[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OFFICIAL TIME: GOOD VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYER?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND LABOR POLICY
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 1, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-51
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-524 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida, Chairman
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan, Vice STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts,
Chairman Ranking Minority Member
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah Columbia
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
TIM WALBERG, Michigan DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 1, 2011..................................... 1
Statement of:
Curry, Timothy F., Deputy Associate Director, Partnership and
Labor Relations, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; F.
Vincent Vernuccio, labor policy counsel, Competitive
Enterprise Institute; James Sherk, senior policy analyst in
labor economics, the Heritage Foundation; and John Gage,
national president, American Federation of Government
Employees.................................................. 28
Curry, Timothy F......................................... 28
Gage, John............................................... 55
Sherk, James............................................. 45
Vernuccio, F. Vincent.................................... 36
Gingrey, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 14
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 7
Curry, Timothy F., Deputy Associate Director, Partnership and
Labor Relations, U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
prepared statement of...................................... 30
Gage, John, national president, American Federation of
Government Employees, prepared statement of................ 57
Gingrey, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia, prepared statement of.................... 16
Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 12
Ross, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 4
Sherk, James, senior policy analyst in labor economics, the
Heritage Foundation, prepared statement of................. 47
Vernuccio, F. Vincent, labor policy counsel, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, prepared statement of................ 38
OFFICIAL TIME: GOOD VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYER?
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal
Service and Labor Policy,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:34 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis A. Ross
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Ross, Amash, Gowdy, Lynch, Norton,
Connolly, and Davis.
Staff present: Ali Ahmad, communications advisor; Sharon
Casey, senior assistant clerk; Jennifer Hemingway and Mark D.
Marin, senior professional staff members; Christopher Hixon,
deputy chief counsel, oversight; Ryan Little and James
Robertson, professional staff members; Laura L. Rush, deputy
chief clerk; Peter Warren, legislative policy director; Jaron
Bourke, minority director of administration; Kevin Corbin,
minority staff assistant; and William Miles, minority
professional staff member.
Mr. Ross. Good afternoon. I will call the Subcommittee on
Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy to
order. It looks like we might have votes between 2:15 and 2:30,
so we will try to get as much done as we can.
I will do my opening statement, and then I think the
ranking member, Mr. Lynch, should be here by then. After his
opening statement, we will go into our first panel, and then
after that we will set up for our next panel and questions.
With that, I will begin with the reading of our oversight
committee mission statement: We exist to secure two fundamental
principles; first, Americans have a right to know that the
money Washington takes from them is well spent; and second,
Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works
for them.
Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to
hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have
a right to know what they get from their government. We will
work tirelessly, in partnership with citizen watchdogs, to
deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine
reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
I will now move into my opening statement. Work time that
Federal employees spend performing tasks for labor unions
instead of the assigned duty at work they were hired to perform
is referred to as ``official time.'' In 2002, former Office of
Personnel Management Director Kay Coles James issued a
memorandum directing each Federal Government Department and
agency to report on the number of hours of official time used
by employees. After the issuance of the James' memo, OPM
publicly released a report on official time usage each March
until 2009, when it inexplicably ceased reporting this
information.
Repeated requests for the Report on Official Time Usage for
Fiscal Year 2009 were made by the Competitive Enterprises
Institute and Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia. However,
the report was not produced until after Chairman Issa and I
sent a letter to OPM requesting it on April 21st. Last month,
OPM finally issued an interim response to our request, 19
months following the end of fiscal year 2009.
The report indicated that Federal employees spent nearly 3
million hours of official time on union activities in 2009.
This came at a cost of $129 million to American taxpayers, $8
million higher than the previous fiscal year. To put these
numbers in perspective, American taxpayers spent enough on
official time activity in 2009 to fund a full-time work force
of over 1,400 employees for an entire year at an average annual
salary of $90,000.
OPM's lengthy delay in releasing information related to
official time raises serious transparency concerns, but the
very necessity of allowing Federal employees to conduct union
activities at taxpayer expense also needs to be explored. There
is no evidence that official time has a positive impact on
productivity. When an employee is on official time, he or she
is not available to perform the duties for which they were
hired. I ask, Can we afford such charity, given the fiscal
problems facing our country?
Congressman Gingrey has introduced the Federal Employee
Accountability Act to do away with official time, which will
save taxpayers an estimated $1.2 billion over 10 years. I am
proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation. I will myself be
introducing a bill in response to OPM's failure to live up to
the Obama administration's transparency pledge. My bill will
mandate the production of an annual official time report no
later than March 31st of each calendar year. Americans deserve
to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent. OPM's delay
in reporting information on the use of official time, coupled
with the National Labor Relations Board's decision to sue
Boeing as well as the States of Arizona and South Dakota,
raises concerns as to whether this administration is pursuing a
decidedly pro-union agenda at the expense of a sound work force
policy.
At a time when our economy is in a recession and budget
deficits are at staggering record levels, efficiency is
imperative. Taxpayers should not have to continue footing the
bill for union welfare, particularly when little evidence
exists that official time is improving government productivity.
This hearing presents an opportunity for lawmakers on this
committee to hear important testimony about whether official
time is a good value for the American taxpayer. I thank the
witnesses for appearing here today, and I look forward to their
testimony.
I would recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. Cummings from Maryland.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis A. Ross follows:]
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing will not increase government efficiency or
value to the taxpayer. This hearing, like the other labor
policy hearings this committee has held, is meant to provide
justification for removing workplace rights for public workers.
It mirrors what Republican Governors around the country are
doing to public workers in their States. That is why today we
are focusing on a program that consumes a tiny fraction of
Federal employee time and actually saves the taxpayers money.
Federal employee unions enjoy few of the rights of private
sector unions. Federal employees may not strike, and in most
circumstances they are legally precluded from negotiating pay
or benefits. There are strict limits to what may be done on
official time. It cannot be used to solicit membership in
unions or perform other union-specific or political business.
Federal employees may, on official time, perform certain
representational duties. They can negotiate with management to
set employment standards and find solutions to problems arising
in the workplace. These efforts can improve the operation of
the Federal Government. For example, official time can improve
personnel management by enabling facilities to develop internal
dispute resolution processes.
More than 14 years ago at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio,
union leadership and Army management instituted a negotiated
alternative dispute resolution program. During that time, only
three grievances have gone to a third-party arbitration. The
alternative dispute resolution panels, which are composed of
both management and bargaining unit employees, are empowered to
investigate and make decisions on employee complaints. This
process is estimated to have saved the Federal Government
thousands of dollars in third-party expenses at this one
installation alone.
In recent years, the average number of official time hours
per bargaining unit employee has declined. In 2009, bargaining
unit employees on the average dedicated just 2.58 hours to
official time over the course of the entire year. When compared
to the costs of formal dispute resolution, the time savings are
substantial.
