[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNION TIME ON THE PEOPLE'S DIME: A CLOSER LOOK AT OFFICIAL TIME
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 24, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-86
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-272 PDF WASHINGTON: 2018
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Ron DeSantis, Florida Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Mark Walker, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Rod Blum, Iowa Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Jimmy Gomez, Maryland
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Peter Welch, Vermont
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Will Hurd, Texas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
James Comer, Kentucky John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
Robert Borden, Deputy Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Kevin Ortiz, Professional Staff Member
Kiley Bidelman, Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chairman
Jody B. Hice, Georgia, Vice Chair Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
Jim Jordan, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Ron DeSantis, Florida Columbia
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Rod Blum, Iowa Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 24, 2018..................................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Trey Kovacs, Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 7
Mr. Bob Gilson, Senior Labor and Employee Relations Consultant
and Author
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Mr. Darrell M. West, Vice President and Director of Governance
Studies, Brookings Institution
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
APPENDIX
Committee Staff Report on Official Time Data, Submitted by
Chairman Meadows............................................... 52
The Official Time Usage Report for FY 2016, submitted by Chairman
Meadows........................................................ 59
Letter for the Record from the Department of Education, submitted
by Chairman Meadows............................................ 86
Democratic Rebuttal to the Republican Staff Memo, submitted by
Ranking Member Connolly........................................ 88
Statement for the Record of the National Treasury Employees
Union, submitted by Ranking Member Connolly.................... 91
Statement for the Record of the American Federation of Government
Employees, submitted by Ranking Member Connolly................ 94
Statement for the Record of the International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers, submitted by Ranking
Member Connolly................................................ 97
Unfair Labor Charge filed by the AFGE against the Department of
Education, submitted by Ranking Member Connolly................ 99
Editorial from The Ledger, submitted by Mr. Ross................. 101
Questions for the Record for Mr. Robert Gilson, submitted by
Ranking Member Connolly........................................ 110
UNION TIME ON THE PEOPLE'S DIME: A CLOSER LOOK AT OFFICIAL TIME
----------
Thursday, May 24, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:44 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Meadows, Hice, Jordan, DeSantis,
Ross, Blum, Connolly, Maloney, and Norton.
Mr. Meadows. The Subcommittee on Government Operations will
come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to
declare a recess at any time.
Official time is a term for Federal employees performing
union representational activities during normal working hours
while getting paid for their regular salaries. A number of
employees using official time and the amount of hours spent on
it are governed by collective bargaining agreements at
agencies. Some collective bargaining agreements even allow for
certain employees to spend 100 percent of their time on
official time, meaning that they never do the job that they
were hired to do.
On January 9, I, along with some of my colleagues of this
committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee, sent a letter to 24 agencies requesting
information on official time usage in the Federal Government.
The results were quite interesting and likely surprising to the
average taxpayer.
Some 12,508 employees at 23 agencies in fiscal year 2017
used official time in some capacity. Of those, nearly 1,000
spent half or all of their workday on official time. And
another 221 employees in this category were paid over $100,000
by the Federal Government. In total, the Federal Government
spends $1 billion on salaries of employees who took at least
some of their work time as official time.
Every hour spent on official time is an hour spent away
from some of the critical tasks the Federal Government really
has before it. In the case of the Veterans Affairs Department,
there are 472 employees who spent 50 percent or more of their
time on official time, meaning that they were not caring for
the veterans.
And in the case of the Internal Revenue Service, 185
employees spent 100 percent of their time performing
representational work on behalf of the union, which means that
they are not serving the American taxpayer.
I ask that the committee staff report be inserted into the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Meadows. Now, while not performing the work an employee
was hired to do is bad enough, there are other aspects of
official time that can impact the mission. Official time allows
unions to follow grievances and appeals to the administrative
agencies and bring the work of the government to a halt.
By way of example, we have heard from a Federal employee
who told us that after repeated requests that an employee come
to work on time, this employee complained that the official was
harassing the employee and filed a grievance. The union
representative got involved, and after weeks of back and forth,
the employee's agency allowed the employee to push back her
start time by 15 minutes. Now, to me, as a private business
guy, this sounds absurd.
The grievances filed while on--filled while on official
time can also implicate national security. Luke Air Force Base
in Arizona ended off-base access to email system with only a
password after it experienced multiple security breaches. The
union filed a grievance arguing that this was a change in the
working conditions that the Air Force base first needed to do
negotiate.
Now, this committee is not alone in examining official
time. A recent Office of Personnel Management report found that
official time usage is on the rise governmentwide. The Federal
Government saw a 4.76 percent increase in hours spent on
official time from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2016. OPM
also estimated that the total cost of official time in fiscal
year 2016 to be $177.2 million. OPM said that this number does
not reflect the true total cost, because OPM does not--the OPM
report does not take into account government costs relating to
the free use of government property and supplies by union
officials.
So I'd ask that the official time usage report for fiscal
year 2016 of the Federal Government be submitted into the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Meadows. This administration is taking steps to reverse
this troubling trend. Recently, the Department of Education
narrowed considerably the amount of official time employees may
use, but it did not eliminate it.
I would like to enter into the record from the Department a
letter explaining the recent changes made to the collective
bargaining agreement. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Meadows. And in a hearing last week, the new director
of OPM testified official time is a problem at agencies and
that the administration is committed to reexamining its use.
I would like to thank the witnesses today for their
testimony and look forward to hearing their insightful
comments.
And with that, I recognize the ranking member, the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
And I would ask at this point before I begin, Mr. Chairman,
unanimous consent that the Democratic rebuttal to the
Republican staff memo, which was not cleared on our side, be
entered into the record.
Mr. Meadows. Without objection.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
When Congress enacted the Civil Service Reform Act,
Congress found that, and I quote, ``labor organizations and
collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public
interest.'' Because the reality is that unions contribute to
the effective conduct of public business and facilitate
settlements of employee disputes.
