. So I was able to be picked
up off that roster.
So the merit process was going through the OPM roster,
being ranked, and being entered on the roster. And that is how
I got in. It is the same way that our chief, Tom Tidwell, got
in too.
Ms. Norton. So you were competing with people who had no
experience.
Mr. Kashdan. I was competing----
Ms. Norton. I shouldn't say who had no experience. Who
knows? Some of them may have had certain kinds experience
outside of the government. But you were competing with people
who would have not had experience in the agency you wished to
work for.
Mr. Kashdan. Yes. Ms. Norton, I was competing--at that
point in time, I believe I was a GS-5, and, in fact, I was on a
GS-4 roster. So I had some years, it didn't matter where those
years were, they were experience that credited me and qualified
me for----
Ms. Norton. So that's what I want to get at. When you are
competing on the merit side--and perhaps this is a question
relevant for Ms. Bailey, as well--to what extent does
experience received on the seasonal or temporary side count or
help an employee to obtain permanent employment through the
merit system?
Ms. Bailey. Experience is something that counts regardless
of how it's acquired. So if it's acquired under a seasonal
appointment or a temporary appointment or if it's acquired
outside the Federal Government--so let's take a Federal
firefighter that happens to be working on a seasonal basis. Not
only would that experience count, if then, in the wintertime,
they're also a firefighter with the city of New York, that
experience, combined experience, would count and then give them
creditable experience toward whatever position that they are
applying for.
So we don't make distinctions based on an appointment type
or a work schedule. Experience is experience, no matter how
it's gained.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask you, Ms. Bailey, at the time of the
death of James Hudson--and the whole city was moved by this
hardworking man who just kept working, because he obviously
needed to work, with a family--so far as I can tell, all that
happened was there was a cap put on the number of years a
temporary employee could work consecutively. Is that right?
Ms. Bailey. Yes. As part of our review of that particular
case and then in consultation with the agencies in discussing
how best to balance both the mission accomplishment with what
is in the best interest of the employees, that is correct, that
we did put in--our temporary employment regulations allow for 1
year of employment and then a 1-year extension.
And the whole intent of this was to----
Ms. Norton. Although I've just quoted you numbers that show
a healthy number who work 5 years. When they work 5 years, is
that because there is a shortage? Or is it because these
employees are regarded as--the workplace usually regards
employees, they're looking for experienced people, and so they
keep picking these people up?
Ms. Bailey. It may depend, ma'am, on which kind of
appointment that they're actually using. Some of the agencies
are able to, given the other exception that is in our temporary
employment rules, is that if they are working 6 months or less,
which is the 1,040 or less, if they're working that, then we do
allow for indefinite 1-year extensions at a time. And that's
how someone could work up to 5 years.
Ms. Norton. Uh-huh, I see. So you think they may be in that
category?
Ms. Bailey. Yes. I mean, given the situation that you
described, I do.
Ms. Norton. I think James Hudson's death raised rather
definitively the notion of benefits, however, so much so that
Congress, in fact, gave Mr. Hudson's wife and children
benefits, $34,000--retirement benefits, in effect.
Ms. Bailey. Uh-huh.
Ms. Norton. That's one man. There have never been
retirement benefits given for any other person, has there?
Ms. Bailey. Not that I'm aware of.
Ms. Norton. That was a remedy for a man who dropped dead on
the job.
Now, let me ask you, in light of the health care
legislation that just passed, has OPM looked at health care for
temporary workers? Or are they to be considered outside of the
penumbra of a bill that claimed to cover 95 percent of the
American people?
Ms. Bailey. We have actually discussed this. When President
Obama's administration first came in, we had the Recovery Act.
And, at that point in time, we had issued a Schedule A
authority for agencies to use to hire temporary workers to come
in and to assist with the Recovery Act. And, at that time, the
question did come up with regard to health benefits.
And so we took a very good, close look at both our
regulations and the law. And the way the law is currently
written, it is written in such a way that it excludes temporary
employees from receiving health benefits.
Ms. Norton. Private and public sector, you're saying?
Ms. Bailey. Oh, I'm only speaking to Federal sector. I
cannot speak to private sector.
Ms. Norton. In testimony before us, one or all of you have
indicated that, after a while, perhaps a year, you can get
health insurance if you, the worker, are willing to pay for it.
You can get in the FEHBP, Federal Employees Health Benefits
Plan, if you are willing to pay for it. Is that right?
Ms. Bailey. Yes. After 1 year, even temporary employees are
eligible to apply for health benefits as long as they pay the
100 percent contribution of that. So, in other words----
Ms. Norton. Why would there not be a shared benefit for
these employees? Why would the Federal Government employ people
and pick up--well, first, let me ask you, what percentage of
people in these temporary jobs, which are not your highest-paid
job in the Federal Government, in fact take on coverage, 100
percent of the health care cost? How many? What percentage do
that?
Ms. Bailey. I don't have the answer to that.
Ms. Norton. I would think you would want to know after Mr.
Hudson's death. It may be a quite empty promise.
What is the policy reason behind the notion of ``coverage
if you want it, but don't ask us to contribute anything to
it?'' What's the justification for that?
Ms. Bailey. In this particular instance, we are not
unsympathetic to this issue. And we would be more than willing
to work with the subcommittee with regard to health benefits
for these Federal employees.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate that, Ms. Bailey.
We understand the difficulty raised here. Episodic
employees will always present issues when it comes to benefits
of various kinds. One can even understand the retirement
notions and how difficult that would be, but then there is
Social Security.
I understand that seasonals, however, don't receive any
access to the Federal Employment Health Benefit Plan. Is that
right?
Ms. Bailey. If they're a permanent seasonal employee----
Ms. Norton. What is that?
Ms. Bailey. Permanent seasonal would be a permanent
employee who works seasonal, meaning more than 6 months or
more.
Ms. Norton. I see. But there are over 1,000 less-than-6-
month seasonal employees, the number we have.
Mr. Kashdan, Mr. Simpson, those less-than-6-month employees
have no access to health care?