Official time allows Federal employees and managers to
concentrate on ensuring that work is completed on time and that
considerations regarding work conditions are handled quickly,
effectively, and cooperatively.
Today, we will hear from my colleague Mr. Gingrey, who I
have a tremendous amount of respect for, who will speak on H.R.
122, which is legislation he introduced basically to eliminate
the use of official time for elected Federal employee union
representatives to engage in representation activities on
behalf of collective bargaining unit employees.
Again, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 122 seems to be a solution in
search of a problem. While there are costs associated with
official time, the benefits far outweigh the costs. No evidence
has been presented to this subcommittee to suggest that
eliminating official time would result in any cost savings. To
the contrary, alternative dispute resolution panels, like those
at Fort Sam Houston, save the government from the steep costs
associated with employment-related litigation.
Mr. Chairman, there is tremendous value in allowing
employees and management to solve problems together internally.
If official time is prohibited, those efforts would also be
considerably reduced, an outcome that would not be beneficial
to employees, management, or the taxpayer.
And with that, I yield back and thank the chairman for his
courtesy.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
Mr. Ross. I now recognize the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from California, for his opening
statement.
Chairman Issa. I thank the chairman, and I thank the
ranking member for his comments, because usually we go in the
other order, and I think today it is particularly important
that I go afterwards because I have worked in union shops, and
I have worked in non-union shops. This is the only government
shop I have ever worked in other than the Army. It is very
clear that the ranking member, although he may be well
intended, is missing the point.
Elimination of official time would not eliminate decisions
by management and labor representatives to do alternative
dispute resolution to do other things that was determined by
management--I repeat, determined by management--to be
productive or helpful. If the ranking member believes that the
gentleman from Georgia's legislation doesn't do that, as we go
through the process, once it is presented to us, I would pledge
to make sure that it did, in fact, still allow management to
expend official time in order to get to the final and best
resolution, regardless.
But I think there is a huge different debate here, and as
we hear from the Congressman from Georgia, I think what we are
going to hear is, in fact, that this is simply a blank check
for the shop stewards and the other people in the union to be
paid with Federal dollars and do whatever they want to do in
the promotion of their political views or their union
activities. That is not really what we think is in the best
interests, and I am going to just do a hypothetical before I
yield back.
If this bill becomes law, will unions stop to exist? No.
Will union organization, union activity stop? No. Will, in
fact, union representatives have to choose between working full
time and doing extra work, or being paid for with union dues to
do union work? I think that is a legitimate question, and I
hope as we consider this bill in its current form, and with any
proposed amendments, that we begin asking the question: Who
should pay for union activities; and, in fairness to the
gentleman from Georgia, how we should make sure that when you
have management-labor dispute and activities related to the
shop floor, work safety, any of those things, that in fact it
is not unacceptable or uncommon for management to pay, if you
will, for both sides of that discussion.
So I look forward to the gentleman's testimony. I look
forward to the bill being introduced, and I very much look
forward to the opportunity to make sure that it accomplishes
both: a value for the taxpayer and fairness for workers and
management's ability to work together.
And with that, I thank you, Chairman, for calling this
hearing and yield back.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for his opening.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would also like
to thank our opening panelist, Representative Gingrey of
Georgia, and thank all of our witnesses today for helping this
subcommittee with its work.
Today's hearing will examine the use of ``official time''
by Federal employees and asks the question of whether those
workers and the best interests of the American taxpayer are
served when a Federal employee exercises his or her statutory
right to receive official time.
Given that we will also be considering the merits of
legislation H.R. 122 to severely restrict the availability of
official time, I believe that many of my colleagues in the
majority have already reached their conclusion.
Notably, this hearing comes on the heels of a series of
other subcommittee hearings that have been focused to a point
on turning the finger of blame at our hardworking Federal
employees as a primary cause of government overspending and the
difficulties in the economy in which we find ourselves. I am,
again, mystified how we all agree that Wall Street caused this
problem, the reckless behavior of rating agencies that stamped
AAA on anything that moved, and yet when the blame for all of
this comes around, the finger of blame falls upon Federal
employees, our police, our firefighters, our teachers. I don't
know how the blame landed on them, but it is apparently the
agenda of my friends across the aisle that this is where the
source of the problem lies.
In the name of fiscal responsibility, this subcommittee has
chosen to focus its attention on whether or the Federal work
force is overpaid, regardless of the high skill level or
educational level and experience of our Federal employees,
which on average, in comparison to their private sector
counterparts, are much bettered positioned. We have also
examined whether we can achieve cost savings by cutting our
Federal work force across the board, regardless of the
exorbitant cost of private contracting that has completely been
ignored and is about four times the size of the basic Federal
work force. And now, the subcommittee is keeping its attention
on Federal workers by targeting the use of official time,
regardless of the essential role that official time plays when
it comes to an agency's cost savings, efficiency, productivity,
and safety.
Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the Federal
employees represented by a union may be granted ``official
time'' to perform certain representational activities during
work hours that serve the joint interests of both labor and
management. In particular, Federal law provides that the amount
of time that may be used is limited to that which both labor
and management agree is reasonable, necessary, and in the
public interest. So we have to have an agreement right now
between labor and management that the time awarded is
reasonable. That is the law. That is what is going on right
now.
In other words, while the Federal employees may request
official time, Federal managers and supervisors retain
exclusive approval authority over these requests. But that is
not good enough. That is not good enough for some of my friends
on the other side of the aisle. They don't want that. They want
it to be just cut out altogether. This is absurd. Give me a
break.
Accordingly, permissible official time activities may
include employee participation in labor-management meetings
that seek to identify ways to improve agency productivity,
workplace safety, or employee training. In addition, Federal
employees on official time may also work to enforce employee
protections against unfair discrimination and employment.
Hello?
Let me also say what official time is not. Under Federal
law, official time may not be used for solicitation of union
membership. It may not be used for the purpose of conducting
union meetings or elections, and it may not be used to conduct
any partisan political activities.
I am a former union steward, a former union executive board
member, a former union president. Mr. Chairman, in contrast to
the assertions that have been made regarding the misuse of
official time by Federal workers, I would point out that
official time has enjoyed a longstanding bipartisan support as
a necessary and effective tool by which management and labor
can work together to improve agency efficiency, productivity,
and safety.
Safety. We have a lot employees out there that work in a
difficult and hazardous environment, and this is important to
them coming home every day, safely, and in a healthy fashion to
their families.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I see my time
is about to expire, and I yield back and I thank the gentleman
for his courtesy.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]
Mr. Ross. Members may have 7 days to submit opening
statements and extraneous material for the record.
We will now welcome our first panel, Congressman Phil
Gingrey from Georgia. You are recognized. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Chairman Issa, thank
you. Ranking Member Lynch, Member Cummings, and other members
of the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service
and Labor Policy, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on an
important issue facing the Federal work force.