Federal unions are required to represent all employees
within a bargaining unit, including those who do not pay dues
and may not seek fees from nonmembers. In exchange for those
representational duties, the Civil Service Reform Act
authorized the use of official time. The legal authorization
for designated Federal employees to protect whistleblowers,
represent colleagues in grievances against abuse, and negotiate
collective bargaining agreements. Sometimes they're
troubleshooters who can diffuse a situation before it gets to
the litigation stage.
The truth is that official time is authorized by law,
negotiated by agency management with the union, and is intended
to promote the peaceable resolution of disputes and the
efficient operation of government. Unions and agencies must
agree on the amount of time for representational activities,
which must be, and I quote, ``reasonable, necessary, and in the
public interest.''
Congress carefully crafted a collective bargaining system
for the Federal Government that balanced the interests of the
agencies involved, Federal employees, and the American public
we all serve. The cost of all of these benefits: just 40
seconds per day. That's the amount of time per Federal employee
official time costs the Federal Government, according to the
Office of Personnel Management. That is less than the time it
takes to get a cup of coffee, like this one like I got right
here.
Do my Republican friends want to prohibit Federal employees
from getting their morning coffee because it's a drain on the
Federal Government? This hearing isn't about protecting the
taxpayer dollar. As the Republican staff memo makes all too
clear, it's about attacking Federal employees, a central theme
of this Congress, unfortunately, and the Trump administration.
Last week, the Oversight Committee held a hearing to
discuss the recently issued President's management agenda and
the President's plan to take $143 billion from middle class
Federal workers in wage and retirement cuts and to use their
money to partially offset the cost of a $1.5 trillion tax
giveaway to the wealthy. During this administration, Federal
employees have had to deal with efforts to gut the missions of
Federal agencies, attacks on the Federal workforce, and their
retirement benefits, as well as the repression of and
retaliation against Federal whistleblowers. We might even add
censorship to scientists trying to do their work.
Federal employees need more support and avenues for
redress, not fewer. Whether it's through congressional
oversight, inspector general investigations, or through union
representatives, we should be giving Federal employees the
tools they need to sound the alarm against the activities that
make it harder for the Federal Government to work for the
American people.
If our committee wants to quibble over the 40 seconds spent
on official time, it should also look into how some of the
Trump administration political appointees spend their time.
According to numerous press reports, Millan Hupp, the director
of scheduling and advance for the EPA Administrator, Scott
Pruitt, spearheaded Administrator Pruitt's search for new
housing after he moved out of a sweetheart deal at a condo he
rented for $50 a night from the wife of a lobbyist who had
business before the Agency. Part of Ms. Hupp's search,
including contacting real estate companies and viewing
apartment options for Administrator Pruitt, clearly took place
on official hours.
Or this committee could look into the White House
Presidential Personnel Office. In March, The Washington Post
reported that that office, which has struggled to fill
vacancies throughout the Federal Government, has become, quote,
``a social hub where young staffers throughout the
administration stop by to hang out on couches and smoke
electronic cigarettes.'' PPO leaders regularly host happy hours
in their offices that include beer, wine, and snacks, but not
only PPO employees, but also White House liaison who work for
other Federal agencies. And in January, they played a drinking
game in the office called ``icing'' for one employee's
birthday. I've been informed that icing involves hiding a
bottle of Smirnoff Ice and demanding that the person who
discovers it drink it as quickly as possible.
Now, these individuals may be able to guzzle a 12-ounce
bottle of flavored malt liquor in 40 seconds, but it's still an
infinitely less productive use of company time than official
time.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on their
perspectives regarding the impact of official time on the
efficiency and effectiveness of Federal Government, and for
that matter, the use of any time by any Federal employee on
government time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman for his statements. And
I agree that some of the behavior that was talked about is
certainly something that we do need to look at, and I'd be glad
to do that in a bipartisan way.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today. I'll
introduce Mr. Trey Kovacs, policy analyst at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute; Mr. Bob Gilson, senior labor and employee
relations consultant and author. Welcome. And Mr. Darrell West,
vice president and director of government studies at Brookings
Institute. Welcome.
Welcome to you all.
And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be
sworn in before they testify. If you would please rise and
raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
All right. Thank you. You may be seated.
Please, the record should reflect that all witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
In order to allow time for enough questions and answers, I
would ask that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, but
your entire written testimony will be made part of the record.
There is a clock there in front of you, and so if you will just
please press the red button when you go to speak and speak into
the microphone.
Mr. Kovacs, we recognize you for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF TREY KOVACS
Mr. Kovacs. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing
and providing me the opportunity to discuss official time in
the Federal workforce.
My name is Trey Kovacs, and I am a labor policy analyst at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan public policy organization that focuses on
regulatory issues from a free market and limited government
perspective.
Official time grants Federal employees paid time off from
their government duties to perform union business. This
taxpayer-funded subsidy to Federal employee unions enables them
to file grievances, bargain, and even lobby Congress, among
other activities.
Unfortunately, the reality is that no one really knows how
much time and money is spent by the Federal Government on
official time. In addition, the lack of transparency
surrounding the practice makes it impossible to know what
specific activities are performed by Federal employees on
official time. However, the Office of Personnel Management does
occasionally produce a report that estimates the cost of
official time.
According to the latest data available from the OPM, in
fiscal year 2016, official time cost approximately $175
million, and employees spent 3.6 million hours conducting union
activities instead of their assigned public duties.
Problems with official time, other than poor recordkeeping,
have been recognized by administrations from both political
parties. During the Clinton administration, the OPM explained
when Federal employees are on official time they are not
available to perform the duties associated with their regular
positions. This can hamper the agency in accomplishing its
mission, as certain assignments must be either be delayed,
covered by other employees, or accomplished through the use of
overtime. The use of significant amounts of official time may
adversely affect an employee's ability to keep his or her
technical skills current.