Mr. Kashdan. Let me clarify. Again, there are career
seasonals, and there are temporary seasonals. Career seasonals
do get health benefits. If they have career status in the
Federal work force, they do get health benefits, life
insurance. Those under temporary employment, non-career status,
as Ms. Bailey mentioned, if they are in an appointment where
they work less than a year, they don't get health benefits.
So the large amount of our temporary seasonal work force
is, in fact, a 6-month-or-less-type category, the 1,040 hours,
and they do not qualify for benefits under the regulations.
Ms. Norton. Now, I recognize--I think it was you, Mr.
Kashdan, who said that you could have teachers who are
seasonally out of work for themselves and so they pick up
seasonal work; they may, in fact, have health care.
We do need to understand, in light of the health care bill,
how many people we're talking about that simply don't have
health care that were carried on the rolls of the Federal
Government. This would be a terrible embarrassment, it would
seem to be, to have another James Hudson-type incident--I don't
mean death, I mean someone becomes seriously ill on the job and
happens to be a Federal employee, a seasonal employee, and has
no access to health care, despite the fact that we've touted
the health care bill as covering almost everybody.
We have to understand that this is a very different work
force. The work force of pensioners who work full-time--I'm
sure that may have been the case for the Federal Government at
some point, or something close to it--that's a work force of
the past. And I'm not sure, Ms. Bailey, that OPM has looked at
this new work force in light of benefits and in light of
status.
It's going to be important for us to know how many of these
seasonals, these less-than-6-month seasonals, have health care.
Now, we know they don't have health care from the Federal
Government, but they may have health care. So we need to have
an accurate picture. I don't even know if we have a problem. We
may. And if we do, it does seem to me that the first work force
that would have to take account of it would be the Federal work
force. We probably have this problem throughout the United
States.
We have sought, in the health care bill, to correct this
problem for seasonal workers in some parts of the country, I
might add. But then if we're sitting on such an issue
ourselves, it would be an embarrassment and worse for the
Federal Government.
I would like to dismiss this panel. Thank you for very
helpful testimony on an issue that we are confronting anew, and
you have enriched our record. Thank you very much.
Thank you, panel two. We want to proceed until the other
Members get back.
The panelists are William Dougan, national president of the
National Federation of Federal Employees, a role which he
assumed in 2009. Mr. Dougan began his Federal career in 1976
with the National Park Service as a firefighter and tree
planter. He is a 30-year member of the National Federation of
Federal Employees and has served in a variety of positions at
local council and national levels.
Colleen Kelley is the president of the National Treasury
Employees Union, which is the Nation's largest independent
Federal-sector union and represents employees in 31 different
government agencies. Ms. Kelley was first elected to the
union's top post in August 2009.
Phillip Glover has served as the national legislative
coordinator for the Council of Prison Locals of the American
Federation of Government Employees since 2005. Mr. Glover is
also a senior office specialist for the Bureau of Prisons in
Laredo, Pennsylvania, where he has served for 20 years. Prior
to his time at the Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Glover served in the
U.S. Army.
Patricia Barts worked for the Internal Revenue Service for
over 30 years, where she served as a lead examiner in the IRS's
Correspondence Examination Group. Since retiring from the IRS,
Ms. Barts now serves as a vocal member of the National Active
and Retired Federal Employees Association.
Welcome, panel two. We will begin with Mr. Dougan.
Oh, I would like to swear in the panel.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. Norton. Let the record show that all the witnesses have
replied in the affirmative.
Now Mr. Dougan.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM R. DOUGAN, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; COLLEEN M. KELLEY, NATIONAL
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION; PHILIP W. GLOVER,
LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR, COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; PATRICIA BARTS,
MEMBER, CHERRY HILL, NEW JERSEY CHAPTER, NATIONAL ACTIVE AND
RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. DOUGAN
Mr. Dougan. Ms. Norton, on behalf of the National
Federation of Federal Employees [NFFE], and the 110,000 Federal
employees that we represent, I thank the subcommittee for
holding this hearing.
This critical issue has gone unaddressed since 1994 when
James Hudson, a veteran and U.S. Park Service employee, died at
the Lincoln Memorial, leaving his widow and seven children
destitute. He had no life insurance because of his temporary
status. After legislation was introduced to remedy this,
Hudson's widow commented, ``Something good has come out of the
death of my husband. This legislation means no one else will
have to go through what this family went through.'' The bill
subsequently died in committee.
Since then, we have seen MSPB's 1994 prediction come true,
that continued use of long-term temporary employment has
created a permanent underclass in the Federal work force. How
long does temporary last in the Federal Government? For some
employees of the U.S. Forest Service, temporary has lasted more
than 30 years.
We all would like to think that the Federal Government is a
model employer, as well it should be, but thousands of
employees hired into temporary positions receive no health
insurance benefits, no life insurance benefits, no retirement
benefits, no step increases, and no competitive standing for
internal placement into career jobs.
Federal land management agencies, in particular, overuse
temporary employment. Even though land management work occurs
every year, a loophole in the regulations allows agencies to
use an unlimited number of successive temporary appointments.
Some agencies are using this loophole to the maximum extent.
Roughly 35 to 40 percent of the work forces of the Forest
Service and National Park Service are hired as temps each
season.
I brought with me today Joe Katz of Dover, ID, who is
sitting here. Joe has worked as a temporary employee of the
Forest Service almost every year since 1975; however, he
remains a temporary worker to this day. He has been hired and
terminated each year under a string of temporary appointments.
Joe is a Marine who served his country honorably in Vietnam. He
has held his current position in Trails and Recreation for 21
of the past 22 seasons, yet he still has no career position.
I've also brought Lisa McKinney from California, who is
sitting there. She began working for the Forest Service as a
firefighter in 1978 and has worked for the agency almost every
season since then. She has performed the same regular and
recurring work as a certified timber cruiser since 1995, yet
she, too, has never received a career position.
Joe and Lisa exemplify the boots on the ground that
actually get the agency's work done. Temporary employees like
Joe and Lisa make invaluable contributions to the mission of
the Forest Service. Many work for years, even decades, and
never get a career seasonal appointment. Thousands of long-term
temps work for five or more seasons. This is simply outrageous.
Long-term temps are only part of the story. Most temps move
on to other employment within a few years, taking their
experience and training with them. Because they are
misclassified as temps, this huge retention problem goes
unnoticed and unaddressed.
