If the next OPM director were proactive and reactive on behalf of federal employees and retirees, it might not make a huge difference, but it would still help. Image: Mark Van Scyoc/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffLet’s just say for the sake of argument—arguendo, as lawyers say, throwing Latin around unnecessarily as they so often do—that the job of the Office of Personnel Management director was all about advocating on behalf of federal employees and retirees.
This thought comes to mind as the OPM’s directorship is being vacated yet again with the departure of Kiran Ahuja, who occupied the position for three years—the longest tenure of anyone in nearly a decade. OPM directors come and go, and in between the position is filled on an acting basis, either by another senior OPM official or by someone delegated to the task from another agency, such as OMB.
While the OPM is considered an independent agency—that is, independent of a larger department—its director’s main priority consistently has been to carry out the White House’s policies as they relate to the federal workforce.
For Ahuja, that included extending to the federal workplace the Biden administration’s general emphasis on good relations with unions and DEI initiatives. Under her immediate predecessors, that had included extending to the federal workplace the Trump administration’s general emphasis on centralizing power in the White House, including to the extent of abolishing OPM and shifting its policy role into OMB.
And so it will doubtless will go under the next OPM director, whether one is confirmed before the November elections or not. But just for the sake of argument . . .
Let’s say that person made it a priority instead to advocate for employees in the name of recruiting and retaining a workforce—and honoring that work in retirement. That would mean for example standing up for them publicly.
What would that look like? Well, for example Biden administration budgets have proposed improvements in benefits that would be modest but valuable toward those aims, at little to no cost to the government. To name just one, extending eligibility under the Federal Dental and Vision Insurance Program to children up to age 26, rather than up to age 22. And allowing for shorter contracts by carriers in that program to encourage more competition and more carriers to participate.
After those proposals have been made, they have dropped into a black hole, drawing no attention from OPM or elsewhere.
It would also mean for example looking at the overall benefits package and assessing whether it suits the needs of today’s workforce. For example, the FEGLI life insurance program is a kind of hybrid of whole life and term insurance, basically unchanged in many decades. There have been proposals to add a cash accumulation feature in the program, which might encourage more employees to take it, and more retirees to keep it. Again, silence from OPM.
There is constant interest from federal employees in a short-term disability insurance program, to fill the hole between leave benefits and Federal Employees’ Compensation Act coverage that applies only to long-term conditions. The last time OPM looked at that, it was considered to be too expensive for employees, who would pay the entire cost.
But at the time, the cost estimates included its potential use as paid parental leave, which is now part of the basic federal employee benefits package. There have been recent proposals to revisit the concept of short-term disability insurance. But more silence from OPM.
Surveys consistently show that the benefits federal employees value the most are retirement and health insurance. Year after year, some fiscal conservatives propose an entire panoply of ways to reduce their value and/or shift more of their costs onto individuals. It happened again just recently with a proposal from the House Republican Study Committee. No reaction from OPM.
Let’s say the next OPM director would be, actively and enthusiastically, both proactive and reactive on behalf of federal employees and retirees. Would it make a big difference? Maybe not. But it would make some difference, and that would be a start.
Nearly 10,000 Federal Offices Don’t Meet Usage Standards
Conversions to Schedule P/C Pending; Acknowledgement Form Draws Attention
OPM Plan on Employee Ratings Asking for Abuse, Says Senior House Democrat
OK, FERS and TSP, but What About Social Security Retirement Income?
See also,
Calculating Service Credit for Sick Leave At Retirement
FERS Supplement vs The 10% Pension Bonus
How Your FERS, Social Security and TSP Payments Get Taxed