Given these problems associated with official time, it is
past time to consider legislative reforms. Congress should
enact legislation to eliminate the practice of official time.
One potential reform could eliminate official time and nullify
a frequent union argument in favor of the union subsidy.
Unions contend that official time is necessary because
Federal employee unions are required by law to represent
nonmembers who do not pay dues. This problem can easily be
solved by lifting the legal requirement for Federal employee
unions to represent nonmembers. Congress should consider
implementing what is known as Workers Choice, a members-only
union policy that relieves unions of the obligation to
represent nonmembers, and as a result, eliminates the need for
official time.
Membership in and representation by a union should be
voluntary. Nonmembers should not be forced to work under a
union-negotiated agreement they do not want, and unions should
not be forced to represent employees who do not pay dues. A
policy of Workers Choice addresses union concerns, eliminates
the need for official time, and protects workers' freedom of
association.
Short of eliminating official time, Federal agencies must
track and record official time in greater detail and with more
precision. Under the current accounting regime, the cost of
official time is severely underestimated. Further, the true
cost of the union subsidy is difficult to determine because of
poor tracking and recording of when employees use official
time.
Across the Federal Government, what activities Federal
employees engage in while on official time is relatively
unknown. The enactment of H.R. 1293, sponsored by
Representative Dennis Ross, would increase transparency
regarding official time. Specifically, it requires OPM to
furnish a report on the cost of official time throughout the
Federal Government on an annual basis, which includes
information presented in the current OPM report, details the
specific activities for which official time was granted,
details official time's impact on agency operations, and
determine the amount of office space granted to unions to
conduct official time activities.
Taxpayers have a right to know how much tax dollars are
used to finance official time and what activities Federal
employees undertake instead of the job they are hired to do. I
applaud the subcommittee's inquiry into the use of official
time, and I would welcome any questions.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Kovacs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you so much.
Mr. Gilson, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BOB GILSON
Mr. Gilson. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for the
opportunity----
Mr. Meadows. If you'll hit the red button there.
Mr. Gilson. Thank you for the opportunity to address the
subcommittee. I'm a retired Federal employee. I've worked in
this area for over 40 years. As an agency representative,
adviser, advocator, and negotiator, I regularly write for
FedSmith, a website devoted to Federal issues, and have done so
for over 10 years. I currently train, advise, and bargain on
behalf of Federal agencies as a contractor.
The Civil Service Reform Act was passed in 1978, and I was
at the Civil Service Commission at that time as a labor
relations person. Its labor relations provisions were touted by
its sponsors as an encoding of President Nixon and President
Ford's executive orders. It was to establish basic employee
rights under a law continuing as it did before. The law has
turned into a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.
One result, and why we're here today, is the evolution of a
concept of official time no one 40 years ago either intended or
would believe.
The law's creation of a Federal Labor Relations Authority
and general counsel to administer government labor relations
has had far-reaching consequences on Federal Government. The
case law expanding the statute's official time and the creation
of other broad and costly union subsidies is only one such
sequence.
Recently, OPM issued a report on official time for fiscal
year 2016. OPM admits the report relies on agencies'
submissions and that some agencies didn't even submit reports.
This report, frankly, should not be relied upon. No one knows
what official time costs. No one.
As an example, the report says the Justice Department
unions use the same official time as the Department of Defense.
Justice has about 120,000 employees. Defense has 750,000. I
believe DOD is more organized than Justice is in terms of labor
relations. It also reports that VA, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, is almost three times as much as DOD or DOJ, but yet
VA has less than half the number of employees of the Department
of Defense. VA's numbers are probably closer to the truth, but
are also unreliable.
Based on my 44 years representing agencies and interacting
with program managers, I bet OPM's gross total is low by a
factor of 5 or 10, and that's not a percentage figure. No one
knows.
By the way, labor relations official time is not the only
official time representatives get. In 2009, President Obama
issued Executive Order 13522 requiring agencies to engage in
predecisional involvement on agency decisions and other
activities. The unions complained that agencies would hold them
to official time in labor agreements. They were advised by OPM
that since they were complying with a Presidential order, duty
time, not official time, would be appropriate for union
involvement in order activities. Many thousands of hours were
used under this order. No one knows what it cost.
The Equal Employment Opportunity regulations creates what
it also calls official time. A Federal employee representing an
EEO complainant in any stage of the process is on EEOC's
official time. EEOC also specifies the activities warranting
its official time. There are literally hundreds of thousands of
EEO allegations a year. No one knows what this costs. Also true
of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Workers'
Compensation. I did not include EEOC, MSPB, or OWCP time in my
estimates.
In agencies you might ask why don't they hold people
accountable for this? Well, if you're a supervisor and you have
a union steward, are you going to risk the ULPs and grievances
if you try to hold their feet to the fire? In addition, if
somebody is representing someone in an EEO complaint and
management holds their feet to the fire on reporting time, what
they'll get is a reprisal complaint. That's a fact.
Official time, however defined, and other free services
have never been accurately reported. All of the costs--office
space, furniture, computers, internet space--all of these costs
are covered by labor agreements in the government. Nobody knows
what they cost.
Federal unions pay nothing inside an agency to represent
employees, not a single penny. When they walk in the door,
their official time, their offices, their space, in many cases
their travel, their training of the representatives is all paid
for by the taxpayer.
In closing, no one in 1978, not even the unions themselves,
would have believed that the cost of Federal employee union
representation would be entirely borne by the taxpayer and that
virtually all union dues would be available to those unions as
discretionary funds. The taxpayer has paid many billions of
dollars over the last 40 years for Federal labor union activity
and growth. I for one don't have a clue what they got for their
money, because nobody knows what this actually costs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Gilson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Gilson.