With high turnover, safety suffers. Recently, a long-term
temporary employee who serves on a fire crew told me that eight
of the members on her 11-person crew were rookies. I can tell
you from my personal experience as a firefighter, that is a
recipe for disaster.
This is a tough problem. There is no way under current laws
and regulations to redesignate jobs held for decades by long-
term temps as the permanent seasonal career jobs they really
are. A career job with exactly the same duties as the long-term
temporary job is considered a new job. And as MSPB noted in
1994, legal and procedural barriers prevent the consideration
of many temporary employees for career positions regardless of
how well they have performed.
To avoid a purge, a pathway to permanence for long-term
temps must be the first step in reform. It would be unjust and
unwise to discard these dedicated public servants and their
knowledge and experience after their many years of service. If
I only get one point across at this hearing, I hope it will be
this: to make clear to this subcommittee and Federal agencies
that a pathway to permanence must be put in place before reform
can begin.
In closing, we would propose enactment of legislation to:
grant competitive standing to long-term temporary employees so
they can compete for any career job just like other Federal
employees may do; afford priority consideration to any long-
term temporary employee whose job is converted to career
status; and give long-term temporary employees creditable
service time for their temporary service for certain purposes.
This proposal has no price tag, it has no mandate. It is
consistent with the 1994 recommendation of OPM and the National
Partnership Council. It would simply provide agencies with the
tools to allow reform to begin. With this done, NFFE will
commit to working with the agencies, OPM, MSPB, and Congress on
the appropriate use of available employment authorities.
This concludes my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dougan follows:]
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Dougan.
Ms. Kelley.
STATEMENT OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY
Ms. Kelley. Thank you very much, Chairman Norton.
On behalf of the 160,000 Federal employees represented by
NTEU, I want to thank you for this hearing today to talk about
the important issue, the use of temporary employees by the
government.
As you've heard, there are too many stories out there, very
real stories that are happening today. And while temporary
employment status we all recognize can be useful to an agency
when it is properly applied, it is also a status that lends
itself to abuse, and it can be an unfair working condition for
an employee.
Temporary employees do not participate in FERS or in the
right to family and medical leave or in leave for military
service. And these policies might be defensible for a true
temporary employee of 1 year or less, but it becomes a severe
denial of rights when the status is abused.
Regulations are very clear that agencies are prohibited
from using temporary status to avoid the costs of employee
benefits, to extend the probationary period, or to avoid
competitive hiring. However, we are concerned that these
regulations are too often ignored.
Today, I would like to highlight a particularly unfair
situation that confronts current and former employees of the
FDIC who performed temporary service early in their careers.
But this issue I'm going to describe would impact every
temporary employee who is currently under that status today.
The FDIC hired thousands of temporary employees during the
1980's, and they were known as LG employees, or liquidation
grade employees. Their duties included managing and liquidating
the assets of failed banks and savings and loans. However, they
were excluded from any credit for retirement under FERS. They
continued to serve in 1-year appointments, with thousands of
them serving longer than 5 years, and many renewed for over 15
years in those appointments. These employees were clearly
temporary only in name.
The FDIC hired them under special authority it had acquired
in 1938 and had never surrendered that authority. However, that
authority had only been used to hire temporary bank-specific
teams of liquidation personnel. In the early 1980's, the FDIC
adopted a new policy of establishing regional offices dealing
with multiple bank liquidations. It is this action that NTEU
considered an abuse, as such work had historically been viewed
as permanent.
In 1993, OPM moved to take away this authority from the
FDIC. Over the objections of employees and NTEU, OPM agreed to
a compromise with the FDIC that allowed them to phase it out in
their misuse of this temporary classification and phase it out
over 2\1/2\ years, from January 1994 to June 1996, continuing
the denial of retirement credit during that time.
With the passage of the FERS Act in 1986, Federal employees
without retirement credit because they had years as temporary
employees were able to buy back credit for the years prior to
1989 by paying for the retirement deductions that were not
taken. But former LG employees were not allowed to buy back
their credit for temporary service after 1989. The result is
that valuable service time from January 1, 1989, until the date
they actually became eligible to participate in FERS and have
made deductions was essentially lost or forfeited.
Now, we understand that the intent of Congress in the 1986
FERS legislation was to encourage agencies to cease overusing
temporary employees and abusing the classification. Congress
allowed a 2-year window as agencies transitioned. But it was
not expected that the FDIC, a government corporation with
considerable administrative autonomy, would continue to abuse
the temporary service early in their careers.
The NTEU had long argued that Congress needed to act to
correct this grave injustice that was suffered by LG employees.
NTEU, along with many Members of Congress and FDIC management,
have voiced support for legislation to allow LG employees to
buy back their missed retirement credit.
We would ask that Congress move to allow former FDIC LG
employees to get credit for years of service they performed
between 1989 and when they were given permanent status, so long
as they are willing to make a payment for these years of credit
equal to the retirement deductions they would have contributed
if they had been allowed.
We propose this credit would only be available to those who
were victims of the unfair FDIC policy. We are not asking that
it be extended to those who never accepted or acquired
permanent Federal positions.
We believe that allowing these misclassified LG employees
the opportunity to buy back their lost retirement credit would
be an equitable and just resolution to the unfairness that they
faced by being misclassified for so many years as temporary
workers.
In a few days, we expect the President will be signing the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And
I would like to thank you, Chairman Lynch, for your efforts on
that bill, especially in crafting the aspects dealing with
Federal personnel policies.
This groundbreaking consumer protection legislation is
witness to the importance of the work of the frontline
employees at the FDIC and other financial regulatory agencies.
I don't think it is too much to ask that those men and women
who are working so hard as bank examiners, liquidation
specialists, and credit union consumer compliance specialists
be given retirement credit for all of their years of service in
the Federal Government.
Thank you again for this hearing, and I would welcome any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley follows:]
Mr. Lynch [presiding]. Thank you, President Kelley.
Mr. Glover, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP W. GLOVER
Mr. Glover. Chairman Lynch, Congresswoman Norton, members
of the subcommittee, my name is Phil Glover. I am the national
legislative coordinator for the Council of Prison Locals,
American Federation of Government Employees. We represent
28,000 correctional workers nationwide serving in 114 Federal
prisons.
