[Senate Hearing 111-617]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-617
WORK-LIFE PROGRAMS: ATTRACTING, RETAINING, AND EMPOWERING THE FEDERAL
WORKFORCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 4, 2010
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-934 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 HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Lisa M. Powell, Staff Director
Kata C. Sybenga, Counsel
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director
Aaron H. Woolf, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Akaka................................................ 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 2
WITNESSES
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Cecilia E. Rouse, Member, Council of Economic Advisers........... 4
Jonathan Foley, Senior Advisor to the Director, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management........................................... 6
Kathleen M. Lingle, Executive Director, Alliance for Work-Life
Progress at WorldatWork........................................ 15
Max Stier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for
Public Service................................................. 17
Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union................................................ 19
Jonathan P. Flynn, Vice President, American Federation of
Government Employees........................................... 20
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Flynn, Jonathan P.:
Testimony.................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Foley, Jonathan:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Kelley, Colleen M.:
Testimony.................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Lingle, Kathleen M.:
Testimony.................................................... 15
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 44
Rouse, Cecilia E.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Stier, Max:
Testimony.................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 54
APPENDIX
Background....................................................... 79
Cindy Auten, General Manager of Telework Exchange, prepared
statement...................................................... 86
Report titled ``The Need for Paid Parental Leave for Federal
Employees: Adapting to a Changing Workforce,'' by Kevin Jiller,
Ph.D., Allison Suppan Helmuth, and Robin Farabee-Siers,
Institute for Women's Policy Research.......................... 90
Janet Kopenhaver, Washington Representative, Federally Employed
Women (FEW), prepared statement................................ 107
OPM ROWE Pilot Program, copy submitted for the Record............ 115
Questions and responses for the Record:
Ms. Rouse.................................................... 139
Mr. Foley.................................................... 141
Ms. Lingle................................................... 145
Mr. Stier.................................................... 149
Mr. Flynn.................................................... 151
WORK-LIFE PROGRAMS: ATTRACTING,
RETAINING, AND EMPOWERING
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. This hearing will come to order.
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. Thank you all for
being here today as the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
meets to examine how work-life programs can support Federal
employees and improve government operations.
It is fitting that we are addressing these issues during
Public Service Recognition Week. This week is set aside each
year to honor the dedicated public servants who provide vital
services to our Nation. Public Service Recognition Week is also
an opportunity to showcase the many attractive careers in
public service. As we showcase these careers, we must also make
sure that the Federal Government is an employer of choice and
offers a competitive benefits package.
The American workforce faces a new set of challenges. As
costs have risen and wages have lagged, fewer families can
afford to rely on a single income and many parents juggle busy
work schedules and child care responsibilities. Workers of all
ages find themselves leaving work for night classes, as
professions that once required a high school or undergraduate
education now demand advanced degrees.
In addition, almost 50 percent of the Federal workforce
will be eligible for retirement in the next 5 years. Younger
workers may have different work expectations than previous
generations and may value workplace flexibility more than
traditional fringe benefits. The Federal Government needs to
adapt just as the private sector has to attract and retain the
next generation of Federal workers.
Work-life programs help agencies compete in the
marketplace. Offering our employees options like flexible
schedules and ability to telework and access to wellness
programs improves employees' quality of life and increases
productivity.
This winter, this area experienced three blizzards. Those
storms strongly reinforced the importance of telework for
productivity and continuity of operations. Because of these
benefits, Senator Voinovich and I introduced the Telework
Enhancement Act last year. I look forward to finalizing that
bill and to learning about other ways Congress can support
work-life programs.
Recently, at the Workplace Flexibility Forum, President
Obama noted that companies with flexible work arrangements
often have lower turnover and absenteeism, along with higher
productivity and healthier workers. The President also cited a
recent report on work-life balance and the economics of
workplace flexibility. I am pleased to have one of the authors
of this report, Cecilia Rouse from the President's Council of
Economic Advisers, here to discuss their research on the
economics of work-life programs. I look forward to hearing from
Ms. Rouse about how these policies benefit not only employees,
but also employers and the economy as a whole.
I also look forward to hearing from our other witnesses
about the efforts being made to provide work-life programs to
Federal employees as well as suggestions to better use these
programs to support our workforce, attract the best people to
public service, and make the Federal Government the employer of
choice in this country.
The Federal Government is the largest employer in the
United States and we can lead by example. This week, Public
Service Recognition Week, we celebrate those men and women who
make a commitment to serve the government in the military or
civilian service. We can do more to honor their service every
day by empowering employees to innovate, live healthier, and
strive to be their best, both at work and at home.
I thank you all again for being here today and now call on
our Ranking Member, Senator Voinovich, for his statement.
Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
calling today's hearing. As we commemorate Public Service
Recognition Week, I think it is important that we examine the
extent to which the Federal Government's work-life policies
support our need to recruit and retain highly qualified
individuals to use their skills in service to our Nation.
We have discussed for years the human capital crisis that
will ensue when the baby boom generation begins to retire. By
the fall of 2012, the Partnership for Public Service estimates
that the Federal Government will hire nearly 273,000 new
workers for mission critical jobs--273,000.
This year's theme of Public Service Recognition Week,
Innovation and Opportunity, reminds me of the golden
opportunity we have in this economy to find some wonderful
people who may not have previously considered Federal service.
While the economy has led some to extend their Federal careers,
others are in need of employment and it is our collective
responsibility to make sure we attract the best and brightest
at all career stages.
When Senator Akaka and I got started with this, we were
able to get the John F. Kennedy School for Government to make
human capital an executive session, and I recently asked my
staff to look at what the percentage of people are today in
terms of back in 2000 in terms of the people in the John F.
Kennedy School for Government going into the Federal service or
in the public service. I was really disappointed because it is
about the same. It hasn't really changed very much over the
number of years. So in spite of the fact that we have tried to
make the Federal opportunity more attractive, we are still not
getting the job done, at least as far as graduates from the
John F. Kennedy School for Government.
The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act, I think, will
help agencies and job applicants by eliminating the barriers
for applying for Federal employment. Once employees have
entered on duty, however, the Federal Government must be
innovative in its efforts to give agencies and employees the
tools needed to perform at work and to maintain a healthy work-
life balance.
One need only look at the Best Places To Work rankings to
see how flexibilities can improve employee satisfaction. As the
Chairman knows well, we have worked together to provide human
capital options for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), National
Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA), the intelligence
community (IT), and the Department of State. The fact that
these agencies are currently ranked one through five on the
Best Places To Work Survey shows that flexibilities, when
properly implemented and communicated to employees, improve
employee satisfaction.
During his confirmation process, I challenged Director John
Berry to lead by example and make the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) an employer of choice among Federal agencies.
I look forward to learning from OPM how the Results-Oriented
Work Environment will improve individual employee performance
while providing employees greater control over how they
accomplish their daily work. This type of strategic innovation
is exactly what Senator Akaka and I hoped would result when we
created the Chief Human Capital Officers Council 8 years ago.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
I welcome our first panel of witnesses to the Subcommittee,
Cecilia Rouse, Member of the Council of Economic Advisers, and
Jonathan Foley, Senior Advisor to the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management.
As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear
in all witnesses. Please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
before this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Rouse. I do.
Mr. Foley. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Let it be noted in the record
that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Before we start, I want you to know that your full written
statement will be part of the record, and I would like to
remind you to please limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes.
Ms. Rouse, will you please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF CECILIA E. ROUSE,\1\ MEMBER, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC
ADVISERS
Ms. Rouse. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member
Voinovich, and other Members of your Subcommittee and staff. I
am very pleased to represent the Council of Economic Advisers
at this very important hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Rouse appears in the Appendix on
page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, I will focus my remarks on the main findings from
our March 2010 report entitled, ``Work-Life Balance and the
Economics of Workplace Flexibility.'' The report discusses some
of the changing patterns of the American workforce, and the
state of flexible work arrangements in our economy, the
economics of workplace flexibility. I will defer discussion of
the Federal Government's work-life programs to my colleague
from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
As you stated in your opening remarks, we know that the
American economy has changed dramatically over the past half-
century. Women have entered the labor force in growing numbers,
such that women now comprise nearly one-half of the labor
force, and in nearly one-half of all households, all adults are
working. Families have increasingly relied on more than one
earner to make ends meet, and yet children still need to be
taken to the doctor and elderly parents still need care. As a
result, approximately 43 million Americans served as unpaid
caregivers to a family member over the age of 50 in 2008, and
nearly 20 percent of employed people were caregivers who
provided care to a person over the age of 50.