Mr. West, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DARRELL M. WEST, PH.D.
Mr. West. Thank you.
Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
am vice president of governance studies at the Brookings
Institution and the author of several books. My newest book is
The Future of Work: Robots, AI, and Automation, and it looks at
the impact of new technologies on the workplace, education, and
public policy.
What I want to do today is to summarize my testimony on
official time, and I'm going to talk about three points: How
much it costs the Federal Government, the benefits of official
time, and how proposed changes would affect Federal employees.
In its April report, the Office of Personnel Management
estimated that official time in fiscal year 2016 totaled 3.6
million hours and cost around $174.8 million. That comes to
2.95 hours per employee each year, and that compares to 2.88
hours in fiscal year 2014. Based on that, the report concluded
that the overall 2016 hourly total represents an increase in
official time over that of fiscal year 2014. But based on my
reading on the report, I don't believe that conclusion is
warranted by the data.
The difference between 2.95 hours and 2.88 hours in 2014 is
seven-hundredths of an hour or 4 minutes per employee for the
year. A GAO analysis indicated concern about the OPM
methodology and notes that the OPM estimate could be higher or
lower. Given those data limitations, it's impossible to know if
official time costs are rising, staying the same, or actually
decreasing.
There are a number of benefits of official time. Among the
activities that take place through that mechanism include
things such as the discussion of grievances, dispute
resolutions, labor relations training, and new department
initiatives, among other things. These activities are important
for labor management relationships and they promote a public
purpose. They establish vehicles for communications. They
provide opportunities for employees to air grievances, and they
offer a mechanism to resolve conflict. As such, they are vital
for agency operations.
There have been several efforts to alter current rules on
official time. For example, the U.S. Department of Education
has eliminated official time as part of its new labor contract.
In addition, the Official Time Reform Act of 2017 proposes
major changes in the existing law. For example, it says that an
employee may not be granted official time for purposes of
engaging in any political activity, including lobbying
activity.
In my view, adoption of this provision would weaken labor
management relations in the Federal Government, would reduce
the ability of government employees to air their concerns with
management, and undermine agency performance. Like every other
American, it is important that Federal employees have the right
to express their viewpoints and petition government for a
redress of grievances. I think curtailing those rights would
deny Federal workers important privileges that are guaranteed
by the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Mr. West follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hice. [presiding.] Thank you very much.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Hice. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. I'm sorry. Just a unanimous consent request.
I have four documents I would ask to enter into the record: a
statement of the National Treasury Employees Union, the
statement of the American Federation of Government Employees,
the statement of the International Federation of Professional
and Technical Engineers, and a copy of an unfair labor charge
filed by the American Federation of Government Employees
against the Department of Education.
Mr. Hice. Without objection.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Mr. Hice. You're welcome.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I thank each of the witnesses for being here. We've got--do
I have a graph? Is it available? If not, I'll go over some of
the basics of it.
There's been an increase in official time since 2010
through 2016 of over 17 percent. 3.6 million hours were used on
official time in 2016.
Mr. Kovacs, Mr. Gilson, do those figures sound somewhat
accurate to you from, what you've tracked?
Mr. Kovacs. Yes. I mean, that does sound accurate, but as I
said in my testimony, as well as Mr. Gilson, you know----
Mr. Hice. Severely unreliable.
Mr. Kovacs. Yes.
Mr. Hice. Underestimated.
Mr. Gilson, does that sound ballparkish to you?
Mr. Gilson. No. The OPM admits that its report is
inaccurate.
Mr. Hice. All right. So more or less?
Mr. Gilson. I'd say it's--as I said in my testimony, it's
low by a factor of 5 or 10.
Mr. Hice. Okay. All right. So we've got, based on what OPM
has given us, we've got somewhere--if you take an average 8-
hour day, we have almost half a million days a year that the
taxpayers are paying.
Mr. Gilson. Easy.
Mr. Hice. And as your testimony is what you're saying
today, Mr. Kovacs, that is severely underestimated. This is
quite disturbing to many of us because it's all riding on the
backs of the taxpayers.
Now, just for an example, the Department of Veterans
Affairs has nearly 2,000 employees who are involved in official
time in one capacity or another, hundreds of them 100 percent
of their time doing official time. So they were hired to do a
specific job and they're doing none of that job, instead doing
100 percent union work but getting paid for the job they were
hired to do.
Of these 100 percent people on official time, who is doing
the work that they were hired to do, Mr. Kovacs?
Mr. Kovacs. Well, it's unknown. Potentially, new hires
would have to be made to do their work, overtime assignments
would have to be given to employees who are not on official
time. But due to the lack of reporting, it's unclear.
Potentially, their jobs were not met, and potentially, the work
was not done.
Mr. Hice. Mr. Gilson, would you agree with that?
Mr. Gilson. There's an early FLRA case, Federal Labor
Relations Authority case, which said that whatever time was
negotiated, the agency--or used, the agency was obviously
obliged to get its work done.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So with the VA, just for example, of those
who were involved in 100 percent official time, we have nurses,
addiction therapists, pharmacists, physicians, we have people
who are very important to the care of veterans not doing the
job they were hired, 100 percent of their time going to unions.
This is very disturbing to me.
Mr. Gilson, something you said in your testimony I want to
come back to that caught my attention. You said, quote:
``Federal unions pay almost nothing toward the cost of their
day-to-day operations within the agency. This creates large
surpluses that may support lobbying, organizing, and other
internal union business since the taxpayer is paying
operational costs.''
That is quite a powerful statement. Are you saying that
these Federal employee unions can't afford to divert resources
to other activities besides union operations because the
taxpayer is subsidizing the union in essence?