I have served as a representative of the union since 1991
and have been involved in many representational and legislative
issues throughout my service. This issue was brought to us by
members at our local who, as they started to look at
retirement, this service credit issue arose.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today at
the hearing on existing temporary employee authorities and
their adverse impact on temporary employee status and benefits.
Our problem at Bureau of Prisons is the fact that many
Federal correctional workers who are participants in the
Federal Employees Retirement System are unable to make a
service credit deposit into FERS for temporary civilian service
performed after January 1, 1989.
Federal correctional workers, as well as other Federal law
enforcement officers, are covered by special retirement rules.
Under 5 C.F.R. Section 842.208, an employee working in law
enforcement can retire after 25 years of service at any age and
at 50 years of age after 20 years of Federal service.
We have mandatory retirement at age 57. It has been
determined that working with violent offenders requires a
youthful and vigorous work force. This has been in effect for
correctional officers and Federal correctional workers since
1956. The mandatory retirement age was changed in 1990 from 55
to 57 years of age.
Our members perform dangerous work inside Federal BOP
correctional institutions. We supervise murderers, gang
members, terrorists, and other dangerous inmates. Since the
brutal stabbing murder of a correctional officer in June 2008
by two prison inmates at USP Atwater, we have had at least 380
vicious inmate-on-worker assaults in the BOP system.
After 20 to 25 years working in these facilities under such
stressful conditions, most people are ready to leave. Once our
employees attain the retirement age, it is normal, depending on
their individual circumstances, to retire. This is where the
problem arises regarding service credit for temporary civilian
service. 5 C.F.R. Sections 304 and 305 do not allow a deposit
for temporary civilian service after January 1, 1989.
Many bargaining unit employees in the BOP have been hired
using temporary employment rules. This is done for many
reasons, such as to get a specialist onboard quickly or to hire
large groups of correctional officers to startup an existing
prison, a new facility.
Between 1989 and 1991, the BOP went on a large hiring spree
due to identified understaffing problems in the systems. As
many as 6,000 employees were hired, and many of them were hired
as temporary employees. Records from the Department of Justice
indicate that, between 1989 and 1993, there were 3,569
employees initially hired by the Bureau of Prisons as temporary
employees and then, after short periods of time, were
transitioned into permanent employee status.
Similarly, DOJ and the National Finance Center records show
that, between 1989 and 2010, there were over 6,200 employees
initially hired by BOP as temporary employees and then again,
after short periods of time, were transitioned into permanent
employee status.
Many of those BOP employees are now approaching retirement
age. Many of them didn't realize they were hired in a temporary
employment status. We had a situation recently where one
employee was hired before the January 1, 1989, date and, thus,
could make a deposit for service credit, while another employee
hired 1 month later was informed he could not. This is clearly
unfair.
Another situation that confuses the issue is the employee
service date for seniority purposes is the date they began
receiving paychecks in BOP. However, their requirement date
could be a year to 3 years later, depending on the date they
gained permanent employment status. It is also unclear why this
regulation was changed in the first place.
In the change from the Civil Service Retirement System to
FERS, which passed in 1986, the ability to make a deposit for
service credit was maintained. It wasn't until 1989 that
credible service was denied to employees who were willing to
make the deposit.
We have identified employees who have as much as 3 years'
temporary employment time in the Bureau of Prisons. These
employees have worked alongside full-time employees who can
retire at the appropriate age and time-in-service requirements.
The employee with temporary service time is used in the same
manner as those with full-time service. They respond to
emergencies, they handle difficult inmates, and may have been
on the Voluntary Disturbance Control Team or other emergency
operations. They must pass a full 15-year background check,
pass basic correctional training in Glynco, GA, and handle a
firearm. Temporary employees in the BOP also have arrest
authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3050.
If Congress would change the provision back to the 1988
language, we believe it should include all current employees.
In closing, all law enforcement officers, including BOP
correctional workers, should be able to make the service credit
deposit into FERS for temporary civilian service performed
after January 1, 1989.
And I will be happy to answer any questions I can. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glover follows:]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Glover.
Ms. Barts, you are now recognized for an opening statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA BARTS
Ms. Barts. Chairman Lynch and members of the subcommittee,
my name is Patricia Barts. I am from Atco, NJ. And I appreciate
the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Active and
Retired Federal Employees Association about my experiences as a
seasonal-status Federal worker.
I was employed with the Internal Revenue Service at the
Philadelphia Service Center from January 1970, retiring on July
31st, 2001. From 1970 until 1986, I was a seasonal employee. In
November 1969, I took the Civil Service test for Federal
employment. Shortly after, I was called to take an 80-hour
unpaid training course as a data transcriber.
In early January 1970, I was hired to work transcribing tax
returns as a seasonal worker. I worked from January to June
that first year. When I was called back the next filing season,
I worked a similar period and additional months to work on the
quarterly returns. Eventually, I was working 10 months each
year.
One of those years, during my 14 seasonal years as a data
transcriber, I worked every day except one, being furloughed on
a Thursday and brought back on a Monday. This was done to break
my time. If I had worked the extra day, I would have been made
a permanent employee and entitled to all the rights and
benefits that are accrued to that status.
During my time in data transcription, I was promoted to a
lead data transcriber. My duties included instructing other
employees and filling in for the supervisor. I enjoyed my work
and only left the department because I could not become a
permanent employee and advance to a higher grade.
In 1984, I was accepted as a seasonal tax examiner in the
Correspondence Audit Department. I took this position because
it offered a higher grade and a chance to become a permanent
employee. After about a year and a half, I became a permanent
worker.
During my career in the Examination Department, I was
selected to be a lead tax examiner and instructor. My duties in
this department included handling problem cases and telephone
calls for other tax examiners, acting as a supervisor when the
supervisor was not in the office, and holding yearly update
classes in tax law changes each October.
When the Federal Employees Retirement System was introduced
to the Federal employees in January 1987, the employees like me
who were in the older Civil Service Retirement System were
counseled to remain in CSRS. This turned out to be bad advice.