In addition, we know that skills are increasingly important
for our labor market, and as a result, we have more adults who
are older than 25 attending school.
Because of these changes, many workers face the conflicts
between their work and their personal lives, which inspires a
need for flexibility in the workplace. In our report, we
describe the prevalence of these workplace practices. We divide
them into three main categories: When one works, where one
works, and how much one works.
In terms of when one works, over one-half of employers
report allowing giving at least some of their workers
periodically the ability to change their starting and quitting
times, thereby giving some flexibility over when they work.
However, less than one-third of full-time workers report having
flexible work hours, and only about 40 percent of part-time
workers do.
We also consider how prevalence and flexibility differs
across demographic groups. While we find that men and women are
equally likely to report having flexible work hours, less-
skilled workers are much less likely to report such
flexibility. We believe this stems from the fact that
flexibility is a form of compensation and less skilled workers
receive lower levels of all forms of compensation, as well as
perhaps due to the nature and context of low-wage jobs.
Flexibility in terms of where to work is less common. Only
about 15 percent of workers reported working from home at least
once a week. About 23 percent of employers reported allowing
some of their workers to work at home on a regular basis. And
only one percent of employers allowed most or all of their
employees to do so. At the same time, about 50 percent of
employees reported having the ability to work from home
occasionally.
Finally, most employers do offer some workers the ability
to return to work gradually after major life events, such as
the birth or adoption of a child, although job sharing, where
multiple workers share the responsibility of one position
appears less widespread.
When we consider the economics of workplace flexibility, we
know that employers must balance the potential costs of these
arrangements against the potential benefits. The report
discusses the fact that the existing research suggests that
workplace arrangements have been associated with reducing
turnover, reducing absenteeism, assisting with recruitment,
improving health, and boosting productivity.
We present a number of case studies that highlight the
benefits of flexible work arrangements for firms in various
industries and of various sizes, and while some research
suggests that flexible practices can improve productivity, more
research would help us to better understand the trade-offs that
employers face when adopting these arrangements.
However, many firms have not adopted these practices
despite these potential benefits. One possible explanation is
that the costs and benefits of adopting these practices do
differ across and within firms, and we know that firms that
have the greatest net gains to adopting these practices will be
the ones to do so. Consider the fact that the evidence that we
considered and we looked at is from firms that have already
chosen to adopt the practices. Therefore, they may be the firms
for which it is most beneficial. Moreover, from a strictly
economic perspective, it may be that encouraging wider adoption
will not be beneficial to those extra firms.
However, we believe that there still is an economic
rationale for encouraging wider adoption of such practices.
First, there is a growing literature that not all firms adopt
the most efficient practices, especially due to a lack of
information. And due to the rapidly changing nature of our
labor force, it may well be that managers are not aware of
that, they overstate the potential costs and understate the
potential benefits of adoption.
In addition, wider adoption of the practices could lower
the cost to all firms, making it, therefore, beneficial for
everybody. And we know that flexible workplace practices likely
encourages more labor force participation among very valuable
workers who can contribute their skills and knowledge to our
labor force.
Finally, another social benefit that may not be fully
appreciated is it does have externalities in terms of reducing
commuting time and reducing congestion costs.
So the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) report on
workplace flexibility finds that flexible work arrangements do
promote healthier, happier, more productive workers, which may
in turn help firms' bottom lines. I would like to emphasize,
however, that a factor that hinders a much deeper and better
understanding of the benefits and costs of flexibility is the
lack of data on the prevalence of workplace practices,
flexibility of practices, and more research is needed on the
mechanisms through which flexibility influences workers' job
satisfaction and firm profits in order to help guide policy
making and managers alike.
Thank you very much for holding this very important
hearing. I am happy to address any questions you may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Rouse.
Mr. Foley, will you please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN FOLEY,\1\ SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE DIRECTOR,
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Foley. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and Ranking
Member Voinovich. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of
John Berry, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to
discuss the work we have been doing at OPM in the areas of
work-life balance and wellness for attracting, retaining, and
empowering a 21st Century Federal workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Foley appears in the Appendix on
page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I commend the Subcommittee for your leadership in
supporting and honoring the important work of our Nation's
public servants by holding this hearing during our annual
Public Service Recognition Week. This year's theme, Innovation
and Opportunity, gives OPM the opportunity to highlight our new
Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE) and Campus Wellness Pilot
Program.
We all understand that work is a fact of life. For most of
us, this will never change. What is changing, however, is the
way we work, that is, when, where, and how we work. Technology
has provided us with options we never imagined 20 years ago.
Now, not only is it easier for us to do our work almost
anywhere, it is easier for us to do our work anytime.
The Federal Government offers a variety of flexible work
arrangements to attract and retain the best and brightest
employees in a competitive market. Telework is one of many
flexibilities offered by the Federal Government. If implemented
effectively, telework can make the difference between shutting
down Federal Government services in emergency situations and
continuing to operate with minimal interruption. Telework
enables agencies and businesses to continue services and
operations without jeopardizing the safety of its employees. In
addition, OPM estimates that the Federal Government offset
approximately $30 million per day in lost productivity during
the February storms as a result of telework.
I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm Director
Berry's commitment to advancing telework in the Federal
Government. OPM has a strategic goal of increasing the number
of eligible Federal employees who telework by 50 percent by
fiscal year 2011.
As you are aware, Director Berry announced OPM's new
Results-Only Work Environment Pilot Program last month called
the Workforce Flexibility Initiative. ROWE allows employees to
work whenever they want and wherever they want as long as the
work gets done. Managers are expected to manage for results
rather than process. This is a shift in culture from permission
granting to performance guiding.
OPM will be working with the creators of the ROWE strategy
to implement the new program. Nearly 400 OPM employees, ranging
from retirement and benefits claims processors to policy
makers, including union and non-union employees and the
Director's Office, are in the pilot and were selected to
represent a cross-section of positions available in the Federal
Government. Approximately half of the participating employees
are based in Boyers, Pennsylvania, and half are in the
Washington area.
OPM is working with our unions and our General Counsel to
implement a version of ROWE that complies with all current
Federal laws. The pilot program will start in June, continuing
through the end of the calendar year. If the pilot project
increases employee performance and morale, as we hope, OPM will
expand it within our own agency and encourage other Federal
agencies to adopt this system.
OPM recognizes that worksite wellness programs are also
another way of attracting and retaining a strong Federal
workforce. Last May, President Obama asked OPM and other
Federal agencies to explore the development of worksite
wellness programs that mirror best practice in the private
sector. Private companies have achieved promising results.
Published studies report savings averaging $3 for every $1
invested through reduced absenteeism, improved productivity,
and lower health care costs.
The Campus Wellness Project involving OPM, General Services
Administration (GSA), and the Department of Interior employees
at their Washington headquarters will expand on services
offered through existing health units and fitness centers,
introduce new services such as smoking cessation and weight
management, and ensure that employees who choose to join the
program receive an annual health risk appraisal and the
opportunity for individual coaching on healthy behaviors. We
are currently using a competitive bid process to select the
campus service provider.
We are working with Health and Human Services (HHS) to
identify and fund two additional wellness pilots on Federal
sites outside the Washington area. These demonstration programs
will be evaluated to better understand the results that can be
achieved in the Federal work environment.
OPM has set a high priority goal of requiring all executive
agencies to establish and begin to implement a plan for
comprehensive health and wellness programs by the end of fiscal
year 2011. OPM also coordinates government-wide health and
wellness activities, such as guidance for agency health
promotion coordinators, physical activity challenges, worksite
tobacco cessation programs, and Feds Get Fit.
Thank you for holding this important hearing. I would be
happy to address any questions that you may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Foley.
Ms. Rouse, some people are skeptical that implementing
work-life programs benefits employers and not employees. Your
report indicates that a strong connection between flexibility
and productivity has been established. What more should be done
to help organizations, both public and private, understand the
benefits of flexibility and implement work-life programs that
capture those benefits?
Ms. Rouse. I guess what I would say is I think one is that
managers don't fully understand the potential benefits and the
potential costs. But quite honestly, the literature of where
these have been implemented is few and far between. It is
growing. For example, there is a budding literature looking at
the relationship between health and flexible workplace
practices with some compelling studies done in, for example,
grocery stores in Minnesota.