Mr. Gilson. AFGE currently has a $54 million set of assets
that is able to build--and by the way, that is the national
headquarters. That doesn't count their councils and locals. I
would say it's probably $150 million in assets.
Mr. Hice. All right. And those are coming from the
taxpayers.
Mr. Gilson. Coming from the dues paid because they don't
pay any----
Mr. Hice. Dues and taxpayers, okay.
Mr. Gilson. Yes.
Mr. Hice. So is it fair to say that taxpayers are
subsidizing them?
Mr. Gilson. One hundred percent.
Mr. Hice. All right. So you mentioned AFGE. How involved
are they politically?
Mr. Gilson. That's a question I don't know the answer to,
Congressman. I do know that they send--they don't send Federal
employees out, but they do send their employees out to work
either on behalf of or against people running for office.
Mr. Hice. Well, I can answer that question. They spent
nearly $2 million last cycle giving to employees--or giving to
candidates, 92 percent were Democrats. The National Treasury
employee, the IRS union, right at 96 percent of their donations
went to Democrats.
I think when all of this is riding on the backs of
taxpayers, it seems greatly alarming that the taxpayers are
paying, number one, for people to do union work rather than the
job they were hired to do, but then the union turns around and
is involved in lobbying and political activity. Is that
something that the unions are supposed to be involved with? Mr.
Kovacs?
Mr. Kovacs. Well, certainly labor unions have every right
to engage in political activities. I would just say that, you
know, the taxpayer shouldn't have to subsidize their
representational activities.
Mr. Hice. All right. That's the point I'm getting at. I
realize my time has expired.
I will now recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the
gander. If we're going to talk about political support, I
wonder what kind of tax payoff Sheldon Adelson got and the Koch
brothers got in the recent tax cut bill, and who do they
support? Almost exclusively Republicans.
So if we're going to talk about, you know, quid pro quos or
the implication of quid pro quos, we can certainly have that
discussion. I'd be glad to have that discussion.
I assume labor unions support people who support them. They
act in their own self-interests, like any other donor. Mr.
West, might you agree with that?
Mr. West. I would certainly agree with that. And all of the
activities that we're talking about, the establishment of
official time, the activities that are taking place, were
authorized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. And I would
just like to remind members of the subcommittee that Act passed
the Senate on an 87-to-1 vote, and the House agreed to the
conference report on a 365-to-8 vote. So it was passed on a
purely bipartisan basis. Almost nobody in Congress opposed it.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. But Mr. Gilson makes a point. He says,
yes, that's true, but in 1978, nobody foresaw the expansion of
the use of official time. No one had that in mind, when they
passed that bill, that it's evolved into something that would
not be recognizable to those people. Would you comment on that?
Have I got that accurate, Mr. Gilson?
Mr. Gilson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. Mr. West, what about that?
Mr. West. I mean, what the legislation allowed was for
representatives to assist their colleagues when their
colleagues had grievances. If there was some disagreement in
the workplace, if there is a sexual harassment charge, if there
is a grievance that needed to get fired. So these individuals
who are being supported through official time are helping their
fellow employees. I see nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. I want to explore that a little bit,
because you talked in your testimony about the benefits of
official time. Now, to listen to the narrative so far in this
hearing, with the exception of you and me, one would assume
that official time is a, you know, just a sinkhole. No good
comes out of it. It's all on the taxpayer dime. It's a rip-off.
It's, you know, unions exploiting the taxpayer and, once again,
not really putting in a full day. In some cases not putting in
a day at all.
Now, are there specific benefits that come from official
time? For example, does official time cover whistleblowers, Mr.
West?
Mr. West. The legislation did actually set up the
whistleblower process, and it enabled those working on official
time to assist others who were helping to protect the Federal
Government in terms of the waste of taxpayers' money,
fraudulent activities that might be taking place, or any type
of misconduct.
Mr. Connolly. So it's not just a cost, there's a benefit.
We recover costs. Now, I take Mr. Gilson's point and actually
certainly am prepared to work with my Republican friends in
trying to have more accurate data so that we know what we're
dealing with. I think that's a totally fair point. But it has
to work both ways. It can't just be about the cost of the
official time itself and how we calculate it; it's also got to
be some estimate of the benefits. What is the dollar value of
the benefits?
Now, in 2017, long after 1978, the GAO did a report about
whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it
said it actually--it actually praised official time that
facilitated the whistleblower process at the VA. What did that
whistleblower process entail? Well, it uncovered the
overprescribing of opioids, which is a huge problem across the
country and certainly with some of our veteran populations, and
long wait times for veterans, which also then led to the
uncovering of fraudulent form filling so that the VA looked
better than, in fact, it was.
Does that ring a bell with you, Mr. West, what I just said?
Mr. West. Absolutely.
Mr. Connolly. And is there a value to that?
Mr. West. There is great value in that. Activities that
take place under official time save the Federal Government
money, so all the efforts to increase transparency and collect
better data do need to identify not just the cost side but the
benefit side.
Mr. Connolly. Helping our veterans and maybe to the tune of
millions of dollars.
Mr. West. We all remember the problems of the veterans
hospitals several years ago, and some of those were uncovered
because Federal employees spoke up about those.
Mr. Connolly. And that's not just our opinion, that's the
GAO finding in 2017.
My time is up. I thank the chair.
Mr. Hice. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize Mr. Ross for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ross. I thank the chairman, and I thank the panel for
being here.
A year ago today, the House passed on suspension my bill,
which Mr. Kovacs referred to, H.R. 1293, which is a very
fundamental accountability transparency bill that would require
OPM to submit a report each year, including the total amount of
official time granted to employees. It doesn't pass judgment on
what that time was used for, what it should be used for,
nothing. All it does is create the transparent process of
accounting for all official time.
And in furtherance of that, I would like to submit for the
record an editorial from The Ledger, a newspaper in my
district, discussing the benefits of that particular
legislation.