It has already been mentioned in your opening statements in
regard to opposition to legislation that I have proffered, H.R.
122, that in some way this takes away rights of the Federal
worker in regard to collective bargaining. I think it was
referenced, some of the things that are going on in various
States, Wisconsin in particular. But I want to make it very
clear in starting my opening statement that this bill that I
have proffered, H.R. 122 which you will consider, in no way,
shape, or form takes away any Federal employee's rights to
collective bargaining, indeed to representational activity on
behalf of those union members who are designated to arbitrate
and file grievances on their behalf.
The question is, basically, Who pays for that? And under
current law and since 33 years ago when the Civil Service
Reform Act was passed in 1978 and signed into law by President
Jimmy Carter, the issue basically stated that official time
could include whatever is reasonable in the public interest.
Well, that is not very definitive, and over the 33 years since
the passage of that law, the use, in my opinion, of official
time has been abused, quite frankly, and those who pay for
official time are we, the taxpayer, not you, the union member,
and I don't think that is right.
The ranking member mentioned that in some way this bill is
placing the blame on the Federal work force for the cause of
the debt and the deficit, and putting the burden on the backs
of our hardworking Federal employees. My bill really does
nothing of the kind, and as you peruse it and hopefully mark it
up, maybe even change it a bit, I think you will come to that
same conclusion.
Again, when the law was passed, the Civil Service Reform
Act, in 1978, there was no requirement for any report on the
total amount, the total number of hours, the total expenses of
official time. In fact, in the past 33 years, only nine times
have reports been issued; although in 2002, the then-director
of the Office of Personnel Management put out a directive to
all agencies of the Federal Government: In the interest of full
disclosure to the taxpayer, you will issue a report and put
it--file it on your Web site in a timely fashion.
During those 4 or 5 years from 2002 to 2007, what we found
was the total number of hours used in official time hours on
filing grievances, collective bargaining, walking around,
whatever that is, on the behalf of the union representational
activity, have increased the total number of hours and the
total amount of expense to, we, the taxpayer; over $100
million, by the way. And that is not nickels and dimes, members
of the subcommittee, and I think you would agree with that.
And I think it is a responsibility of us, and particularly
your committee and certainly particularly your subcommittee,
Chairman Ross, to take a close, hard look at this with a sharp
pencil, make sure that no rights are taken away from Federal
employees. And again, as I say, my bill does not do that.
It comes down to the question of who is going to pay for
it. And today who pays for it are the taxpayers, not the union
dues. Union dues are used for other things: political activity,
signing up new members, lobbying on behalf of specific issues
either for or against.
Indeed, when we offered this as an amendment to the CR
just, what, not even a month ago, I received as a Member an e-
mail from an employee of the Environmental Protection Agency
urging me as a Member not to support this amendment. And you
know, that was at 2:30 in the afternoon that I received that e-
mail. I don't know whether this employee was a designated
representative of the union for that particular division of the
EPA. But whether they were officially the representative or
just an employee for the EPA, during that period of time at
2:30 in the afternoon, they were supposed to be working, doing
EPA work, very important work for, we, the taxpayer; yet they
were lobbying Members of Congress to vote against this bill,
and that is totally disallowed in the Civil Service Reform Act
of 1978.
So, you know, we clearly have a problem. Obviously, in the
5 minutes--and I appreciate your patience with me, Mr. Chairman
because, I know I have gone over a little bit, but I have
submitted my entire report to the committee for the official
record. But I just think that the responsible thing for Members
on both sides of the aisle is to address this issue.
If my bill is not perfect--and I feel pretty confident that
it is not perfect--you go over it with a sharpened pencil and a
fine-toothed comb and make sure that we get it right, because
hundreds of millions of dollars a year--and since the reporting
has not been done in a timely manner, in fact, not done at all
in a couple of the last 3 or 4 years--the amount of time spent
on official time by people making $30, $40 an hour, not working
at all for the taxpayer, has actually gone up and the cost has
gone up.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
once again I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Gingrey, and we appreciate you
being here.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Phil Gingrey follows:]
Mr. Ross. With that, we will take a short recess to prepare
for the next panel. Thank you.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Ross. Our first witness is Mr. Timothy Curry. He is the
deputy associate director for Partnership and Labor Relations
at the Office of Personnel Management.
We have Mr. Vincent Vernuccio who is the labor policy
counsel at Competitive Enterprises Institute.
Next, we have Mr. James Sherk, who is a senior policy
analyst in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation.
And then we have Mr. John Gage who is the national
president of the American Federation of Government Employees.
I thank you all for being here. Pursuant to the committee
rules. All witnesses must be sworn in before they testify. If
you wouldn't mind, please stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Ross. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all
witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
Please be seated. In order to allow time for discussion and
questions, please limit your testimony to 5 minutes, and with
that, I will recognize Mr. Curry for an opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF TIMOTHY F. CURRY, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
PARTNERSHIP AND LABOR RELATIONS, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT; F. VINCENT VERNUCCIO, LABOR POLICY COUNSEL,
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; JAMES SHERK, SENIOR POLICY
ANALYST IN LABOR ECONOMICS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION; AND JOHN
GAGE, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY F. CURRY
Mr. Curry. Chairman Ross, Ranking Member Lynch, and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today about the use of official time in the Federal
civil service.
As President Barack Obama stated in Executive Order 13522,
``Federal employees and their union representatives are an
essential source of front-line ideas and information about the
realities of delivering Government services to the American
people.'' The Office of Personnel Management and the
administration believe that collective bargaining in the
Federal sector provides an efficient, structured framework for
engaging employees and giving them a voice in workplace
matters.
Official time is a critical component of the carefully
crafted collective bargaining system that Congress created for
the Federal Government. Union membership in the Federal sector
is a choice, but Federal employee unions are required by law to
represent all employees in the bargaining unit, even those who
choose not to become dues-paying union members. Official time
is essential to the unions' ability to meet this statutory
obligation.
Labor and management need to be accountable for ensuring
that official time is used appropriately and not abused. To
assist them, OPM has voluntarily produced reports on official
time usage since 2002 with its latest report covering fiscal
year 2009. The first report on official time prepared by OPM
was published in 1998 when OPM was directed to prepare a report
for the House Committee on Appropriations. Subsequently, OPM
began preparing reports on official time usage on its own
initiative since fiscal year 2002, and most recently, for the
period covering fiscal year 2009.
We continue to refine our methods for official time data
collection. Prior to the fiscal year 2009 report, OPM collected
the data from agencies manually. Fiscal year 2009 was the first
time OPM relied upon agency official time usage data extracted
from the Enterprise Human Resources Integration System, where
possible. The report covering fiscal year 2009 was released a
few weeks ago on May 17, 2011.