At this time, the seasonal employees in FERS were credited with
a full year's service time if they worked at least 4 months out
of the year.
The CSRS employees contacted our bargaining unit, the
National Treasury Employees Union, about receiving the same
credit for their years of service before FERS was implemented.
This request was denied by IRS management at the service
center. Their decision not only affected our years of service,
it also affected our time and grade for step raises in the
General Schedule pay series.
The FERS employees were receiving a full year's service
credit to their time and grade and years of service for
retirement. It is my feeling that we should have been credited
with our service the same as the FERS employees. If this had
been the policy, I would have 31 years and 7 months of service
instead of 26 years and 7 months. This policy greatly affected
my retirement annuity and that of the other fellow CSRS
workers.
I enjoyed working for the agency and always felt respected
by my supervisors. Still, as a matter of equity, I believe I
have been unfairly denied benefits which I should have been
able to access.
I understand the subcommittee is interested in reviewing a
proposal that would allow temporary employees who have extended
years of service to qualify for permanent job status, as well
as a plan to allow such workers to credit their temporary
status toward retirement. NARFE welcomes this discussion, and
we would like to participate in the development of these
reasonable proposals.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for focusing attention on temporary
and seasonal hiring authorities and on how such service affects
our status and benefit offerings. I appreciate your allowing me
to testify today on behalf of myself and other active and
retired employees who work part of their public service careers
as seasonal or temporary workers.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barts follows:]
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much.
I now yield myself 5 minutes.
Thank you each for your willingness to come before the
committee and testify and to help us with our work.
There are several different points at which temporary
employees are treated far less favorably in the Federal system,
especially recognizing that, in many instances, they are
continuously temporarily employed, year after year. And it
seems that the underlying basis of treating them differently is
undermined by this continual employment.
One of the things that I think is fundamentally unfair here
is that, in our scheme of preference, we've established a
preference for veterans that I think is noble and right, we've
established a preference in some jobs for prior service. The
Peace Corps I think we talked about earlier with the folks from
the National Forest Service.
But, unless I'm missing something, there is no preference
for a person who has done that job as a temporary worker in
becoming a career employee. In other words, what I'm saying is
that they are treated basically the same as a person who comes
off the street. So they're not getting any advantage. They're
coming into the process as if they had never worked in their
current job.
And I think that is wrong, and I think there has to be some
way to acknowledge the albeit temporary service for that
employee so that they aren't at the very back of the line, that
they get some recognition and some type of preference in terms
of filling those career positions.
I believe it was Mr. Simpson, who testified on the first
panel, that said that, you know, roughly 40 percent, I think,
of his eventual career employees were chosen from the temporary
work force; however, when they were chosen, they were not given
any greater advantage than someone just walking in off the
street.
Is that a problem that you see, in terms of recognizing the
status?
I know it doesn't address the point that you mention, Ms.
Barts, about crediting temporary time toward your pension. But
it might get you in the door faster, so that the ability of a
temporary employee to get into a career position where they're
earning pension credits is sooner than what otherwise might be.
Are there other solutions that you can see that would
eliminate the difficulty that we are experiencing with these
temporary employees?
Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. Chairman Lynch, I would say to your specific
question, that is something that would help, whether--and you
could define it a number of ways, even if you just started by
giving them first consideration so that they had to--you know,
they were on the short list, at least, to be considered. Today,
they have to literally apply through the outside process as if
they never worked for the government.
And we went through this very recently up in your part of
the country with the Andover Service Center. In that case, I
would say the IRS had appropriately used some temporary hiring
authority as they were ramping down the submission processing
operation. But then when new work was added to Andover and new
positions were added, permanent positions were added, all of
those temporary workers, many of whom had been there for 4
years, had no first-consideration rights to even be considered
for those permanent jobs. So something like you described would
be a giant step forward to fix that part of the problem.
I would suggest, though, that another part of the problem,
just from things I've heard here today and from some situations
that we've seen at NTEU, is the question to the agencies of how
many of these temporary employees or temporary positions are
really temporary positions. I mean, I don't know how you
justify, in the FDIC, when we had employees hired year after
year for 15 years, or how--and Mr. Dougan could speak better to
this than I on those who have joined him today.
I mean, if people are doing the same job year after year,
even if it's only for 6 months, then that is, in my view, a
permanent seasonal position. It is still seasonal, it's not a
full-time; it doesn't create work where it doesn't exist. But
it's a permanent seasonal position, not a temporary seasonal
position.
And that alone would change the status of those employees
and their eligibility to retirement and contributions for
health insurance and to FMLA and to all of the rights and
benefits that a permanent career work force has in the Federal
Government.
So I think that's as big a piece as figuring out how to be
able to get them first consideration or some priority, is to
really press hard on these agencies as to how they're
designating these positions. Are there some that should be
temporary? Probably. But the numbers that I heard today and the
real-life examples that I've heard, it just doesn't sound right
to me.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
I notice my time has expired. I now yield 5 minutes to Ms.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Congresswoman from the District of
Columbia.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I can understand, for example, that in the IRS, Ms.
Barts, when you might have temporary employees because of the
tax season and the way that goes. But I must say, with Ms.
Kelley, I wonder about the use of temporary employees across
the whole spectrum of the Federal Government, whether there has
been the kind of oversight to assure us that there is not
abuse.
Ms. Barts, I was drawn to the part of your testimony on
page 1 where, not only did they break your time in order to
keep you in the seasonal status, but somehow they managed to
promote you. And I didn't quite understand that. ``During my
time at data transcription, I was promoted to lead data
transcriber.'' You had supervisory duties.
Were others working under you also temporary employees?
Ms. Barts. They were all seasonals, yes. The supervisor was
a permanent employee, and she had what you would call the
timekeeper for the groups was a permanent employee. Everybody
else was a seasonal employee.
Ms. Norton. Now, you say on the next page that, after about
a year and a half, you became a permanent worker.
Ms. Barts. Once I was picked up by Correspondence Audit,
yes.
Ms. Norton. After you were picked up by whom?
Ms. Barts. The other department, the Correspondence
Examination Department.
Ms. Norton. So you got on that permanent registry or on
that permanent list for that job?