Mr. Hice. Without objection.
Mr. Ross. And so my first question is, is there any reason
not to have a transparent accountability process, such as set
forth in H.R. 1293, for the purpose of reporting official time?
Mr. Kovacs?
Mr. Kovacs. I think it's an excellent idea. Taxpayers
certainly should know what Federal employees are doing while
paid by the public.
Mr. Ross. Mr. Gilson?
Mr. Gilson. I honestly don't think that you'd get an
accurate report even under a statute.
Mr. Ross. But it is better than what we have today.
Mr. Gilson. Absolutely, Congressman.
Mr. Ross. So you would have no objection to that?
Mr. Gilson. Absolutely.
Mr. Ross. Mr. West?
Mr. West. I certainly support efforts of greater
transparency in getting a better handle on the costs, but we
also need to identify the benefits and how much money has been
saved through this activity.
Mr. Ross. And, in fact, Mr. West, I think you helped me
prove my case. In your testimony you say: ``Given the data
limitations, it is impossible to know whether official time
costs are rising, staying the same, or decreasing.''
So in that sense, it would be good to at least have that
baseline accountability. Now, we have that accountability in
sick time, in vacation time, health benefits, TSP submissions.
So this is mainly just another accounting procedure to account
for what time is being used on union time as opposed to being
used in taxpayer business.
And my next question, you know, we're 435 Members of a
board of trustees of a large organization that has the public
trust as our foremost interest. And that public trust is
exactly what we do with the taxpayer dollars it appropriated to
us.
Mr. Kovacs, can you say what benefit the taxpayers gain by
the use of official time?
Mr. Kovacs. I cannot.
Mr. Ross. Mr. Gilson?
Mr. Gilson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ross. And, please.
Mr. Gilson. Mr. West is correct in one regard, and that is
that there is a benefit in some circumstances for labor and
management to sit down and solve problems, and to negotiate and
to work on employee grievances. Official time has gone so far
beyond that, that that's not just what it covers.
For example, since the law passed, there have been over a
quarter of a million unfair labor practice cases filed with the
Federal Labor Relations Authority. The agencies have no say on
them. And also, the use of official time in those cases is
mandated by the Federal Labor Relations Authority for every
witness, for everybody assisting one of their attorneys, for
any employee that's engaged in that gets official time.
Mr. Ross. Including whistleblowers. Whistleblowers don't
need official time, do they? They're protected by statute.
Mr. Gilson. Right. Whistleblower time is not the official
time we're here to talk about. It's a separate matter under the
law.
If we're here to talk about the labor relations official
time, that's all I'm talking about in terms of union abuse. And
there is a great deal of union abuse of official time, at least
in my experience.
Mr. Ross. Is there any such similar process in the private
sector in dealing with unions with regard to collective
bargaining and the use of official time that anyone is aware
of?
Mr. Gilson. Some companies, some companies allow union
stewards on the shop floor time to work a grievance.
Mr. Ross. And would you say, if you know, that there is an
accountability of that time that's being used in the
furtherance of that private concern?
Mr. Gilson. I think the company is going to exact a cost
for that across the table if it's hurting productivity.
Mr. Ross. Precisely. And so when we have a collective
bargaining opportunity, how does it begin? What evidence is
used by the unions to say this is how much we need in official
time? Can you say, Mr. Gilson? Or how that process works.
Mr. Gilson. I'm sitting at the bargaining table right now
with a couple of agencies as their chief negotiator, and I've
done this my whole career. What the unions--what the unions put
on the table is a proposal, and what happens eventually is
trade-offs are made.
I hesitate to say this, but I believe it's true. I have yet
to see a Federal sector union take a--anything less than a
union institutional benefit over an employee benefit in
negotiations. So what happens is, if an agency wants to
accomplish something, it often trades the union benefit to get
something done.
Mr. Ross. Got you.
Mr. Gilson. I've seen this happen over and over again. And
that's how unions have managed to leverage the amount of
official time and other costs that the agencies pay, is the
agencies want to accomplish things--by the way, in this city,
to get a space move done within the beltway, I've known
agencies to take 6, 7, 8 years in negotiations because the
unions don't want the change to happen. So they delay, they
file complaints, they file unfair labor practices. Eventually,
the agency has to play let's make a deal if they want the move
to occur at all. All of that costs official time.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Gilson. My time has expired.
Mr. Hice. I thank the gentleman.
We will take some time for a few more questions if any
members have any further.
Let me ask you this: There are hundreds of employees making
over $100,000 a year, and they're involved with official time.
The Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, 472 employees,
100 percent official time. What does this do for an agency when
you have this many people not doing the job they were hired to
do?
Mr. Kovacs. Well, I would assume that it makes it more
difficult to achieve the agency mission when you don't have--
when you have that many employees who, you know, don't perform
any agency activity. And I think this is one of the things
where official time is supposed to be given if it's reasonable
and necessary and in the public interest. And I'm not sure how
an employee who never does their regularly assigned duties can
achieve the public interest.
Mr. Hice. Mr. Gilson?
Mr. Gilson. What I've seen in my career is agency
leadership sometimes says to the line supervisor don't mess
with the union official. We don't want to hear the noise. Keep
the noise down, number one. Number two is that supervisors and
managers would rather have someone who wants to cause them
problems away from the job. So what do they do? Other employees
cover. If they can hire somebody, they try.
There's an expression in the business that I'm in, he's not
heavy, he's my colleague, which a lot of people apply to in
situations of 100 percent official time, especially in places
where the union is less than 20 percent of the people pay dues,
which is very common in the Federal service, less than one in
five employees pays dues.
Mr. Hice. Just out of curiosity, I mentioned the Department
of Veterans Affairs, and we've got a host of other agencies,
but the VA seems to have a large number, 100 percent on
official time. Do any of you have any information regarding
other agencies where there seems to be an unusually high number
of individuals on 100 percent?