An agency's official time wage cost is determined by
multiplying the reported official time hours by each agency's
average bargaining unit employee hourly wage plus fringe
benefits. During fiscal year 2009, there were 1,159,396 non-
postal Federal civil service bargaining unit employees
represented by labor unions. Agencies reported that bargaining
unit employees spent a total of 2,991,378 hours performing
representational duties on official time. The number of
official time hours used per bargaining unit employee on
representational matters during fiscal year 2009, on average
across the government, was 2.58 hours.
In comparing fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 data,
the cost of official time hours increased by 6.93 percent;
however, official time costs represented less than two-tenths
of 1 percent, or 0.0013197 percent to be exact, of the civilian
personnel budget for Federal civil service bargaining unit
employees.
We have just initiated efforts to develop a report for the
period covering fiscal year 2010 and plan to complete the
survey later this year. Additionally, the fiscal year 2009
report is now posted on the OPM Web site, and OPM staff is
currently working to post all past reports on its Web site in
the spirit of transparency.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Curry.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curry follows:]
Mr. Ross. Mr. Vernuccio, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF F. VINCENT VERNUCCIO
Mr. Vernuccio. Chairman Ross, Ranking Member Lynch, and
members of the committee. Thank you for holding this hearing
and providing me the opportunity to discuss the issue of
official time in the Federal work force. My name is Vincent
Vernuccio, and I am labor policy counsel at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute and editor of workplacechoice.org. CEI is
a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy organization and focuses
on regulatory issues from a free market and limited government
perspective. Workplacechoice.org is a comprehensive, up-to-date
Web site for news on labor regulations, private and government
sector unions, pensions and pro-worker legislation.
Official time is not a good value for the taxpayer and does
not serve the public interest. Title V of the U.S. Code allows
Federal Government employees to perform union duties unrelated
to their jobs, while still being paid their government salary
which is ultimately funded by the taxpayer. This process is
called official time. There is no legislative or regulatory
requirement for the government to report to taxpayers how much
of this time is utilized by government unions.
In fiscal year 2009, Federal Government employees lodged
almost 3 million hours of work for union work while still
receiving a paycheck from the taxpayers. These hours are
compensated and are not volunteer benevolence. Taxpayers should
not be forced to subsidize union activity, and Congress should
repeal the section of Title V that authorizes official time.
However, as long as official time is allowed, taxpayers
should have easy access to detailed information on its usage
and its costs. Congress should require OPM to report official
time usage on an annual basis and publish the findings online.
Official time amounts to a significant and inappropriate
government subsidy for union activity, paid for by the
taxpayers. Official time costs taxpayers over $129 million for
work of no appreciable benefit to them. Those figures represent
time and money that could have been spent on the government's
other administrative duties. This does not include the cost of
administrative official time, union office space in government
buildings, or official time travel expenses. It does not take
into account the cost of dealing with the plethora of frivolous
complaints stemming from the no cost to the union, but of much
cost to the government's grievances. These expenses could raise
the actual cost of taxpayer union subsidies significantly.
Civil service laws provide many of the protections to
Federal Government employees in areas where the union scope to
negotiate is limited by statute. This makes many traditional
representation functions unnecessary and further decreases the
need for official time. Federal employees do not bargain over
wages, benefits, and many working conditions that are key
points of contention for workers in the private sector and in
many States. The act covers merit system principles, personnel
practices, labor management relations, and a myriad of other
workplace issues.
Statute gives Federal employees many of the protections for
which official time is supposedly needed. This renders the
value of official time for activities questionable for both
Federal workers and for taxpayers.
Federal Government unions have hundreds of thousands of
members and take in millions of dollars in dues each year. In
2010, the American Federation of Government Employees' receipts
were over $103 million; the National Treasury Employees Union
exceeded $39 million; and the National Federation of Federal
Employees, $5\1/2\ million. These totals are only for the above
unions' national headquarters and do not include receipts from
locals.
In addition, there are many other unions that represent
government employees that have not been mentioned. In some
instances, these unions are not required to represent
nonmembers such as in front of the Merit System Protection
Board or U.S. courts. These unions do have the money to pay for
the representation of their members. It is unfair to force the
taxpayer to foot the bill.
If official time is not revoked, however, Congress should
enact legislation to mandate its reporting. In its fiscal year
2009 report, OPM stated twice: There are no legal or regulatory
requirements to publish any official time data. OPM says it
voluntarily chose to issue the call and guidance for fiscal
year 2009. OPM's acknowledgement that it is not required to
publish this report clearly indicates that the agency could
discontinue it at its discretion.
The need for the report is actually twofold. First,
taxpayers should be able to know how much of their tax dollars
are being used to fund official time. Second, requiring
reporting of official time will require Federal employees to
hold their agencies accountable if it is continued to be
mandated by law.
In conclusion, official time is a bad deal for taxpayers.
Congress should repeal its usage and end the public subsidy of
union activity. I applaud Congressman Gingrey for his bill,
H.R. 122; and, short of that, it should also legislate OPM to
report official time usage on an annual basis. And Congressman
Ross, I applaud you for your potential bill.
Thank you, and I would like to take this opportunity to
thank the subcommittee, and I would welcome any questions.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Vernuccio.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vernuccio follows:]
Mr. Ross. Mr. Sherk, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES SHERK
Mr. Sherk. Chairman Ross, Ranking Member Lynch and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify.
My name is James Sherk. I am a senior policy analyst in
labor economics at The Heritage Foundation. However, the views
I present in this testimony are my own, and it should not be
construed as representing an official position of The Heritage
Foundation.
This afternoon, I want to explain to you why paying
government employees to do union work does not provide good
value for the taxpayer. Congress should be aware of three
significant problems with this official time.
The first problem with official time is that it subsidizes
Federal unions attending to private business. Unions exist to
represent their members. Their core mission is to negotiate
collective bargaining agreements and represent workers with
grievances. Union members pay dues so that unions can provide
these services. With unofficial time, unions would hire full-
time employees to perform these union duties. Instead, the
taxpayers pay for it. Official time requires taxpayers to cover
the cost of union representation. Many Federal employees
actually spend all their time at work on union business. This
cost taxpayers $129 million in 2009.
Now, unions, of course, enjoy the subsidy, but it does not
provide good value for the taxpayer. While unions do use some
official time on matters of public interest, such as
discussions with management on how to improve productivity or
workplace safety, they spend large amounts of official time on
matters of no public concern. Federal unions bargain such
issues such as how to assign parking spaces or how to implement
telecommuting policies. These issues matter only to Federal
employees. The public should not bear the union's cost of
negotiating them.
If Federal employees believe that union representation
improves their working conditions, then they should pay for
that representation themselves. Taxpayers should not pay
government employees to do union work.
A second problem with official time is that it encourages
unions to file frivolous grievances. With official time, it is
taxpayers, not the union, who pay for the cost of union
representation and grievance proceedings. This subsidizes
filing frivolous complaints that unions would not spend their
own money pursuing. Several recent cases demonstrate the
frivolous charges that unions do, in fact, bring.