But I think what would be very helpful and compelling to
me, at least if I were an employer, is if there were a wider
set of studies at firms that look like mine, because one of the
things that I think we know about these practices and about
business practices is that it is not clear that one size fits
all. For example, manufacturing firms have their own challenges
in implementing such practices, although at the President's and
the First Lady's Work-Life Balance Conference, we heard some
very compelling ways in which manufacturing firms have
implemented more flexibility into their work schedules.
But I think what would be helpful is for such programs to
be rigorously studied in manufacturing firms, service firms,
and small firms. A lot of small firms think that it can't help
them, although the data suggest that at least when we look at
not the tiny micro-firms, but at firms more than 50 workers,
that they are adopting it at about the same rate as larger
employers. The question then is what are those firms doing and
why can't others learn from them?
So I think the evidence base is growing, but I think it
could be much stronger and therefore, more compelling for other
employers.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Foley, some agencies have been reluctant
to implement many of these work-life programs. What is OPM
doing to alleviate agencies' concerns and encourage work-life
programs governmentwide?
Mr. Foley. One of the things OPM is doing, Senator, is
trying to provide guidance to agencies on work-life programs,
on the benefits of the work-life programs and encouraging their
wider adoptions, spreading the word, if you will. Another
thing, as Ms. Rouse is indicating, is to inform people of the
research and hold workshops on the benefits of work-life
programs so that people understand as an employer what it
brings to them in terms of improved productivity and morale
boosting. So OPM is doing what it can to provide information
and guidance to agencies.
Senator Akaka. As you know, Mr. Foley, I am very interested
in expanding the use of telework in the Federal sector. In your
testimony, you mentioned that the White House Task Force on
Telework sponsored a forum in March to identify barriers to the
adoption of telework in the Federal Government. When will the
results of this forum be released and what are the next steps
for the task force?
Mr. Foley. I will need to get back to you in terms of an
exact date for the results of the forum.\1\ I don't have that
with me. But one of the things that did come out of the forum
was a wealth of ideas and enthusiasm for these innovations and
so that is being documented. But I would have to get back to
you in terms of the next steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OPM is currently finalizing the report and expects to have it
available in September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Akaka. Fine. That will be fine.
Ms. Rouse, your report notes that companies and the economy
could benefit from the wider use of workplace flexibilities
because they improve recruitment, retention, health, and
productivity. As you know, the Federal Government currently
does not offer paid parental leave. From your experience
studying private sector leave policies, what do you believe the
overall effect of providing paid parental leave would be?
Ms. Rouse. Well, here is one of the places where I think we
need to understand more. Among the studies that we have looked
at, there were very few that really focused on paid parental
leave per se. But I think what we are learning through the
research is that flexibility is very important, and we
certainly know that it is important for parents to be available
for their children, especially now that we have more households
in which children are being raised where both parents are
working or a single parent is working. And so we know that it
is important for parents to have that kind of flexibility. I
think we need more studies to really understand the value of
that one particular form of flexibility.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Foley, as your testimony states, worksite wellness
programs have shown encouraging effects on employee health and
absenteeism. If the initial project and the two additional
prototypes requested through the fiscal year 2011 budget show
similar results, would you anticipate broadly expanding this
model Campus Wellness Program?
Mr. Foley. Before I answer that, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
let you know that the report from the Forum on Telework will be
available within the coming months.
We will be carefully evaluating the pilot wellness
programs. We want to make sure that they work in the Federal
work environment. We have different rules and different
operating procedures in some environments, and so we wanted to
make sure of that, so we will be evaluating it carefully.
We would anticipate spreading the word and spreading those
programs across Federal agencies. We are asking Federal
agencies to submit reports--I am sorry, plans, in the beginning
of fiscal year 2011 that will indicate how they plan to grow
those programs and achieve the benefits that they have shown.
There are a variety of initiatives underway in Federal
agencies and so there is not one-size-fits-all with worksite
wellness and we are looking to encourage agencies to develop
plans and programs.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Foley. Senator Voinovich,
your questions.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Foley and Ms. Rouse, while our
economy provides a golden opportunity to hire talented Federal
employees, our deficit requires some tough choices. The Federal
Government spends, on average, $100,571 per employee for salary
and benefits. That is a figure that to me was almost startling.
Benefits are 36 percent of total compensation. What guidance do
you have as the Subcommittee considers whether addition of
benefits, such as through a paid Parental Leave Act at a cost
of just under $1 billion over 5 years, are appropriate at this
time? In other words, can we afford additional benefits?
It is really interesting to me that if you look around the
country and look at what is happening in State government in
terms of State government employees, it seems like our own
employees, and I am a great booster of our employees, seem to
be exempt from some of the things that others are experiencing.
And when you consider last year that out of every $100 we
spent, 41 cents was borrowed and our debt is almost at $13
billion, and as far as one can see, we are not going to have
balanced budgets, what kind of consideration is being made by
OPM or your office, Ms. Rouse, in terms of the realities of
what is confronting our Federal Government and the impact that
it has in terms of the people who work for the Federal
Government?
Mr. Foley. I can start off in terms of what OPM is doing.
We believe that the work-life programs need to be promoted
because of the benefits that they bring in terms of increased
productivity for the organization and ultimately in savings in
terms of health care costs and that type of thing. So we think
that these, if they are carefully managed and well implemented,
programs hold a lot of promise addressing the cost issue that
you raise, and that is what we are encouraging other agencies
to do.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Rouse.
Ms. Rouse. I was just going to say that, obviously, we know
that the fiscal situation for the Federal Government is
something that we will certainly need to be addressing, and it
is important that Federal dollars be very wisely spent. The
research to date--I really do want to emphasize I think we need
more--does suggest that a dollar spent brings back more than
that dollar spent.
But I think we need to learn more and I would like to just
highlight that in terms of paid parental leave, in the
President's budget, there is a $50 million proposal for a pilot
program for States to adopt paid parental leave programs and it
would allow us to study whether we get the kind of economic
benefit that at least some of the research suggests that we
might get.
Senator Voinovich. You just mentioned the proposed 2011
budget, $50 million to kind of look at that situation. Was
there anything in the 2010 budget in terms of work-life
programs.
Ms. Rouse. I would have to get back to you on that.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There was no specific line item in the President's FY2010
budget for Federal work-life programs, although there was $2.6 million
allocated to a pilot of wellness programs. While many agencies have
work-life flexibility policies and programs, they are funded from their
general administrative funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Foley, do you have any ideas in
terms of money that was in the first budget that the Obama
Administration presented to Congress?
Mr. Foley. I know that the Worksite Wellness Program that
we are getting underway is funded in the 2010 budget, the first
pilot program, and then the follow-on pilot programs are in the
2011 budget.
Senator Voinovich. Well, it seems to me that if you are
looking at the programs, that this cost-benefit should be
really looked at. When I was governor, I remember people used
to come to me and they would say, in terms of insurance
benefits, and I would say, fine, I think it is a great idea.
But if we add that, it is going to really increase our cost,
and because of that cost, it means that we are going to have to
pay more for it, or in some instances, people who are paying
for part of it may not be able to afford it anymore. So there
is this constant need to look at costs.
My suggestion would be to look at this wellness program I
know that we have had several presentations, I think you even
mentioned, for every dollar you spend, there are $3 in savings.
Those are the kinds of things I think that you ought to be
emphasizing right now, particularly in light of our financial
situation, because it is really critical right now. Of all the
things that people talk to me about today, they are interested
in their job, and they are really worried about where our
Federal Government is going in terms of spending.
Ms. Rouse, what does your research show are the most valued
work-life benefits, say, by young professionals with newborn or
young children, middle-aged workers with college-aged children
and aging parents? Do you have anything you can give us now on
that?
Ms. Rouse. I don't believe that we actually looked by age,
but it is clear that employees and potential employees very
much value having some flexibility, and I would imagine it is
largely the flexibility in hours and timing that is the most
important, although for others, flexibility in when they work
is important as well. But we didn't look specifically by age.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Foley, some have suggested cafeteria
plans as a way to provide employee flexibility in managing
their benefit dollars, giving them a smorgasbord. Are there
best practices from cafeteria plans that OPM could implement
for Federal employees?
Mr. Foley. Certainly, we have looked at the market in terms
of the different plans that are available. There are a wide
variety of choices already in the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHBP). So currently, Federal employees can
choose from high-deductible plans to standard plans, so that
there is a considerable flexibility now in term of their health
plan choices and the benefits that they confeur.