Mr. Gilson. I think that there's quite a number in HHS,
Social Security, and the other HHS agencies. I think in the
Bureau of Prisons, there's a number--wherever the union
activity is great. In Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service. In places where you see a lot of
grievances, a lot of unfair labor practices filed, you see
people with 100 percent.
In addition, Mr. Congressman, the most highly paid Federal
employees are in FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation; the Securities and Exchange Commission; National
Credit Union Administration; and the Comptroller of the
Currency. Those folks, when you say $100,000, some of those
people in those agencies are make $200,000 a year.
Mr. Hice. Right.
Mr. Gilson. The other thing that you may not know is that
those agencies bargain pay without a specific authorization
from the Congress to do so.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Several months ago, in fact, in January, I
joined with Chairman Gowdy and Chairman Meadows and others
writing a letter trying to request information from various
agencies on official time. It took months and months and
months, over 5 months, and then when we finally got a response,
it was so difficult to compile. Staff worked countless hours
trying to get all that information in such a way that it could
even be remotely understandable. And we're still going through
it.
Do any agencies really keep track of official time usage,
to your knowledge?
Mr. Gilson. Some agencies have, as part of the time and
attendance system, the employees go into their computer and put
their hours in. If you're a union steward or official, one of
the blocks is official time.
Mr. Hice. And do we know, for those that use official time,
what they are using it for? And I'm not talking about
collective bargaining, all that kind of stuff that we know
they're supposed to be using. What other activities are
utilized during that time?
Mr. Gilson. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has,
generally, over its case law years made it an unfair labor
practice in many cases for an agency to inquire what the union
is using the official time for.
Mr. Hice. So the agency doesn't even know?
Mr. Gilson. Oh, no clue, in many cases.
Mr. Hice. Okay. All right. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman recognizes Mr. Connolly for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilson, you talked about representing agencies on one
side of the table and the unions are on the other side. Is that
correct?
Mr. Gilson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Is that what you do for a living?
Mr. Gilson. Yes, sir. Well, not for a living. I'm retired.
I do it part time.
Mr. Connolly. All right. But have you ever been hired by a
union to represent them?
Mr. Gilson. No, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Ah, okay.
Mr. Gilson. However, I was a high school teacher union
representative for 6 years before I became a Federal employee.
Mr. Connolly. Good for you. Some of my best friends are
union members.
So we have a hearing here with a very partisan memo that
was not cleared on our side that's filled with factual errors
and misrepresentations. We have Mr. Kovacs who has an
idealogical point of view about unions and what they ought to
be doing, which is apparently very little. Even saying, just
now, well, people are doing work they weren't hired to do,
meaning official time. And yet when I check the law, official
time is actually--I mean, it is actually protected by the law.
Not like they're doing something wrong.
Mr. Gilson makes a point I do concede and I think is
valuable, that it has to be captured accurately. There has to
be transparency. We've got to know how much time. But that's
not really what this hearing is about.
This hearing is about attacking unions, and we heard it
from our chairman, whom I respect. He don't like the fact that
they give money to the Democrats. And he doesn't like the fact
that they're active. And we're going to have a hearing where we
don't acknowledge any possible benefit from official time. And
that disturbs me because that's not an intellectually honest
enterprise. That's something else. That's union bashing, and
we're apparently willing to distort facts and make assertions
irrespective of the fact of the law Mr. West cited, which
passed overwhelmingly.
Mr. West, am I correct that contrary to sort of the image
we're kind of allowing here in this hearing, that we got out of
control union members who are running around doing things they
shouldn't be doing and calling it official time? In every
agency is there not an agreement that circumscribes official
time?
Mr. West. There are agreements. Supervisors have to approve
the use of official time, so presumably, if these individuals
were engaging in abhorrent acts, the supervisor would not be
approving it. There are a number of good uses of the union
time. We've recently seen a big increase in sexual harassment
claims. That's something that employees are subject to and
often need assistance in drafting those types of grievances.
Unions often are the first line of defense for those
individuals.
Mr. Connolly. Is there also sort of informal
troubleshooting that those people engage in so that it doesn't
even get to the official grievance stage?
Mr. West. There certainly are preliminary efforts to
resolve disputes that take place in the workplace.
Mr. Connolly. And might that be something management might
actually welcome?
Mr. West. Management should welcome that because that would
improve the operations of the agency.
Mr. Connolly. And make the manager's life a little easier?
Mr. West. Exactly. And, of course, there are lots of
efforts to reorganize, to introduce new administrative
processes, there are new technologies coming to the workplace,
all of which I applaud. Sometimes management needs help from
union officials to get those things adopted.
Mr. Connolly. And, you know, Mr. Gilson talks about
management just throwing in the towel sometimes saying just
appease them because it's easier than fighting. And I can see
that. By the way, that happens in the private sector too with
workforce.
But what about that, Mr. West, is that something that we
ought to be concerned about that management just--my words, not
Mr. Gilson's, you know, allowing unions to run amuck and kind
of run the agency instead of the other way around?
Mr. West. Well, there should be cooperation between labor
and management, and if that doesn't happen, we need to look at
why that is not happening. But in a time period where I think
all of us want the Federal Government to do a better job, we
all want agencies to function much better, we need ways for
employees to be able to communicate to management what is
taking place.
Mr. Connolly. And so another way of putting that might be
labor management relations are kind of an important part of
managing an agency toward its mission and its effectiveness.
Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it's not in the public and
the private sector. But the idea that there's a labor
management dynamic that has to be addressed is not a new
concept, is it?
Mr. West. It is not a new concept.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you, Mr. West.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a second round.
Mr. Hice. I thank the gentleman.