For example, at Randolph Air Force Base, the American
Federation of Government Employees local asked to renegotiate
its collective bargaining agreement. However, the local did not
offer any proposals to management to bargain over. After 4
months without the union stating what they wanted to discuss,
the Air Force terminated negotiations. The union then filed a
grievance against the Air Force. For? Refusing to bargain with
them.
In another case, in a Federal prison in West Virginia, the
collective bargaining agreement expressly prohibited wearing
jeans at work. The union president nonetheless repeatedly wore
jeans, despite being reminded of this policy. The union
president also used the prison e-mail system to e-mail
employees about purely union matters. The warden told the union
president to change out of the jeans and to stop using the work
e-mail system for union matters. In response, the union filed
unfair labor practice charges.
Now, these complaints were baseless, and the Federal Labor
Relations Authority rejected them. But before that happened,
taxpayers paid for counsel representing the government, a
Federal labor arbitrator, and a court reporter. Each grievance
cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.
Requiring unions to pay for grievance representatives out
of union dues would discourage bringing meritless charges.
Unions would be far more circumspect if grieving cost them
money, not the taxpayers, and reducing the number of frivolous
grievances could save the government millions of dollars.
The third problem with official time is that it subsidizes
government unions' political agendas. Federal employees may
lobby Congress while on official time if they are lobbying over
Federal working conditions. Union officials can and do lobby
Congress for more generous benefits while being paid by
taxpayers to perform public service.
Official time also permits Federal unions to spend more on
politics. With unofficial time, unions themselves would pay
union representatives to negotiate collective bargaining
agreements and represent their workers in grievance
proceedings. Because the taxpayers cover those costs of the
core mission, the unions have more money to spend elsewhere,
such as on politics and lobbying, and Federal unions do spend
considerable sums on politics.
In 2010, the American Federation of Government Employees
national headquarters spent $4.1 million in politics and
lobbying. The National Treasury Employees Union spent $1.8
million on these same activities. Federal unions could not
spend this much if they had to use their own members on the
core mission of representing their members.
Unions now, of course, have every right to lobby for their
preferred policies and campaign for their preferred candidates.
The taxpayers, however, should not have to subsidize this. Many
Americans do not want Federal pay to rise and oppose the
political candidates that Federal unions support.Taxes
collected from every American should not subsidize Federal
unions' political agendas.
Congress can correct these problems by sharply restricting
the use of official time.
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to explain the
problems with official time and why it does not provide good
value for the taxpayer.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Sherk.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherk follows:]
Mr. Ross. Mr. Gage, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GAGE
Mr. Gage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lynch and
members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the 650,000 Federal
employees represented by AFGE, thank you for inviting me to
testify today on official time for volunteer Federal employee
representatives.
In January 1962, President Kennedy signed Executive Order
10988 which gave Federal workers for the first time the right
to unionize and collective bargain with their agencies. Seven
years later, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11491 which
reaffirmed and expanded those rights. Those orders and the
statute which succeeded them, the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978, required Federal employee unions to provide
representation for all employees in their collective bargaining
units, even those who choose not to pay dues. Under this open
shop arrangement, Federal unions are also forbidden from
collecting any fair-share fees from nonmembers for the services
which the union must provide.
In exchange for the legal obligation to provide the same
services to those who pay as well as those who choose not to
pay, the executive orders and the CSRA allowed Federal unions
to bargain with agencies over official time. Depending on the
contract, Federal employees who serve as volunteer employee
representatives may use reasonable amounts of approved official
time to engage in representational activity while in duty
status:legally permitted representational activities, including
creating fair merit-based promotion procedures; establishing
flexible work hours and telework opportunities; setting
procedures that protect employees from on-the-job hazards; and
forcing protections from unlawful discrimination; participating
in work improvement processes, and providing workers with a
voice in determining their working conditions.
The Civil Service Reform Act provides that the amount of
official time for these representational responsibilities is
limited to that which the union and the agency agree is
reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest. The amount
of time must be negotiated by the two parties. It is not a
blank check for the union.
In addition, the statute clearly states that the activities
performed by an employee related to the internal business of
the union must be performed while in a nonduty status. Such
activities include solicitation of membership, internal union
meetings, election of officers, and partisan political
activities. I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that official
time may not be used for the activities I just mentioned.
Finally, Federal employees may file appeals of personnel
actions outside the scope of the unions' negotiated contract.
Such appeals may be through an agency's internal administrative
grievance procedures or EEO programs: to MSPB for adverse
personnel actions such as suspensions, removal, and reduction
in force; to DOL and/or the MSPB for violations of veteran
preference rules; to DOL for workers compensation; and to OPM
for Fair Labor Standard Act violations. These statutes
themselves provide a reasonable amount of time to employees and
their representatives, union or not, in order to file such
appeals.
Through official time, employee representatives work
together with Federal managers to make our government better.
Gains in quality, productivity, and efficiency simply would not
have been possible without the reasonable and sound use of
official time. Private industry has known for years that a
healthy and effective labor-management relationship improves
customer service and is often the key to survival in a
competitive market.
The same is true in the Federal Government. No effort to
improve governmental performance, whether it is called
reinvention, restructuring, or reorganizing, will thrive in the
long haul if labor and management maintain an arms-length
adversarial relationship.
In an era of severe budget cutting, it is essential for
management and labor to develop a stable and productive working
relationship. If workers and management are really
communicating, workplace problems that would otherwise escalate
into costly litigation can be dealt with promptly and more
informally.
Employee representatives use official time for joint labor-
management activities that address operational, mission-
enabling issues in the agencies. Such activities are designing
and delivering joint training of employees on work-related
subjects, introducing new programs and work methods that are
initiated by the agency or suggested by the union. As examples,
such changes may be technical training of health care providers
in the VA or introduction of data-driven food inspection at the
Department of Agriculture.
Employee representatives use official time for routine and
unusual problem solving of emergent and chronic workplace
issues, particularly in health and safety programs which
emphasize effective systems to prevent workplace injuries and
illnesses.
Official time is also used by employee representatives
participating in programs such as LEAN and Six Sigma, labor-
management collaborative efforts, which focus on improving
quality of products and procedural efficiencies. Currently, DOD
employee representatives are participating on official time to
develop new performance management and accelerated hiring
systems.
To ensure its continued reasonable and judicious use, all
Federal agencies track basic information on official time and
submit it annually to OPM, which then compiles a governmentwide
report. From fiscal year 2008-2009, total official time hours
governmentwide have increased 3.37 percent, but the total
number of hours expended per bargaining unit employee fell from
2.6 to 2.58.
Mr. Ross. Mr. Gage, if I could get you to wrap it up.