Ms. Barts. I applied for several jobs when I was in data
over the 14-year period, and I was accepted for quite a few of
them. But the department always said that they couldn't release
me at that time, and that eliminated that job opportunity for
me.
Ms. Norton. The department wanted to maintain you for their
own purposes.
Ms. Barts. Right.
Ms. Norton. They could do that even though you had an offer
for a permanent job?
Ms. Barts. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Boy, that sounds like something close to
slavery here.
Ms. Barts. That's the way it was done back in the 1970's.
Ms. Norton. Did your work as a seasonal employee help you
in the process of applying for the permanent job?
Ms. Barts. My evaluations that I received over the years
was a great help to be picked up for the other department.
And I was on a roster, yes, for a permanent job. I was on a
roster for a permanent job. But as I said, as the permanent
jobs would come up and not just myself, other people would
apply, if it was in the height of their filing season, they
would not let you go.
Ms. Norton. All right. I think that is really quite
scandalous.
But I'm not sure--the chairman asked about whether or not
such an employee, essentially, in competition was like anybody
else coming off the street. It's rather counterintuitive to
believe that I've gotten myself on a roster for a job like Ms.
Barts, and I'm able to show that I was in precisely the same
job, it's hard to believe that wouldn't help me in some way in
the competition with others who may have indeed been doing
similar work but not been doing it in the agency.
So it is just counterintuitive to me to think that person
who has been doing that work in a Federal agency is precisely
the same as somebody who may have been doing something in the
private sector or have other kinds of credentials.
Don't you think it's helpful, at least, that person has
been doing work of a very similar nature in the Federal sector
once you're applying for a permanent job?
Ms. Kelley. I would sure hope so, if the applications were
looked at that closely.
Ms. Norton. Well, perhaps we ought to say so. Perhaps we
ought to say so when these employees are applying.
Ms. Kelley. Exactly. If there were some kind of a process
that said, ``First consideration is given to those employees
who are doing this work for this Federal agency in a temporary
status.''
Ms. Norton. Well, it doesn't even say ``consideration
should be given,'' does it?
Ms. Kelley. No. No, my words of ``first consideration''
would be a giant step forward from where we are today.
And I'm only using that as an example for those who would
oppose some kind of a guaranteed selection, you know, to just
try to, kind of, think of a process that would at least give
that first consideration.
Mr. Dougan. I think that there are a couple of things here.
Really, there is a question of what hiring process is being
used. Because the agency is certainly free to use their
internal hiring process, which, under the current regulations,
a temporary employee is not even eligible to apply under the
internal process.
So that avenue they are excluded from from the get-go. So
they only have the external hiring process that the rest of the
public has available to them. So they're competing with
everybody else out on the street for those positions.
And, you know, I think it's fair to say that, certainly,
their experience working as a temporary in an agency that
they're applying for a permanent position in, it certainly
doesn't hurt them. But it certainly is true that it does not
give them, necessarily, a leg up on any other person that is
applying for that job.
I think there are a couple of things we can do. I think,
one, if we grant competitive standing to our long-term
temporary work force, they will have the ability not only to
apply through the external hiring process but also through the
merit systems hiring process internally in the agency. So they
will get a fair shake just like the rest of the permanent work
force, in terms of applying for permanent jobs in that agency
and doing that.
And I think the other thing that we could do would be, as
you've described and as Colleen has talked about, is afford
some sort of priority consideration to long-term temporary
employees, particularly if the agency decides to make their
current temporary position a permanent position.
It's my belief that if we have an employee that's been in a
series of positions doing the same job 5, 6, 7 years, 10 years,
30 years, essentially those people are incumbents in those
positions. And the fact of the matter is that the position was
misclassified by the agency as a temporary position when, in
fact, when you look at the recurring nature of the work, it's
really a permanent position in reality.
And so it's my belief that those folks need to be given
priority consideration for those positions for which they've
been doing the work all along, once those positions are made
permanent positions by the agency.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up.
I was very concerned. I do not believe it was this roster
of witnesses who testified about firefighters. And we know
there are parts of the country where these firefighters are
absolutely essential; you can understand the seasonal nature of
the work. But here, experience can be lifesaving. And it does
seem to me we've got to look at various categories of work
here, as well.
I'm not sure--I think the testimony was that eight out of
10 was a rookie. Was that you, Mr. Dougan?
Mr. Dougan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Eight out of 10 of these firefighters each year
is a rookie, which means that you've got to, for one of the
most dangerous jobs in America--indeed, it is considered the
most dangerous, usually, in Civil Service work--you've got a
whole bunch of people who are new. People have reached their 2-
year limit. And there you go retraining or training people for
one of the most risky jobs in the work force.
Mr. Dougan, would you like to elaborate on that testimony?
Because it does seem to me it requires some kind of priority
attention from the subcommittee.
Mr. Dougan. Yeah, I mean, the situation with the wildland
firefighting work force in the Federal Government, there are
relatively few Federal agencies that have employees that have
that expertise. There is the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Those are the five Federal agencies
that primarily have a wildland firefighting work force.
These people are specially trained. The agencies have
invested a lot of time and resources and money in terms of
training these people. They have highly specialized training.
They hold a variety of qualifications. It takes many years of
training and experience out on these fires for people to work
their way up into leadership positions in the fire
organization.
And it is not uncommon to see on wildland fires temporary
employees that are part of a fire crew that actually have more
experience than the leaders of those crew or, in many cases,
some of the other leaders that are in charge of and responsible
for managing these wildfires.
And, to me, I mean, the risk that we run as a country and
in these agencies if we fail to acknowledge the professional
work, the experience, and the skills that these folks have and
don't make an honest effort to retain these and we just let
these people go, we really risk having a brain-drain in the
area of wildland firefighting, which, as Ms. Norton pointed
out, has some potential catastrophic safety implications if we
have inexperienced people out there trying to lead these crews
as well as put these fires out.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Dougan, if I could just stay on that issue for a
minute. What do we see right now in terms of the wildfire
firefighters? Are you seeing, you know, professional
firefighters, city firefighters, volunteer firefighters that go
into that line of work? Or is it across the board from every
walk of life?