Certainly, a growing trend is that private companies are
looking for their health insurers to vary premiums by either
participation in a wellness program or achievement of results
in wellness programs. Currently, the way that our law is
structured, as you would know, the benefit--the employee
contribution is fixed in law, so that is something that would
need to be looked at if we were to go down that route. I think
it is still early in that area in terms of actually varying
premiums based on behavior and there are some risks associated
with that. So we are looking right now at non-monetary
incentives in the pilots that I have talked about, ways of
seeing how far we can get with encouraging employees to adopt
healthy behaviors that way.
Senator Voinovich. In other words, if we went the route of,
say, Safeway or other companies that are out there that are
really getting into this, Proctor and Gamble and so forth, that
if we wanted to do an experiment, we would have to change the
law in regard to that particular agency that we would be doing
this with so that we could get kind of an idea of what impact
it has?
Mr. Foley. In terms of employee contribution, yes, that is
correct.
Senator Voinovich. So we can't do that on kind of a pilot
basis?
Mr. Foley. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Voinovich. OK. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Ms. Rouse, certain industries such as manufacturing have
been reluctant to adopt flexible work options because these
options are more difficult to successfully integrate into their
business models. You mentioned that there are companies in
these industries that have successfully adopted flexible work
policies. Do their experiences hold any lessons for the Federal
Government?
Ms. Rouse. Again, I think this is a situation where there
is not going to be one set of policies or lessons for the
Federal Government as it is a large employer with different
types of workers.
One of the things that we see in manufacturing is that,
especially for workers on the production line, those workers
need to be physically where they are at the time that they need
to be there in order to complete the production process. So one
of the things that firms have tried to do is to train workers
in the step that comes before and the step that comes after the
part that they are responsible for so that they can compensate
if their colleague needs to be absent for some period of time
without disrupting the entire production process.
Another strategy that we highlight in the report is the use
of retirees who can step in if a worker is going to be absent
for a day or possibly even a few hours. These retirees can step
in on short notice and are already familiar with the production
process and therefore can substitute for that worker.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Foley, I would like to hear more about
your Results-Only Work Environment Pilot Project. How will you
measure employee performance, and do you believe this model
could be translated to other agencies?
Mr. Foley. The performance metrics that we have in place
will be used in the ROWE Program, the ROWE Pilot Program, so we
won't be changing the performance metrics, but we will be
carefully monitoring and looking at those with a heavy emphasis
on achieving the same results or better results through the
employees in the pilot program.
We have deliberately chosen a diverse group of employees
that reflects the different work environments that we have--
policy analysts and we also have retirement benefit officers
who work on a case-by-case basis where productivity might be
more easily measured. So we are trying to look at a typical OPM
workforce, at least in this case, and evaluate it to understand
what the different impact is across different work settings.
The evaluation will be available early next year and we
really hope to learn from that and then have discussions with
other agencies about this. It is a very significant experiment
in terms of the culture change that we are calling for and so
it is not something that we take lightly and we want to make
sure that we can show positive results to share that with other
Federal agencies.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Foley, I understand that OPM did not
request special demonstration project authority and is
operating the Results-Only Pilot under current law. Please
discuss the challenges you have identified as you prepare to
begin this pilot program, as well as any changes to law you
believe would be needed if this project were expanded.
Mr. Foley. Yes. We are not calling for any changes to
current Federal law and I think that is an appropriate way to
experiment with this. We are looking at, particularly at the
counting of hours, the 80 hours per pay period as an issue that
we would hope the evaluators would look and comment on that in
terms of if there are recommended changes if one is working in
a ROWE environment.
There are also other rules, such as core hours, so being
available for 2 hours on two designated days per period. Again,
these are some things we want to look at and test and
understand, are they barriers or do they matter? Do they get in
the way or not?
Obviously, in terms of culture change, we are looking at
attitudes and employee morale, so trying to understand the
attitudes of workers and managers to this new environment.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Foley, OPM has contracted with Deloitte
to provide an outside analysis of the Results-Only Pilot. What
outcomes does OPM hope to see from this review to show the
pilot has been successful?
Mr. Foley. Again, with the emphasis on results--we are
looking to see, is there improved productivity? Is there
improved results from the work, from this environment, changed
environment? So trying as best we can to measure that. We are
also looking at employee morale and employee attitudes to work.
Many of the other environments that the ROWE-type model has
been tried, there have been improvements in employee morale and
productivity, so we will be looking at those. There also appear
to be tangential benefits in health habits and sleeping and
that kind of thing.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Rouse, you have stressed that more
research into work-life programs is needed. Will the Council of
Economic Advisers be doing additional research and releasing
additional reports on the economic benefits of these programs?
Ms. Rouse. We do not conduct our own original research, but
we are definitely working with other members of the
Administration. There is the Work-Life Conference that we held
last month. There are groups that are starting to work with us
where they may be generating additional research themselves,
pilot programs, working with employers to stand up programs,
and studying those programs for the cost-benefit analyses and
the impacts on the employers as well as workers. So we will be
eagerly following those and are happy to summarize them in a
subsequent report.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Rouse.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. What percentage of our workforce are
subject to collective bargaining agreements?
Mr. Foley. Off the top of my head, I don't have that
figure.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the President of the National
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) is here. Maybe we will get that
in her testimony. I would be interested in that. The thing is
that it is my understanding that in terms of salary benefits,
those are not negotiated in the collective bargaining
agreement. That is set by Congress, is that right? The wages we
pay our Federal employees are not subject to collective
bargaining. We set that by the statute and that is what it is.
Mr. Foley. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. OK. How about health care benefits? Is
that set by statute or is that negotiated?
Mr. Foley. The health care benefits as broadly, they are
set in statute in terms of the contribution amounts, yes----
Senator Voinovich. So it is by the statute. You don't
negotiate the participation of the employees? If the Congress
decides that they are going to pay 35 percent or whatever it
is, that is by law rather than by negotiation?
Mr. Foley. That is correct.
Senator Voinovich. OK. That wasn't the case in State
government. I know when we did, I think, for instance, money
for training, we negotiated that and we would list pay
increase, but if they put a nickel in, we put a dime in for
training because we thought it was important and our unions
thought it was important. When I came in, our health care costs
were going up, like, 23 percent a year and we wanted to go to
preferred provider because we thought we would save money. And
so what we did was, again, negotiated with the union and said,
if you are willing to go along with this, we will reduce the
amount of money that you pay for your health care. That would
involve the unions in these discussions.
Now, both of you have talked about some new ideas, and I
know that we have talked with Mr. Berry about some of his ideas
in terms of the workforce and so forth. What I would like to
know is just how much participation in some of the discussion
that is going on have you had with our major unions, because I
think I would be interested in knowing that.
Mr. Foley. Well, certainly the ROWE initiative that we are
implementing at OPM has been discussed and is being discussed
with the two locals that are participating in that project, and
also the Telework Thought Leadership Forum included
representation. So there is an effort to have those discussions
and have them be a part of the initial phases and the planning
of these initiatives so that the issues that they raise can be
measured and evaluated in the evaluation.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I think that is really important,
because so often what happens is that because you don't have
the consultation, that sometimes things are promoted and the
unions are very unhappy about it, and then it just becomes a
stalemate here in Congress. I know he has got some ideas, and
you have, and so forth, but I think the more you can work with
the unions, the better off I think all of us are going to be.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
I want to thank our panel for your valuable testimony.
Before I ask the second panel to come forward, I want to tell
you that your responses have been helpful to us. As you know,
we are trying to set up conditions where the Federal Government
can be attractive to people, especially young people in our
country. We need to work with educational institutions, as
well, to try to reach out and attract some people to the
Federal workforce. And, of course, as we continue to mention,
to continue to make the Federal Government the choice employer.
We can do that by working together and we look forward to
information you can give us to help us do that. So thank you
very much to our first panel.
Mr. Foley. Thank you.
Ms. Rouse. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. I would like to ask the second panel to
please come forward.
I want to welcome our second panel. On this panel this
afternoon, we have Kathy Lingle, Executive Director of the
Alliance for Work-Life Progress at WorldatWork. Also, Max
Stier, the President and CEO of Partnership for Public Service,
Colleen Kelley, President of the National Treasury Employees
Union, and Joe Flynn, Vice President of the American Federation
of Government Employees.
It is, as you know, the custom of this Subcommittee to
swear in all witnesses, so I would ask all of you to stand and
raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this
Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Lingle. I do.
Mr. Stier. I do.
Ms. Kelley. I do.
Mr. Flynn. I do.
Senator Akaka. Let the record note that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Let me also remind all of you that although your oral
statement is limited to 5 minutes, your full written statement
will be included in the record.