Mr. Gage. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, AFGE strongly
opposes any proposals to erode the contractual and statutory
rights of employee representatives to use official time to
represent both dues-paying and non-dues-paying members of
collective bargaining units. Official time is a longstanding,
necessary tool that gives agencies and their employees the
means to expeditiously and effectively utilize employee input
into mission-related challenges of the agency, as well as to
bring closure to conflicts that arise in all workplaces. It has
enjoyed bipartisan support for almost 50 years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Gage.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gage follows:]
Mr. Ross. And I will recognize myself now for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Curry, the question I have to ask you is since 2002
there has been an annual report up through 2009 from OPM as to
official time, but for some reason inexplicable to me is there
has been a 20-month delay. Can you explain why there has been a
20-month delay in rendering the report?
Mr. Curry. I would be happy to answer the question, Mr.
Chairman.
I arrived at OPM in August 2010, and as I began assessing
the programs I had responsibility for, I determined that the
official time report for 2009 had not been accomplished yet.
There is a variety of reasons why that would be. There was a
reorganization at OPM, there was a turnover in the staff in my
office. Ultimately, that had some impact on starting the
report.
We also decided to take a different approach. I directed my
staff in mid- to late September to begin compiling the data for
the report, and as I noted in my opening remarks, instead of
manually collecting the data we decided to take a different
approach and extract the data from a data system and then ask
agencies to validate the data.
Mr. Ross. So the recent report you would say is accurate--
is at least as accurate as the ones previously submitted?
Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ross. And with regard to a report on 2010, is that in
the works?
Mr. Curry. We are in the process of starting to gather that
data and expect to have that finished by September.
Mr. Ross. Thank you.
Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ross. Now, I also understand that there are some
Federal employees that 100 percent of the time is on official
time; is that correct?
Mr. Curry. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Ross. And how many employees would you say that is?
Mr. Curry. We do not track that data. Those reports don't
reflect that, but the hours for those employees on 100 percent
official time would be reflected in the total ADC hours that
are reported to us.
Mr. Ross. And if you are on 100 percent official time, do
you then get--are you eligible for and receive pay increases,
annual pay increases?
Mr. Curry. I could--you are not eligible for a performance
rating because you are not performing agency assigned work. So
therefore you are not eligible to receive a performance award
or a quality step increase based on performance. You are
eligible for the annual pay adjustments as well as within-grade
step increases.
Mr. Ross. So--OK. If Federal employees are on official
time, can they lobby Congress?
Mr. Curry. There is no statutory right to official time to
lobby Congress. However, as part of the contractual right to
negotiate on official time, it is negotiable for a union to
propose to receive official time to lobby Congress on
workplace-related matters.
Mr. Ross. So would it be fair to say, then, that those
times that are reported as official time lobbying Congress are
done in pursuance to a contract based on collective bargaining?
Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ross. As opposed to being statutorily authorized?
Mr. Ross. Correct.
Mr. Ross. Let me ask you about the location. Do any of the
employees do official time off location; in other words, off
their work status?
Mr. Curry. I don't have that information.
Mr. Ross. Would you have any idea?
Mr. Curry. I would not know that answer, sir.
Mr. Ross. Given that most employees cannot collectively
bargain over pay and benefits, can you discuss in detail the
sorts of activities labor union representatives negotiate when
on official time?
Mr. Curry. Certainly. I can give you different examples.
One big example would be negotiating over merit promotion
procedures where unions could negotiate procedures for fair and
honest competition for bargaining employees for competing for
Federal jobs. You could see contract provisions dealing with
safety requirements for workplace matters as far as to ensure
that procedures are set in place to ensure that it's the safest
environment for employees. You could see procedures for
negotiating how overtime work assignments are made. So there
are different workplace matters that they do negotiate on, how
you accomplish things.
Mr. Ross. I am going to be filing a bill that would require
OPM to produce this report annually at the end of March. Do you
think OPM would object to that?
Mr. Curry. We would not have any position on the bill at
this time, sir.
Mr. Ross. Mr. Vernuccio, with regard to private sector
unions, is there any tracking or data available as to how much
union time is spent by private sector employees on private
sector payrolls?
Mr. Vernuccio. The main report for private sector unions
and some Federal unions is the LM2 which is available on the
Department of Labor's union reports DOT gov. I am not sure if
there is any line on there that tracks in the collective
bargaining agreement how much is actually spent on the private
sector version of official time. There are some private sector
collective bargaining agreements that do have--do have the
equivalent of paid shop stewards.
Mr. Ross. Mr. Sherk, are you familiar with how that relates
between private sector unions and public sector unions and
official time?
Mr. Sherk. The GAO took a look at this back in 1996 through
1998 when there were a lot of investigations of this, and their
finding was about--they examined a number of collective
bargaining agreements. About half of private sector companies
permit some form of official time, and half do not. So it's
about an even split in the private sector between allowing it
and not.
Mr. Ross. I see my time is up. So I will recognize the
ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our
witnesses.
Let me try to give a concrete example. I was elected on
September 11, 2001, in the Democratic party in Massachusetts.
When I came to Congress a few weeks later, there was anthrax in
some of the Federal buildings, including the Brentwood postal
facility not far from here, and tragically, two of my postal
clerks, Thomas Morris, Jr., and Joseph Curseen, Jr., died of
anthrax inhalation. Now, because there was anthrax in a number
of facilities in New York as well, there was a lot of
involvement by the union representatives. There was anthrax. It
was difficult to detect. It had killed two workers and injured
some others. So we used a lot of official time. They used
official time to protect the other workers.
There was actually a moment during that period when,
because of the attacks of 9/11 and the anthrax attacks which
were right on the heels of those attacks, the union
representatives were very concerned about sending their workers
back into these post offices because the anthrax had been
detected. And so workers were going to work, they were
contaminated with the anthrax, and then they were going home to
their families. So a lot of the union stewards and union
presidents were very concerned about sending their workers back
into those facilities.
So the postal unions were faced with a dilemma. They could
not go to work, and the mail would not go through to every home
and business in America 6 days a week. It would have, I think,
caused great damage at that moment after the 9/11 attacks to
have commerce stop. So a lot of those union representatives
came up to the Hill to talk to Congress, and a lot of them
spent official time on that issue, especially because of the
deaths of those two workers.
Now, at the end of the day, I think they made a very
courageous decision. They said, we are going to go to work, and
I have two sisters that work at the post office, and I know--
and they both had young kids at the time. They were very
concerned about contaminating themselves and their kids. They
made a decision that they would go to work, and I think, you
know, we have never really thanked the postal workers, you
know, the clerks, the mail handlers, the letter carriers, the
supervisors, the postmasters, for the work that they did during
that very critical time and the courage that they showed in a
very difficult time. They did the patriotic thing; they went to
work.