And we'll now recognize Chairman Meadows, and we'll be
lenient on time since you missed the first round. If you have
some extra questions, you're welcome to.
Mr. Meadows. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. West, let me come directly to you because in your
opening testimony, I was listening very closely, you would
agree that we have no idea whether official time has increased
or decreased. Is that correct?
Mr. West. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so--but you think official time
is a good thing?
Mr. West. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. And so if official time is a good thing and we
don't know whether we have more or less of it, do you not see
that that's a problem? Because if it's a good thing, shouldn't
we have more of it?
Mr. West. I'd like to see better data that actually
captures both costs and benefits.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Because you have someone here who
actually had the head of a union working with me in a previous
career, and I can tell you that the relationship was extremely
good because official time--I recognize the law and the
contractual reason for official time.
Here's where I have a problem. When you have so many people
on 100 percent official time, your statement you just made to
the ranking member from Virginia about, well, they're supposed
to check in with their supervisor, if they're on 100 percent
official time, they don't have to check in. Would you agree
with that?
Mr. West. No. The statute says that official time has to be
approved by the supervisor.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So let me ask it a different way.
Listen, I know the answer to the question, so I'll ask it a
different way. Those people, individuals that are on 100
percent official time, do you believe that they have the same
accountability that someone who may be on 25 percent official
time to their supervisors?
Mr. West. If their supervisor has approved it, the answer
would be yes.
Mr. Meadows. They have the same accountability?
Mr. West. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. And what quantifiable data do you have to back
up that claim, Mr. West? Do you have anything from Brookings
that would prove that? Because I would venture to say you do
not. So what do you have? I'll look at the numbers. What do you
have to back that up?
Mr. West. I mean, my sense is if someone is working 100
percent----
Mr. Meadows. I'm not asking for your sense. I'm asking for
real data to back up your claim.
Mr. West. We've done a lot of research through our public
management center. I spent 40 years kind of looking at
governance questions. We do a lot of work on Federal agencies
and how to improve their performance, and if supervisors are
approving this----
Mr. Meadows. Good, so you spent 40 years. Do you have any
quantifiable data to suggest that someone who's on 100 percent
official time has the same accountability to their management
as someone that is on partial official time?
Mr. West. If they're helping their colleagues file
grievances, resolve disputes, communicate with management,
there's accountability there.
Mr. Meadows. You answered a great question I didn't ask. I
asked, do you have any quantifiable data to support that
hypothesis, Mr. West? After 40 years, do you have any data to
support it?
Mr. West. I'm just giving you the benefits of my research
and case studies that we have undertaken----
Mr. Meadows. So yes or no, do you have quantifiable data?
Mr. West. Based on our research, we think the answer to
that is that there is evidence in support of that.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So the quantifiable data, we'll
give you 30 days to get to this committee if you've got it. Is
that enough time?
Mr. West. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so you're going to commit to
get quantifiable data on that question.
Mr. West. I will give you the benefit of my impressions,
yes.
Mr. Meadows. That's not what I'm asking for. We already
have your impression. You're an expert witness. You're here.
What I'm looking for is data.
Here's my problem. I'm willing to go with the ranking
member on acknowledging that we have to have official time.
Even there are some who probably ought to have 100 percent
official time if indeed they're the head of this and they're
doing--but at the same time, we have to have some kind of
matrix to figure out who is being accountable and who is not,
because according to your testimony, it's a good thing, and we
need to understand when it's a good thing and when it's not.
Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. West. Yes, I would agree with that.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So if we have to make that
determination, I have a real concern that we have people that
they don't have to check in with their management. I'm on 100
percent official time. In fact, as a supervisor, I wouldn't
expect them to be around if they were on 100 percent. I
wouldn't ask them to do any work on behalf of the taxpayer if
they're 100 percent.
Do you see how that accountability may not be the same as
someone who was only there part time?
Mr. West. All I know is the statute still requires
supervisor approval even if somebody is working 100 percent on
official time.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Do you--in your 40 years of
experience, have you ever seen anybody who did not get
supervisor approval?
Mr. West. I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. Meadows. So you've not seen anybody ever--and you've
studied this, and you've never seen anybody not get supervisory
approval in 40 years. That's your sworn testimony here today?
Mr. West. I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. Meadows. Well, either you know or you don't. I mean--so
you've not seen anybody?
Mr. West. I can't answer that question.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Gilson, have you seen anybody, ever?
Mr. Gilson. Over and over and over again.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Mr. Kovacs, in your experience, have you
seen that the accountability at some times is less than robust?
Mr. Kovacs. Yeah. I mean, 2009 National Labor Relations
Board Inspector General report showed that consistently
supervisors did not approve of official time.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. But you weren't aware of that report,
Mr. West. Is that correct?
Mr. West. Which report?
Mr. Kovacs. The 2009 inspector general report from the
National Labor Relations Board.
Mr. West. I've not seen that report.
Mr. Meadows. But you study it and you're an expert. You
weren't aware of that?
Mr. West. I've not seen that report, no.
Mr. Meadows. I didn't ask you if you've seen it. Were you
aware of it? That's a different question.
Mr. West. I'm aware the inspector general does lots of
reports.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Mr. Chairman, I can see that this
line of questioning is not producing any real results for me or
Mr. West, so I'll yield back.
Mr. Hice. I thank the gentleman.
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, in the spirit
of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, if we're
going to insist that Mr. West provide data in support of
official time, I'd certainly like to see data to corroborate
Mr. Gilson's anecdotal observation that over and over and over
again he has witnessed----
Mr. Meadows. Yeah. I have no objection to that.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
Mr. Meadows. And am I the goose or the gander?
No. I'm kidding.
Mr. Hice. We may want to end there.
I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today. We
appreciate you taking time. And the members who remained as
well, thank you very much.
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any
member to submit a written opening statement or questions for
the record.
If there's no further business, without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]