Mr. Dougan. The current work force of the Federal
Government's wildland firefighting work force, there are really
two pieces to it. One is, most of these agencies or all of
these agencies have essentially permanent--they do have some
permanent seasonal positions in their fire organizations. These
folks work seasonally, but they're permanent employees. They
typically work 6 to 9 months out of the year.
But the bulk of the firefighting work force that's hired in
the Federal Government are temporary employees. And where the
Federal Government gets their temporary wildland firefighting
work force is really from a couple of different areas.
One is, there are a lot of college students that apply for
these jobs. They're looking to make a lot of money. These guys
work a lot of hours, and they tend to get a lot of overtime, so
it's a good way for college students that are, you know, out of
school to earn some money to help them out, to pay their
tuition and books.
The second group of folks that tend to be drawn into these
kinds of positions is just, you know, average people out on the
street. The Forest Service, for the most part, has a presence
in more rural communities across America, particularly out in
the western United States. These jobs, these firefighting jobs
are highly coveted by people that live in small towns. The
Forest Service is often the largest employer in the town and
also pays, probably, for the most part, the highest wage. So
these jobs are really sought after by local residents in these
rural communities and really have a huge impact on those local
economies.
But what we see with these temporary jobs is, you know, if
these folks are expected to be hired year after year as a
temporary and not afforded any benefits, not afforded
retirement, not afforded health care, what we see in terms of
retaining this work force is, after a certain amount of time,
these folks leave and are wooed away by county fire
departments, by city fire departments, by State forestry
organizations who can often pay more than the Federal
Government and offer these folks permanent jobs and better
wages.
So we are losing a lot of our wildland firefighting work
force because of those reasons. Particularly out in California
we see that quite a bit.
Mr. Lynch. Uh-huh.
Let me ask--and maybe Ms. Kelley--I explored this with the
first panel, trying to figure out where the practices of
prudent and optimum management separate from abuse.
You know, we in Congress, we hire young interns on a
regular basis, and, you know, when we see one or two that might
be especially bright, we snap them up, but generally it's
understood that there aren't a lot of opportunities, so that's
a rare occasion. But since they're only there for a learning
experience and there is no expectation of hiring, I suppose
it's fair. We very, very, very rarely get interns back twice.
But here you've got this repeat, year-after-year, decades-
long relationship, where workers keep coming back. And some of
them might be stuck--some of them just love their jobs, but
some of them are relying on that, as anybody else would, over
time.
And I'm just trying to find a way to determine when that,
you know, repeat employment becomes abuse and how do we get at
that.
Mr. Dougan, you described a situation; Ms. Barts, you've
described another; Mr. Glover, as well, with the Bureau of
Prisons; and President Kelley.
How do I devise a solution that's going to be able to, sort
of, capture all those different situations and provide some
type of--you know, you want to have some flexibility for
management to bring in temporary employees when needed. But
this type of abuse, you know, where people are in there for
decades or, you know, 8 or 10 years, brought back and are
denied retirement, they're denied annuity, they're denied
health care benefits, I don't necessarily think that's the way
that the Federal Government should be operating as an employer.
And so, you know, I think some of our Federal management
agencies are adopting this strategy as a way of balancing their
budgets, and they're doing it on the backs of these temporary
employees. And that's as simple as that. And we're allowing it
to happen. And we've got to figure out some way to push back,
to say, ``OK, you know, this person is coming back for the 4th
consecutive year. If they come back for the 5th, they're going
to have to earn something.''
Or there needs to be some pathways to career employment
made for these people, where, as you say, when a position
becomes permanent, it goes from temporary to permanent, I think
the assumption should be--or the priority should be to hire the
people who were in that job and doing that job originally when
it changes over.
But there also has to be some way of, not necessarily--not
displacing a veteran going for a job, but next in line, so to
speak. There should be an opportunity to put these temporary
workers in line right behind them, ahead of the general public.
And I'm just trying to figure out a way to develop a system
that would accommodate those realities.
Ms. Kelley. Well, again, Chairman Lynch, I would probably
take it in a couple of different directions. And NTEU would be
glad to work with the committee, I'm sure we all would, on
language to fix each of these problems.
When I was getting ready for this hearing, I was focused on
the IRS and the FDIC, because the IRS hires a lot of seasonal
employees. I did not come in here intending to say that I think
the IRS is doing a great job, but I have to tell you, after
listening to everything I heard today, they are doing a great
job.
I don't know what happened back in the 1970's and 1980's,
you know, in Ms. Barts's situation, and I'm sure those facts
drive why she's here today. I can tell you that, today, the IRS
employs tens of thousands of seasonals, and most of them are
permanent seasonals with all the rights that go along with
permanent employment, even though their schedule might only be
a 4- or 6- or 9-month-a-year job. Seasonal defines their
schedule, not what benefits they have.
And, as I said, they don't always hire as permanent, but I
think, over the years, NTEU has helped them, perhaps, see the
criteria that should be used, so that when they were doing the
ramp-downs on submission processing, they used that.
But even though today the IRS seems to be doing at least as
well, if not better, than most agencies, I think what we have
also heard here today that there is a lot of harm that has been
done in the past. And we're hoping we could have Congress help
us to give employees who have been harmed by not being able to
redeposit their FERS--the FDIC employees who got no credit for
up to 15 years of work and now are Federal employees but don't
have credit for that 15 years. So I think one piece of it is if
we could figure out how to give them an opportunity to buy
those years back.
Mr. Lynch. Yeah.
Ms. Kelley. And then, of course, to make sure, to your
point, that it is happening correctly.
And maybe I was the only one who heard it this way on the
first panel. I was a little surprised to hear OPM say that, if
you're going to work 6 months or more, then you're a permanent
seasonal; if you're going to work 6 months or less, it's up to
the agency to decide whether you're a temporary seasonal or a
permanent seasonal. And that they grant these waivers, that I
think they that were questioned about these waivers.
I don't know how closely anybody's looking at those
waivers, but it seems to me that, if they ask for it, they get
it. And that's where I would like to see the agencies pushed
pretty hard and held to a standard, as you're suggesting, you
know, that they should be able to make a case that 40 percent
of the work force is really temporary.