But they also used those rights that you are trying to
limit here today or speaking against, some of you, and you
know, that not only protected American workers in the
workplace, but it also protected the public and it protected,
you know, families and kids.
And, you know, sometimes I think some legislation here is
actually a problem in--well, a solution in search of a problem,
I guess, what I would call this H.R. 122. I have talked to a
lot of the Federal manager groups. This issue never comes up.
We are in a mess here in Washington, the debt limit, the
budget. We have problems. We are in three wars. I talk to these
managers all the time, Federal managers, because I am a member
of this committee, ranking Democrat. This issue never comes up,
never. And here we are, we are having a full-blown hearing, and
this now apparently is the issue d'jour. It is another way to
get back at the unions, get back at workers, to try, you know,
try to exercise their rights.
These workers don't even have the right to strike. They
have very few rights, these workers. They are allowed to
complain, but, by God, they better keep on working. They don't
even have the right to strike. We have stripped that away from
them because we have said your public service is so important,
and this is the way we treat them.
I think it is disgraceful, I really do. I think we ought to
treat our workers better, especially Federal workers. We want
good people who want to come to work in the service of their
government. We have to stop trashing them. We have to start
thinking about how we might make these jobs have a little bit
more dignity, treat them with a little bit more dignity, what
they have earned; and you know, like those postal workers who
went to work in spite of the anthrax, and you know, the two
workers who died in the performance of their duty, and I don't
even want to mention the 335 firefighters that went up the
stairs on 9/11 or the 72 police officers or the EMS workers who
went up the stairs on 9/11 at the north and south towers of the
World Trade Center when everybody else was going out. You
forget the fact that every single one of those firefighters,
those EMS workers, and those police officers, every single one
of them had a union card in their pocket. Every single one of
them, and this is how we repay them.
I have extended my time, and I appreciate the courtesy, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. I recognize the gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
your leadership on this subcommittee on this issue and so many
others.
Mr. Curry, are there certain categories of Federal
employees whoare not able to unionize?
Mr. Curry. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman. The labor statute
does exclude certain categories of employees from unionizing.
You might have employees that might be involved in
intelligence, for example. Managers can't organize. Certain
other categories would include like labor relations
professionals such as myself.
Mr. Gowdy. How about Bureau agents?
Mr. Curry. FBI? They are excluded by law from being covered
under the labor relations statute.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I can't think of a category of employees
who would be more interested in workplace safety than Bureau
agents. So who advocates on their behalf?
Mr. Curry. I don't have an answer for that, Congressman.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, they are not unionized so nobody's taking
official time, correct?
Mr. Curry. That would be my estimation, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you agree with me that no category of Federal
employees would have more cause for concern for workplace
safety than FBI agents, and yet no one is being paid to
advocate on their behalf. Agreed?
Mr. Curry. Sir, I would certainly say that all employees
would want someone to advocate for them. I don't know how they
do it at the FBI.
Mr. Gowdy. What about the Drug Enforcement Agency; would
you agree with me that they are not able to unionize?
Mr. Curry. I believe that is correct, but I don't know for
certain, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. What about ATF agents?
Mr. Curry. Again, I don't know for certain, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. Secret Service agents?
Mr. Curry. I believe they are not organized.
Mr. Gowdy. ICE?
Mr. Curry. Actually they are organized.
Mr. Gowdy. Immigrations and Customs are unionized?
Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. So what about Federal prosecutors?
Mr. Curry. I don't have an answer for that. I don't believe
they are, but I don't have that information, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. So you can advocate, you can lobby Congress, you
can advocate for workplace safety, you can do all of that
outside a union and on your own time?
Mr. Curry. Well, I mean ultimately, sir, I would think that
when employees organize, it is basically a labor union
providing a collective voice for the work force. I think that
is ultimately the idea, with labor organizations and collective
bargaining being found to be in the public interest.
Mr. Gowdy. I am going to try my question again. Bureau
agents, ATF agents, DEA agents, Federal prosecutors, all are
concerned with workplace safety, including their own lives.
They can't unionize, but yet they can still advocate on their
behalf; correct?
Mr. Curry. I assume so, sir, but other law enforcement
organizations do have labor unions as far as police officers.
They are organized in the Federal Government.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I thought we were primarily talking about
Federal employees today.
Mr. Curry. Well, we do have Federal police officers.
Mr. Gowdy. Can you tell me your--do you agree, rather, the
phrase ``reasonable and necessary in the public interest,''
that seems somewhat vague and overly broad; do you agree or
disagree?
Mr. Curry. It is open to interpretation, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. How do you interpret it?
Mr. Curry. Well, ultimately, since that is a contractual
form of official time, that's where the parties--where there is
a collective bargaining relationship, labor and management,
they have to have a meeting of the minds on what they agree to
be reasonable and necessary and in the public interest as it
relates to their organization, their mission, and the
circumstances of what's happening in that organization.
Mr. Gowdy. My colleague from Florida asked a question and I
want to followup, whether or not there are Federal employees
who are on 100 percent official time.
Mr. Curry. Yes, there are, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. Can you give me a rough estimate of how many
Federal employees are on 100 percent official time?
Mr. Curry. We do not track how many employees are on
official time, but the hours for that official time would be
included, the total hours reported by each agency.
Mr. Gowdy. Where could curious folks go to find the answer
to that question?
Mr. Curry. We would have to ask the agencies to identify
that information to us.
Mr. Gowdy. How troublesome is that?
Mr. Curry. We have actually posed that question. It is a--
it is a lengthy process. They have to go out and gather that
information for us.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield back the
remainder of my time.
Mr. Ross. Thank you. They called us for votes. We will try
to get some of these in right now, and I will recognize the
ranking member of the full committee from Maryland, Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gage, as members of this committee know firsthand from
our hearing in April with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker,
there is an effort in States controlled by Republican Governors
to diminish or totally eliminate public sector unions. As we
also know from Governor Scott Walker's testimony, he admitted
that there was no budget savings basis for his effort to
rescind collective bargaining for public sector workers. While
he used the State's budget problems as a pretense to roll back
collective bargaining, there was not a valid reason for doing
so and the State would reap no budget savings by doing so. I
wonder if we don't see the same thing here today at this
hearing.
Mr. Gage, in your opinion does the Gingrey bill share in
common any resemblance to the legislative efforts in the
Republican-controlled States to curtail public sector
collective bargaining?
Mr. Gage. Well, Congressman, I am trying to be positive
with this hearing, thinking it's an honest look at something
that clearly is within Congress' purview; but when you take
away official time, the way collective bargaining is set up in
the Federal sector, you take away collective bargaining. You
can't have a contract without enforcing it, and the official
time from our volunteer reps, that is how contracts are
enforced. You take that away, and it's--and the contract
becomes meaningless.
But you know, this is not the first time we have discussed
this, and these agencies just didn't fall off a turnip truck.
They take strict accounting. All official time is approved.