Ms. Lingle, please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF KATHLEEN M. LINGLE,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ALLIANCE FOR WORK-LIFE PROGRESS AT WORLDATWORK
Ms. Lingle. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Voinovich, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
honor of testifying before you today on best practices in the
field of work-life effectiveness. My name is Kathleen Lingle. I
am the Executive Director of Alliance for Work-Life Progress at
WorldatWork. I have been a work-life researcher, practitioner,
and consultant for over 20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Lingle appears in the Appendix on
page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this week of public service recognition, I believe
it is timely to have a robust dialogue about the importance and
value of developing a coherent strategy for Federal work-life
programs. Numerous studies have shown that the quality of
workers' jobs and the supportiveness of their workplaces are
key predictors of worker job productivity. We have heard a lot
about that from our first panel. It also contributes to job
satisfaction, commitment to employers, and more positive mental
and physical health outcomes.
For the past 35 years, most, if not all, Federal agencies
have developed an impressive variety of supports for everyone
who works to help them manage their dual agenda throughout the
career life cycle. In fact, what is interesting is the Federal
Government exerted leadership in work-life programs long before
these innovations were adopted in private industry. However,
what is striking today is that, for the most part, the Federal
sector is not harnessing the full power of work-life
effectiveness as the most inexpensive and intrinsically
motivating driver of attraction, engagement, and retention
available in the 21st Century.
The notable gap in the Federal environment vis-a-vis
private industry is a failure to deploy work-life as an
overarching organizational strategy, one that has a
demonstrated capacity, as we have heard, to engage the minds
and hearts of any labor force in any sector. In private
industry today, employers compete to be perceived as best in
class because such employee-friendly behavior literally pays
itself many times over.
In WorldatWork's 2007 survey, ``Attraction and Retention:
The Impact and Prevalence of Work-Life Programs,'' we found
that a successful work-life portfolio can result in tangible
increases in attraction and retention of the kind of talent
needed for organizational success. This portfolio that I am
referring to includes seven categories of work-life practices,
several but not all that have been mentioned so far. These
include dependent care, paid and unpaid time off, health and
wellness, community involvement, financial support, workplace
flexibility, and culture change initiatives.
These beneficial results that accrue from the application
of such a portfolio, an integrated portfolio, are not just
limited to the private sector. Data show similar outcomes for
public sector employees. I know my fellow witness, Mr. Stier,
will also speak to this, but according to the Best Places to
Work in the Federal Government Report by the Partnership for
Public Service, work-life balance and a family-friendly culture
are two of the ``best in class'' categories used to rank
Federal agencies.
And it is not just one demographic group that values and
benefits from these programs. Achieving success both at home
and at work is important to everyone. From experienced workers
in their 60s to students just graduating from college, research
shows that work-life programs appeal and support workers in
multiple generations.
Also, no longer are work-life programs seen through a
gender lens. Both women and men experience work-life conflict,
and having flexibility in their work schedules is an increasing
priority as they struggle to balance family and work.
Director John Berry has it right. In order for the Federal
Government to become a leader in work-life programs, you must
consider the big picture. Instead of pursuing one discrete
work-life program after another in relative isolation, I
recommend that the entire exercise be ratcheted up a notch and
considered in its entirety as one coherent people and business
strategy.
Using the work-life portfolio as the well-tested road map
it has become for employers everywhere, all of the component
elements of policy and practice required to meet the needs of
Federal workers will fall into place. Any important missing
pieces will become evident and can be developed as necessary.
For the sake of time, I have included numerous examples of
best practices and specific recommendations in my written
testimony and would be happy to share them with you during
question and answers.
In closing, I look forward to working with the Subcommittee
and the Administration as you develop work-life programs that
ensure that the Federal Government attracts, retains, and
empowers a 21st Century workforce. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify on this important issue.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Lingle.
Mr. Stier, will you please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF MAX STIER,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stier. Thank you very much. This is an opportune time
for this hearing and there are no better two people than the
two of you, Chairman Akaka and Senator Voinovich, with whom to
have this conversation. I consider you the dynamic duo of good
government, so it is an honor to be here especially during
Public Service Recognition Week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Stier appears in the Appendix on
page 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My interest here is to see how we move the ball forward. I
think there is widespread agreement that flexible work
arrangements are important in terms of productivity. Senator
Voinovich, I think you, as usual, hit the nail on the head in
terms of the lens through which we need to be viewing this. How
do we provide more cost-effective and better service to the
American people? This conversation has to be about how we do
that. The evidence, I think, is strong to suggest that there
are a lot of things we can do with respect to flexible work
arrangements that would get us there.
To me, there are several key questions. What are the
barriers that are preventing us from getting there? If there is
a consensus that we need to make this happen, why isn't more
happening? What are the specific things we can do about it?
On the barriers, I would suggest that there are four
important barriers. The first is manager resistance, and this
is not only about training.
The second is that there is poor performance measurement
right now in government so the proxy for actual performance is
physical presence. People don't actually know what good work
is, and therefore, they think because they can see somebody,
they are getting work out of them. That is something we have to
change. This, I think, is an issue that is more substantial
than even the flexible work arrangement conversation. We need a
better appreciation and understanding about what performance is
in the public sector in order for us to be able to address
these issues and others.
Third, there are clearly issues around security of
information that are technology-based.
And fourth and finally, I think there is an important issue
around public perception. We are losing the battle right now
with the American public about the importance and value of
government service and we need to make sure that flexible work
arrangements are seen as a mechanism of actually doing better
for the American public as opposed to simply another benefit
for public workers. That is one of the key barriers we also
need to address.
So I would present six things we might do going forward.
The first is to note that this is in draft form. We are
currently doing research on the subject matter with Booz Allen
Hamilton. We will be issuing a report in the next several
months that will be much more complete and comprehensive, but
let me give you some of our initial findings.
First, clearly, I think the legislation, particularly
around telecommuting, that you have in place needs to be
passed. It needs to be passed, but I hope that you will pass it
and you will stay on top of this issue even after passage,
because that legislation will improve the process, but will by
no means solve it, and we have a lot of work to do beyond that.
Second, we need to raise our sights. I think, very
importantly, there is a concrete goal that OPM has set about
raising the telecommuting numbers by 50 percent by next year.
In truth, we have to be doing even much more than that in the
next year and beyond. We have companies like IBM that have 40
percent telecommuting. In the government right now 5 percent of
eligible workers are telecommuting. Overall, the Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) is at the top at 80-plus percent, but
agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
Department of Defense (DOD) have less than 3 percent of
eligible workers telecommuting. So we need to actually set a
mark that is much higher, and I would argue for around the 40
percent that IBM is doing.
Third, we need to build from best practices. There are
agencies like Patent and Trademark Office that are doing it. We
need to understand how they are doing it and get it adopted
elsewhere. The best way of spreading change in government is by
finding other examples in government where it is working.
Fourth, we have opportunities around change that is already
taking place. The Department of Homeland Security is looking at
new space options. If you look at the Patent and Trademark
Office story, they were at 10 percent telecommuting in 2001.
They are now at over 80 percent, and that happened around their
movement to new space. I think we could imagine GSA requiring
that there be real telecommuting plans when they provide new
space for agencies. I am happy to talk about that further, but
I am trying to make my time limit here.
So fifth, we are going to need to invest some dollars up
front. We heard a little bit about the wellness program, the $2
million-plus that Director Berry has invested. This is a matter
of front-end money that is necessary to get the stuff rolling,
but we will have back-end payoff of a lot larger significance.
And sixth, along the same lines, we need to do more
piloting. We need to do some more demonstration work in
government. The ROWE Project is fascinating. This is a two
million-person organization. We need to have more
experimentation to understand what is possible and what is
going to work, and I doff my hat to Director Berry on ROWE. We
need to make sure that we combine those pilots with real solid
data gathering protocols so we can prove that flexible
arrangements work and we understand how to replicate it them.
So thank you very much, again, for inviting me here.
Senator Akaka. Thank you so much, Mr. Stier.
Colleen Kelley, will you please proceed with your
statement.
TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,\1\ NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Ms. Kelley. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member
Voinovich. As the National President of National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU), representing over 150,000 Federal
employees in 31 agencies, I very much appreciate you holding
this hearing on this subject, especially during Public Service
Recognition Week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on
page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer,
but today, the Federal Government is losing ground in areas
that are very important in attracting, retaining, and
empowering its workforce. We want to bring back a leadership
role to the Federal Government and make it the employer of
choice in the United States.