Mr. Lynch. Right.
Ms. Kelley. I mean, if they need employees in those jobs,
in those parks, 6 months a year or 4 months a year or 7 months
a year, they need them every year, I think that's a permanent
seasonal job; it's not temporary. But there doesn't seem to be
a process to hold them accountable for that designation.
Mr. Lynch. Right.
Mr. Glover, if I could ask you about this opportunity to
buy back time. Obviously, you know, we are facing extreme
limitations on the Federal budget, and we've got a massive
deficit. You know, I think rightly, Congress is sharpening its
pencils and looking at every expenditure that we make.
However, I think there is a certain fairness that you bring
out in your argument for those employees who, you know, because
of the seemingly arbitrary application of a regulation against
them, they've been taken out of a position that they originally
had benefits in.
How would you envision giving an opportunity to the Bureau
of Prisons folks that--I guess they were in the system back in
1989 and then now they're denied that opportunity. How do we
reconcile that for the employees that you represent?
Mr. Glover. I think what happened, Mr. Chairman, is that
when the regulation changed from 1988 when you could buy back
into your service credit, we had employees being hired at that
time in large numbers, so some were hired under the 1988 rule,
some were hired under the 1989 rule. And so what happened is,
if you were hired after January 1, 1989, you could not buy back
your service--you could not buy back in for the service credit.
So we have employees--actually, one that was able to buy
back 6 months of temporary service and one 1 month later that
wasn't allowed to buy back 6 months of temporary service. And
so that person has to work inside the Federal prison for
another 6 months prior to his retirement. And at that point in
your career, after working in the system for 20 to 25 years,
you are tired and you are ready to go, generally.
What I want to at least add as part of this discussion is
that time should count. If you are a temporary, you are hired
temporary--and the way the Bureau of Prisons does it, they
identify you as an employee that they want. For instance, Fort
Devens. When Fort Devens in Massachusetts was converted from a
military base to a Federal prison hospital, they were trying to
get employees onboard quickly to get that prison up. So you
might hire 60 to 100 employees in a temporary status because
they have already identified they want that employee. They have
already had an interview. They are waiting on paperwork,
they're waiting on a background check. And they want to get
them onboard.
The thing is, though, you are in there working in the same
circumstances as every full-term employee. You don't have any
different work rules as far as responding to an emergency,
handling a disruptive inmate, handling some of the situations
that we handle on a daily basis.
And so, what our argument is is, once they make you
permanent, you should be able to step back and recredit that
service, the service that they have from when they started.
Because they have been made permanent, and they should at least
get to reach back and say, ``This time should count. And I will
redeposit.'' I mean, we are not talking about the government
necessarily; we are talking about the employee being able to
redeposit for their service credits.
Mr. Lynch. Right, right.
Mr. Glover. So that is the piece that we are particularly
interested in, because all the FERS employees now are hitting
their 20-year marks, obviously, and now they are starting to
realize what they did.
Mr. Lynch. Right.
Mr. Glover. And it is now incumbent upon the union that
represents them to go out and do something about it.
Mr. Lynch. Right. And while there is still time, maybe, for
those last 5 years, that they make those contributions that
they would have made, so that they are actually making bad
years into good years and creditable service.
Mr. Glover. Correct.
Mr. Lynch. OK. We have to figure out that balance, because
there is not a lot of extra resources out there. And so, you
know----
Mr. Glover. If I could also say this: In a scoring of this,
you would have numerous employees who may get back some of this
temporary time and actually retire. The Bureau would then bring
in employees at a much lower grade. GS-5 is what our
correctional officers start at, GS-6. And so, on a score, I am
not convinced that we would blow up any budget.
Mr. Lynch. Right. That is a good point. That is a good
point.
Ms. Barts, I wanted to ask you--you know, you described
your situation extremely well. How many people do you think--I
am way over my time, by the way--how many people are in your
situation?
Ms. Barts. How many people?
Mr. Lynch. Do you think?
Ms. Barts. Well, I would say, just from the people I know
that I worked with, about 250, just that I know, of the people
that I worked with all those years.
Mr. Lynch. Yeah. And is that a national population or is
that just----
Ms. Barts. No, that is just the Philadelphia service
center, the people that I know personally.
Mr. Lynch. Yeah.
Maybe President Kelley, maybe you're the person that I
should be asking about this. How many folks do you know that
are in Ms. Barts's circumstance?
Ms. Kelley. Actually, I don't have any--I was not
surprised, but when I read Ms. Barts's testimony this morning
was the first that I knew that she or others were facing that
problem. That is not anything that I have any data on.
Mr. Lynch. OK. You've got fairly discrete circumstances
there that might be addressed if the population were small
enough. If it is a big situation, then, obviously----
Ms. Barts. Well, there were 10 service centers, so I don't
know how many people would be involved.
Mr. Lynch. Yeah.
OK, I have abused my time. I am going to yield--oh, no, I
am not going to yield. Well, I think you have all suffered
enough. I appreciate all the testimony you have offered us
today.
I'm going to leave the record open, as we indicated at the
beginning of the hearing, for 3 days in case other Members have
some questions. I know that Mr. Connolly of Virginia has some
questions, but not for this panel. And so I'll leave the record
open to allow them to submit written testimony.
I want to thank you each for your work on behalf of Federal
employees. I want to thank you for coming forward before this
committee and offering your testimony to help us with our work.
This is a complicated situation, but I will make a
commitment that we will work with you to try to figure out how
to get at these inequities that are obviously out there and
also try to diminish them going forward, so that we don't have
these big gaps in time where we have these temporary employees
out there; that we build a system that credits temporary
employees so they can use that time to get into career
positions, so that we don't have this big delta between the
time they begin as a temporary employee and the time they get
on as career employees; and also a way to recognize the value
of that service in the hiring process, so that it is a priority
and it is recognized as valuable service.
I mean, it is astounding that we recognize priorities for
different reasons, but time in the job, you know, active,
relevant, excellent service in the job is ignored or
sidestepped, and, instead, we treat people as if they are just
walking in the door and have never worked in the job before.
So I thank you for your willingness to testify and to help
the committee with its work. I wish you all a good day. Thank
you.
This meeting is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]