It's on an issue-by-issue basis, and those who are on official
time 100 percent, they are running big unions.
For instance, the Bureau of Prisons, our Council there, the
Council president is on 100 percent time, but he is working,
usually in management's lap, almost every day. Same with our
president of our VA Council which has 90,000 members in VA's
hospitals all over the country. She is on 100 percent but works
closely, day-by-day with management, and it's just a more
efficient way of doing things.
Mr. Cummings. Let me give Mr. Vernuccio a say here because
we don't have much time. Mr. Vernuccio.
Mr. Vernuccio. Vernuccio, yes.
Mr. Cummings. As you know, Governor Scott Walker of
Wisconsin kind of boasted his anti-union political intentions
to a person who was calling for a status report while posing as
one of the Koch brothers. Governor Walker received a great deal
of support from the Koch brothers in his political campaign,
and I'm wondering if the Koch brothers have backed you or your
organization as well. And have you or the Committee Enterprise
Institute received money from the Koch brothers or any
organization supported financially by them?
Mr. Vernuccio. Congressman, for my project at the
Institute, I can say with 100 percent certainty, no, we have
not received any Koch money. Our money comes from small
donations through direct mail, primarily from across the
country. For the larger Institute, I am almost positive we have
not received any money from the Koch Foundation, but I cannot
be 100 percent sure.
Mr. Cummings. And Mr. Sherk, the same question for you.
Have you or the Koch brothers funded your organization as well?
Do you know?
Mr. Sherk. I believe they gave a relatively small amount.
It is less than 1 percent of our budget.
Mr. Cummings. What is your budget?
Mr. Sherk. I'd have to look at our annual report. I don't
know that.
Mr. Cummings. Well, let me inform y'all what I know. It
might interest you that--and members of the committee--to know
that the Koch brothers have been substantial, substantial
funders of both your organizations. According to publicly
available information, Mr. Sherk, your organization received
over $1 million from the Koch brothers, and yours, Mr.
Vernuccio, received over $350,000.
And so will each of you provide this committee with details
of the funding, support your organization has received from the
Koch brothers in each of the past 5 years so that we can be
clear on this? Would you do that for us.
Mr. Vernuccio. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Would you do that for
us, Mr. Sherk?
Mr. Sherk. I believe it's publicly available----
Mr. Cummings. No, I want it from you, since you just
testified that it's a small portion; less than 1 percent, I
think you said. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Mr. Vernuccio, you support the Gingrey bill, and I wonder
if you or the Competitive Enterprise Institute has prepared any
testimony or analysis for any effort in any State to curtail
collective bargaining of public sector workers there, any other
testimony, yes?
Mr. Vernuccio. We are preparing studies on pro-worker
legislation and pro-worker movements across the States.
Mr. Cummings. So the answer is yes or no?
Mr. Vernuccio. The answer is on our Web site. Yes, we do
have pro-worker bills.
Mr. Cummings. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Ross. Thank you. I recognize the delegate from the
District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between learning how
Congress spends and not wanting funds to be spent at all.
Just let me indicate my sadness at having witnesses come
before us today, testifying in a way that can leave no doubt
that they do not believe in the right to collectively bargain
at all. I commend to you the history of authoritarian
government. You know, there are four or five things that they
oppose: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right
to organize.
The right to organize and join a union means the right to
operate that union. So let's look at the cost, since that is
the pretext being used here.
There is a cost here only if you think that Americans that
work for the Federal Government don't have the right to
organize. Let's look at it. They can't bargain wages, certainly
no cost there.
Gentlemen, let me suggest to you that unions subsidize,
subsidize the Federal Government through the duties they carry
out as a consequence of achieving the right to organize. For
example, are you aware--I assume you are aware that unions have
to organize and carry the grievances of people who pay no union
dues and are not members of the union. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Vernuccio. Congressman, in many cases, unions do not
have to represent non-members, especially in front of the Merit
Systems Protection Board, and in front of----
Ms. Norton. Are you aware that most Federal Government
unions, in fact, carry the--must carry--must bargain for all
employees?
Mr. Vernuccio. I believe that's a portion of their
exclusive bargaining----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Gage, would you answer the question,
please?
Mr. Gage. We have to represent all employees in grievances.
If there is a statutory avenue for an employee and he chooses
to go that way, we don't have to represent them; but in all
grievances under a contract, we have to represent the member
and the nonmember.
Ms. Norton. That's Federal law.
Let me ask both of you, who appear to believe that $130
million, that to you--that is not your conscience, is that the
amount of money that is spent according to the official report,
that you find too much money, too much taxpayers' money to pay
for what the taxpayers get in return?
Mr. Sherk. One hundred thirty million dollars is a small
part of the overall budget, but it's still an enormous amount
of money, and we'd like to see it spent well.
Ms. Norton. How would you set up--the Federal Government
has set up this system, not out of its munificence to its
workers, but because it is the most efficient way to deal with
problems that arise in the workplace. You would not have
official time used. How would you deal with complaints that
arise every day in a large work force, inevitable, if there was
no official time and no designated person chosen to carry out
the responsibilities of settling those issues?
Mr. Sherk. What I set forward in the written statements was
that what I would do is end the official time, but then also
end the exclusive representation requirements, so that they
would have no obligation to represent non-members. If an
individual Federal employee believes that the union
representation is of value to them, they should pay the union
dues.
Ms. Norton. So you think the statute is at fault by saying
that Mr. Gage has to represent all members, regardless of
whether or not they pay dues? Are you saying people who don't
pay dues should not be represented in their grievances, and
should be what?
Mr. Sherk. I don't think we should have exclusive
representation.
Ms. Norton. How should those employees deal with their
grievances?
Mr. Sherk. It should be their choice. If you want the union
representation and you want the benefits of the contract, you
sign up and pay union dues. If you don't think it's of much
value----
Ms. Norton. There has been a union election, Mr. Sherk. The
majority have joined a union. Do you believe in majority rule?
The majority wants to be represented. We are not going to leave
out people who decided that--who voted against the union. You
think that is unfair?
Mr. Sherk. Well, what I am proposing is that if you like
Coke or you like Pepsi at a party, you can pick whichever one
you like. You're not required to go with what the majority
choose. That's what I'm suggesting.
Ms. Norton. And you do not concede that there are any
efficiencies for the Federal Government in having labor pieces
through grievances dealt with on a day-to-day basis through
union representation?
Mr. Ross. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Norton. Could I ask him to just get an answer to it?
Mr. Ross. Please answer it and then we'll have to adjourn.
Mr. Sherk. There may be some efficiencies, but there's also
some costs there and a lot of frivolous grievances are filed.
Ms. Norton. To the tune of $130 million.
Mr. Ross. Thank you. Upon agreement with the ranking member
of the subcommittee, we are going to adjourn at this point and
I appreciate the witnesses being here.
With that, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]