Dramatic changes in the workforce in the last 40 years have
created what Workforce Flexibility 2010 calls a work-family
mismatch and conflict. Employers who follow dated policies and
practices that limit workplace flexibility do not serve the
interests of either the employer or the employee. And when the
employer is the Federal Government, it does not serve the
interests of the citizens, either.
NTEU is very enthusiastic about the endorsement of flexible
work arrangements by the Director of OPM and by the White
House. We would like to see flexible work arrangements as the
standard operating procedure in the Federal Government.
In that regard, it is time for the Federal Government, as
the largest employer in this country, to step up and make
family leave real, not a mirage that just a few can afford to
use. Being able to substitute any leave without pay under the
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) with 4 weeks of paid leave
for the birth or adoption of a child will make a significant
difference in the lives of both parent and child.
A report by the Institute of Women's Policy Research (IWPR)
in October 2009 states that younger workers demand greater
workplace flexibility, and while many private sector companies
are leading the way with paid parental leave packages, the
current Federal benefits do not meet younger workers' needs.
IWPR calculates that the Federal Government could prevent over
2,600 departures per year among female employees by offering
paid parental leave, preventing over $50 million per year in
turnover costs.
I would like to ask that their report, which I have a copy
here, would be entered into the record for this hearing, if
that is OK.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report appears in the Appendix on page 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Akaka. Without objection.
Ms. Kelley. As you know, the House has passed its paid
parental leave bill last June, and that was passed on a
bipartisan basis. With your leadership, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to see your Committee pass Senator Webb's bill, S. 354,
this summer on paid parental leave.
NTEU has found that where agencies have good telework
programs, which we have talked a lot about today, employees
feel they can handle work-life issues much better than in
agencies that are resistant to such programs. Given the
convincing merits of the Akaka telework bill and the few
remaining months in this session of Congress, we believe it is
very important that the Senate act swiftly on this important
legislation, and then we need to breathe life into telework and
to make it a reality for the hundreds of thousands of Federal
employees who do not have appropriate access to it today. That
would be a triple win, a win for employees, a win for agencies,
and a win for taxpayers.
Wellness programs also contribute positively to work-life
balance. This year's Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
Call Letter contains several proposals by OPM to provide
wellness programs for Federal employees, and in addition, OPM
informed the carriers that coverage of dependents has been
extended to age 26 by the recently passed health care law, and
that effective date will be January 1, 2011. A longtime NTEU
initiative, the age 26 coverage will provide a much needed
safety net for those dependents just starting out their
careers, often without health insurance, and we would like to
explore the possibility of an earlier start date.
Under your able leadership, Senator Akaka, S. 372, the
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act is also ready for
floor action. This bill represents years of work in addressing
gaps in whistleblower protection, and for the first time will
extend whistleblower protection statutorily to Transportation
Security Officers (TSOs) at the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). NTEU stands ready to assist in whatever
way necessary to see this bill successfully passed in the
Senate.
NTEU has found that work-life balance is the easiest to
achieve when employees have a voice in their workplace. If the
workers can have a collective voice, the effect is much
stronger. Sadly, that is not the case at TSA. We would also
like to see a Senate version of Representative Nita Lowey's
bill, H.R. 1881, introduced that would give TSOs the right to
collectively bargain. While we wait for a new administrator to
be named, we ask for your help in persuading the Department of
Homeland Security to grant collective bargaining rights through
a directive now.
NTEU wants the Federal Government to be a leader in the
movement in order to provide a better work environment for
employees and we will do all we can to promote the programs
that are passed by Congress and endorsed by the Administration
that further our members' ability to balance the demands of
their jobs with the demands of their families and also to look
after their own health.
Thank you, and I would be glad to answer any questions you
have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Kelley.
Mr. Flynn, will you please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN P. FLYNN,\1\ VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Flynn. Mr. Chairman and Senator Voinovich, on behalf of
the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which
represents more than 600,000 Federal employees, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today regarding work-life programs
which would attract, retain, and empower the Federal workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Flynn appears in the Appendix on
page 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 21st Century, one can easily see the effects that
home computers, email, smart phones, and cell phones have in
enabling a 24/7 work environment. Employees are looking for
balance between work and their personal and family demands, and
if the Federal Government fails to provide this balance,
agencies risk losing valuable employees to employers who offer
more flexibility.
AFGE supports the telework legislation, Mr. Chairman, that
you and the Senator have introduced, as well as the companion
legislation in the House. Both bills require that all Federal
workers be considered eligible for telework unless the agency
shows they are ineligible. Under current law, Federal workers
must overcome this presumption that they are ineligible for
telework unless the agency determines otherwise.
I would like to give you two examples of why your
legislation is so important. AFGE members working at agencies
with established telework programs, such as the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services and Citizenship and Immigration
Services, report that those agencies have self-imposed an
arbitrary cap on the number of workers allowed to participate
in telework. At the National Science Foundation (NSF), although
AFGE succeeded in negotiating a telework program, the union had
to trade off the right to file any grievances on the matter
regardless of their merit. This makes it almost impossible to
ensure that telework at NSF is applied fairly and uniformly to
employees.
I would like to talk to you just very briefly about the
Results-Only Work Environment. AFGE Local 32 is working closely
with Director Berry's office in the implementation phase of the
Results-Only Work Environment Pilot at OPM. This is another
flexible workplace initiative which allows employees to work
when they want, when they can, where they want, as long as the
work gets done, and that is the key, as long as the work gets
done.
One of the work groups selected to participate has had
major workload processing problems for some time, and as a
result of the ROWE Pilot Project, joint management and labor
forums have been established to address these problems, and
many of them to date have been resolved. If the ROWE Pilot
works with this particular work group, Mr. Chairman and
Senator, it can work with any other office.
We particularly appreciate Director Berry's efforts. He
truly leads by example. Mr. Chairman and Senator, based on my
experience as a Federal employee and a union representative,
whether we are talking telework, wellness programs, or the ROWE
Program or similar-type programs, I cannot overstate or
overemphasize the importance of having an agency champion of
these programs at the top. That is critical to the success of
these programs.
We urge agencies--with regard to the wellness programs,
workplace wellness programs have been around for a number of
years. Wellness programs include weight loss, physical fitness,
smoking cessation, and stress management, which help reduce
health insurance premiums, workers' compensation premiums, and
workplace injuries and illness. Employees also see the benefit
in terms of increased productivity, improved employee
relations, and employee morale. Healthier workers take fewer
days off for illness and may experience less severe symptoms.
We urge agencies establishing wellness programs to ensure that
they work with their unions, where you have a union, in the
development and implementation of these programs.
Paid parental leave--despite the protections of the Family
and Medical Leave Act, many Federal workers must choose between
a paycheck and meeting their family obligations because they
currently have no paid parental leave. The House bill passed in
the Senate and its companion introduced by Senator Jim Webb
would provide Federal employees 4 of the 12 weeks of family and
medical leave as paid leave upon birth and adoption of a
fostering child. Mr. Chairman, the time has come for the
Federal Government to set the standard for U.S. employers on
paid parental leave. AFGE urges the immediate Senate passage of
S. 354 so that the bill can be sent to President Obama by the
end of the year.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Myself, as well
as AFGE, would be happy to answer any questions or further any
other information you might need. Thank you, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Flynn.
Ms. Lingle, as I noted in my opening statements, I believe
the Federal Government needs work-life programs to stay
competitive with the private sector. Your testimony describes a
number of best practice programs in the private sector. Does
your research show that more organizations are offering work-
life programs now than in the past?
Ms. Lingle. Well, I have described a portfolio with several
categories in it, so the answer is there has been growth in
some of those categories and relative shrinkage in others,
particularly over the last 18 months as we faced the worst
recession we have had since the 1930s. Things that require a
great deal of money, as you might expect, have been curtailed
somewhat. Things that have no direct cost, like flexibility,
community volunteering, and some other aspects of the
portfolio, have grown.
So we have seen change, but in general, since flexibility
seems to be a great topic of discussion in this forum, that, we
haven't seen a great deal of retrenchment on. In fact, we are
seeing some experiments in both the public and private sector
that we have never seen before where employers are actually
mandating flexibility rather than waiting for employees to ask
for it. So we have got some very interesting experiments going
on at the moment.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. As many of you have mentioned--
and this is for the entire panel--some managers have been
resistant to more flexible ways of managing employees. How do
you believe we can overcome this resistance? Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. I think there are a number of things that can
be done. I think that the agency leadership at the highest
level, at the middle level, at the front-line level all need to
model that behavior. They need to not only talk about it, but
they need to recognize and reward managers who support
employees in flexibility and in doing telework, and not just
talk about it. I think that agencies who have been successful
should be asked and expected to be out there talking to other
agencies about their very real experiences and about their real
successes.
