Members of the House federal workforce subcommittee have
expressed skepticism about many aspects of the Bush
administration’s proposed “Working for America Act” that
seeks to apply government-wide many of the changes upcoming
at the Defense and Homeland Security departments.
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., the panel chairman, and Democrats
Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia and Chris
Van Hollen of Maryland indicated that they were open-minded
about the topic of civil service reform. For example, they
expressed interest in streamlined hiring procedures similar
to those now being used at some agencies and that are part
of the DoD and DHS plans.
The administration seeks to create a revised pay and
classification system to replace both the general schedule
and the federal wage system that would feature pay banding
with pay for performance, plus market-based pay linked to
occupation and location. In addition, the White House plan
would restrict union bargaining rights, shorten certain time
limits for employee appeals and give the Merit Systems
Protection Board less leeway in mitigating disciplinary
actions.
The administration’s plan has not been introduced as formal
legislation, and at a hearing that featured administration
and other witnesses, unions restated their opposition to
virtually all aspects of the plan. They argued that current
authorities to reward good performers are under-used,
largely because of budgetary restrictions, and that
implementation of any new authorities could suffer the same
problem.
The unions also objected strenuously to any restrictions on
the scope of bargaining. They said the administration has
not made the case that such restrictions are needed outside
the realms of national security and terrorism response,
which was the justification for changing union rights at
DoD and DHS. They also noted that both the DoD and DHS
systems remain up in the air, with union suits against
both systems pending.