I think when there are productivity savings, which in many
cases there will be, that the agencies should be able to retain
what they save and reinvest it in other agency programs. Most
agencies that I am aware of have a lot of work they would like
to do, but they don't have the resources to do it. So rather
than see them have productivity gains and then take those
savings away from them, let them reinvest those in the
workforce as well as in the work of the agency.
But I think it is a big culture issue. When I attended the
White House forum, it was clear to me from the private sector
companies who do this and do it well that they all recognize it
as a culture change. It is not just about issuing a memo or
saying it is OK to approve it. It is about living it every day
and not waiting for an employee to ask for the flexibility but
to offer it to them.
I know when I left that forum, I remember one of the
opening sessions presenters, it was the CEO from Campbell's
Soup, and when I heard him speak about telework and
flexibilities and his workforce, I made myself a note that I
know a few agencies that have managers they should detail to
Campbell's Soup for a while because I think that it would help
them with this culture issue, because I am more convinced than
ever that really is what drives a lot of it.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Lingle.
Ms. Lingle. There is a good history in showing evidence for
the impact of training. If you are really going to culturally
embed flexibility, it doesn't happen intuitively or without a
great deal of work. There is something that pushes the culture
about flexibility, and managers are not trained historically to
deal with these kinds of issues. In fact, over the last 20
years, we have taught human resource (HR) people in particular
not to get into people's private lives, that is not where you
go, and this takes art and skill. Both employees and managers
actually need to be trained how to behave and how to proceed.
That is one of the keys to success.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Flynn. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Once again, please let me
emphasize the important of top management supporting these
programs. That is critical. Legislation aside, negotiated
agreements aside, if you don't have that support, the program
will be undermined.
The second piece is we have to change the paradigm of what
supervisors are looking at. I think it was mentioned earlier,
but you have to get away from the idea of measuring presence to
measuring outcome.
And third, I believe that you need to have a security
confidential protocol in place where supervisors and managers
are trained on it so that the fear of information being lost is
overcome.
And I think it comes down to this, two factors. Can the
work be done in part at home? And is the equipment available
for the employee to carry it out? And if those two conditions
are met, it is real simple. Do it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Stier.
Mr. Stier. Mr. Chairman, you heard a whole bunch of good
reasons that I think cover everything. I want to pick up on one
thing that Ms. Kelley stated that I thought is a nice idea, as
well, and that is more mobility. If you can actually have
leaders and managers in government agencies see it work in
other places, that would improve the ability to spread best
practice across government.
I believe everything that needs to happen in government is
happening somewhere, but frequently in not many places. If we
can give the talent in government the experience of seeing it
work and feeling it work and having the opportunity to work in
that work environment, then we increase the chances of it being
adopted in other agencies.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Stier, you had mentioned that many
managers are not trained to successfully implement and oversee
work-life flexibility programs. What recommendations do you
have for Congress and OPM to ensure managers receive sufficient
and effective training?
Mr. Stier. Senator, this is something that obviously you
have and this Subcommittee have worked on. I think we
underinvest in the training and development of our managers and
leaders and that is a source of many challenges that we face
around the flexible work arrangements but also beyond that. I
believe we need to see long-term investments in the training of
the workforce.
We need to see leadership commitment to it. It is not
simply a matter of dollars. We actually need to see leaders in
their own evaluation of their top management, prioritizing the
need for investment in the workforce and in the folks that
report to their direct reports.
Ultimately, in terms of this Subcommittee, I think you can
be looking at data points like the Best Places to Work
rankings, manager satisfaction surveys that target specifically
those managers, and ultimately, I hope, real performance
metrics.
So again, as Mr. Flynn stated, I believe at the end of the
day, one of our key issues in the public sector is a need to be
able to have very clear and direct communication about what we
are trying to achieve and the role that individuals and teams
play in getting there. If you have real-time performance
information, I think you will have telecommuting to a greater
extent and you will have better performance, ultimately. But I
think we have some distance to travel there.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Senator Voinovich, your
questions.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. Mr. Stier, the Partnership for
Public Service has been working a long period of time to
highlight the opportunities that we have here in the Federal
Government. I know one of the reasons why Sam Heyman formed the
organization was he felt that more people ought to be going
into public service. I was, as I mentioned, a little bit
disappointed at the look at that at the John F. Kennedy School.
Really, the numbers haven't really improved very much since the
time we got started with this.
Besides the antiquated archaic hiring system that we have,
and hopefully we are going to get that changed this year--and I
just want to make clear, the number of people I have met who
wanted to work for the Federal Government and never heard and
then got jobs and then heard, it is just amazing. In other
words, because we are not communicating, we are losing a lot of
good people. And then, by the way, the word gets out on the
street that this thing is archaic and so people just say, I am
not going to even bother anymore because of the anecdotal stuff
that is out there among people who might be wanting to work for
the Federal Government.
But besides that, what other disincentives are out there,
and in terms of work-life issues? Have you ever done an
analysis of what it is that people are really looking for?
Maybe, Ms. Lingle, you can look at it. What are the things that
they really are looking for in terms of a future employer? Both
of you can respond.
Mr. Stier. I think Ms. Lingle hit it right to say that what
is interesting is that, in many ways, what young folks are
looking for, the same thing is true for more experienced folks,
as well. The work-life balance issue is one that plays at the
top of the list for great talent across the whole spectrum of
experience. There are plenty of surveys out there that show
that it is a prime issue for a lot of talented people. I think
that is something that does matter and goes to the point here
about enabling more flexible work arrangements. I think it is
important that we focus on this not just for young people, but
for that full range of experience.
To my mind, there are three barriers that we have here. The
first is that the talent market, by and large, doesn't even
know about government service. It is not on their radar screen.
If you ask most folks today to tell you what public service is,
they will not include government service in their definition.
So what used to be synonymous terms now has lost almost
entirely government service from the equation.
What we have found on the positive side, though, is that
the more people know in the talent market about these
opportunities, the more they like it, so that they find it to
be meaningful work in which they can grow and develop and make
a difference, and that is what is going to attract them.
The second hurdle is the hiring process you mentioned, and
I believe that the work that OPM and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) is doing is vital, but honestly, I think it is
going to take more than a year to make these changes. It is
going to take a lot of work inside each and every agency to
actually get the changes that will make a difference, and your
hiring reform bill will help.
And then the third issue is some of the stuff we are
talking about today, what happens to folks when they are inside
government, how they are managed, and, therefore, are they
willing to stay and are they going to give of their very best
efforts. The kinds of things we have talked about here will
improve that third bucket.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Lingle.
Ms. Lingle. Mr. Stier and I haven't had a chance to talk
about this, but one of the suggestions I would make, and
Senator Voinovich, your point is excellent, in private
industry, you ask people what their needs are, and the value of
the portfolio management aspect of work-life is that you can
predict the various events and therefore the needs that an
employer is going to have to meet over the next 6 months, 2
years, 3 years, 5 years, i.e., the strategy.
So one of my suggestions is that there actually be an
augmentation, in between Administrations now, which are going
to be annual, of the Employee Viewpoint Survey, what in our
field we call a work-life needs assessment. What isn't done in
the survey today, but it has been greatly improved, is actual
usage and access to these various work-life issues. It is very
important to know not just how satisfied are people.
What we have found from other surveys in private industry,
employees will answer that they are very satisfied with
parental leave, with flexibility, and then you find out later
they have never used them. It is sort of a halo effect. It is
really important to find out, can people get to these things?
How do they feel about that, and what is their experience and
what are they lacking? That is a very critical point.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Kelley, do you have a list of things
from people in terms of what attracted them to the Federal
Government.
Ms. Kelley. Well, in my experience, first and foremost, it
is the mission of the agency that often draws the applicants
even to the agency. After that, it is about, once they get
through training, in pretty short order, it is about work-life
balance. It usually starts by seeing what is happening around
them in their agency and they see that in their occupation,
they do not have access to Flexiplace or telework or to
different work hours.
But then, they get a broader range of information when they
talk to neighbors and friends and relatives who work either for
other agencies or for the private sector and realize that there
is a whole other spectrum out there. And then the question is,
why would the Federal Government, as the largest employer, not
make those available?
I also worry about these things not being expanded today,
because I think for the next couple of years, the Federal
Government will not see the turnover that it otherwise might
because of the economy. But once the economy turns, and it
will, I worry that we are going to lose a lot of the employees
that we have, not through retirement but to private sector
companies who have really put in place a much broader spectrum
of work-life balance opportunities for employees. We need to
worry about that.
Senator Voinovich. That gets to the issue. We know what the
situation is right now because things are tough out there. This
is the worst recession since the Depression. A lot of people
are out there looking for work. But let us go back to a more
ordinary time, let us say 5 years ago when things were fairly
good and the economy was working. Was the Federal Government's
turnover rate more than the private sector?
Ms. Kelley. I don't know. I would have to get those numbers
for you.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the total
turnover rates from January of this year were 3.6 percent for private
employers. BLS does not provide turnover rates for the Federal
Government separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Voinovich. I would like to find that out from
staff.
The other thing is that the percentage of people in the
Federal workforce that are in collective bargaining, do you
have any idea what the answer to that is?
Ms. Kelley. I don't know the percentage.\2\ We will get you
that number. But when you asked the question earlier, I was
going to yell from my seat. When you said, how many Federal
employees are covered by collective bargaining rights, I was
going to say, not enough. [Laughter.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the percentage of
the Federal workforce represented by unions is 33.2 percent. However,
it also reports that the total number of Federal Government employees
is 3.6 million, which we do not believe is accurate. Historically, over
60 percent of the eligible Federal workforce was represented by unions.
We believe that the BLS percentage includes non-elibile employees, such
as managers. In both instances, we cannot verify this information.
Perhaps your office can get more accurate information from the
Congressional Research Service or directly from agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Voinovich. I wouldn't expect you to say anything
else. [Laughter.]
The one thing that I would like to just affirm, Mr. Flynn,
is the issue of Mr. Berry involving you in some of their
discussions and ideas about changing things. From what I picked
up from what you had to say, you seemed to be satisfied that he
is really reaching out and that you are a participant rather
than he is doing it all on his own and he is going to try to
sell you on what he wants to do.
Mr. Flynn. You are absolutely correct, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
Mr. Lingle and Mr. Stier, in your testimony, you both
suggest that changes need to be made to the annual Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey if we want to better understand the
experience and needs of the Federal workforce. Would you please
talk more about the changes you think are needed to this
survey?
Ms. Lingle. I mentioned before, I think it would be a great
addition, either in the survey or an augmented survey which I
would call a Technical Work-Life Needs Assessment, to get at
access and usage. I think that would be useful information we
don't currently have.
Second, I would like to see the panorama of issues asked
about in the survey to reflect the entire portfolio. There are
pieces missing right now, like community outreach,
volunteering, etc., that would be interesting to know about and
see. We know nationally there is a great upsurge in community
outreach in the last year during the recession, and morale and
retention are going up everywhere because of that, certainly in
private industry. So it would be interesting to see what the
experience is in the Federal Government right now. People are
reaching out to people in pain, and all of us know family
members and friends who are in big trouble, and that has really
opened hearts and minds of people which make a workplace much
more attractive when they respond to this. So that is one
example of an area that is missing right now.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Stier.
Mr. Stier. I think that OPM and OMB are looking at the
survey and are trying to hone in on the right data sets that
they want to collect. To my mind, some of the most important
things that need to happen are--and they have decided to do
this, it has to be done annually. It has to be done frequently
enough that the information can be used to actually hold
leadership accountable. It has to also be made available
faster. In the past the turnaround time has been something like
5 months. That is too long. You need information in a much more
expedited fashion.
I think you also need a census. In the past, there have
been some agencies that have actually surveyed the entire
workforce. In today's work with technology, that doesn't really
cost on the implementation side anything more. But what that
then allows you to do is to actually understand better what is
happening in smaller components of agencies, so you can
actually see important differences within the same organization
and manage from that data.
So those are the sorts of things that would make a very big
impact, and again, I think we are at the front edge of
understanding how useful this information can be and we need
more members like yourself to own it and to use it to hold
leaders accountable when they come in front of you.
Senator Akaka. Several of you have mentioned paid parental
leave as an attractive work-life program. Do you believe the
Federal Government is at a recruiting disadvantage with the
private sector because we do not offer paid parental leave? Ms.
Lingle.
Ms. Lingle. Relatively, I would say yes. My understanding
is the Federal Government has very generous sick leave, but
paid parental leave, even for new mothers and certainly for
fathers, is a relative disadvantage. Today, in private
industry, the companies we call ``Best in Class,'' about 72
percent of them offer paid parental leave. In best companies,
the national average is much lower than that, something about
15 percent. It is a growing category. Three years ago, that was
only 12 percent in best practice companies, a huge benefit as
we learn more about the mind and what happens with children and
raising children in this 21st Century who have self-esteem with
two parents on deck.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. I think it is a recruiting disadvantage for
some. If at the same time they are looking for a new position
with the Federal Government and they are also thinking about
starting a family, then I do think that it is a disadvantage.
But I think the other place we lose as the Federal
Government is for employees who are here 5, 6, or 7 years and
then decide that they are going to start a family and that this
is an issue for them that wasn't even on their screen when they
joined the Federal Government. But now it is and it will become
the reason that we will lose them, because they will leave.
They won't return to the Federal Government and they will look
for somewhere else as they continue to build their family that
has better practices and that are more family friendly.
Mr. Stier. Mr. Chairman, if I might?
Senator Akaka. Mr. Stier.
Mr. Stier. I would just add a personal anecdote on that
front. I have two children. You have met my wife. She was a
career Federal prosecutor, had been in the Federal Government
before that, and she had a lot of vacation time and sick leave
that she had built up over time and was able to take time off
as a result for both of our children. If we had not started a
family as late in life as we had, we would not have had that
opportunity and it would have been a real hardship.
I think there is a real differential here. If you have been
in the Federal workforce for a while, you can manage. But if
you, as has been suggested by Ms. Kelley, are new, that is a
real problem and I think it is clearly a disadvantage for the
government to recruit and retain an important segment of talent
that is out there.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Kelley and Mr. Flynn, the
Administration is working to expand worksite wellness programs
in the Federal Government. What specific steps can OPM take to
ensure that your members are aware of and participate in these
programs?
Ms. Kelley. I think the wellness programs are very
important and I think that leadership by OPM is important and
will take us a couple steps forward. But in the long run, I
think it will come down to resources. And when agencies have
choices they have to make, and even though they are given the
authority to run these wellness programs, if they are not given
the appropriations to do it and they have to make hard choices
about mission-related, delivery of their programs, that they
will not become a reality.
In fact, as pleased as I am that we are talking about these
wellness benefits, everyone has made pretty clear that the
percentage of Federal employees benefiting from telework today
who are able to actually work a telework schedule is very
small. I would suggest that the percentage of Federal employees
benefiting from wellness programs is even less than telework. I
think we are even much further behind on the wellness programs
than we are on the telework.
So again, I think what OPM is doing, what the
Administration is holding up as a standard of what they would
like for the future, but I think it is going to take consistent
progress year after year after year. It cannot be something we
talk about today and then not again for 4 years. And I think
there has to be a very serious look at budget implications and
what really is deliverable so that we can have some successes
to point to.
Senator Akaka. I want to thank you, this second panel, for
your observations as well as your experience and perceptions
about our Federal workers. Several of you have mentioned the
word ``culture'' and the change of culture that has to come
about. This is something that I would say is generational, but
we have to set the base for this and begin to plan
strategically where we should be in the years ahead to get all
the productivity from our workers and to make the Federal
Government an employer of choice. I am so glad that even here,
there is a cultural change in our relationships among those who
have decision making powers in our government to continue to
talk about this and bring this about.
I am glad to hear, also, that somewhere, there should be a
question about what the needs of the workers are, and from
there to try to see what can be done to address workers' needs.
For me, I think that it is a change in culture that needs to
come about. And by dealing with their needs, there is a good
chance they will stay with the Federal Government.
So all of these ideas are beginning to be expressed and we
need to really take this and continue to put it together as a
new base of culture for Federal workers and their future.
So I want to again thank you all for your thoughts and
recommendations. I encourage all of you to continue working
together with this Subcommittee to improve work-life programs
in the Federal Government. We have mentioned, too, that we need
to also cast an eye on the private sector and learn from them
and use whatever can be used in the Federal Government system.
These programs are vital to support our workforce and attract
the best people to public service.
The hearing record will remain open for 1 week for Members
to submit additional statements or questions.
Thank you very much for your time. This hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57934.121