“TSA’s 2009 PASS ratings raise more questions than provides answers. The first of which is: why did TSA, with no warning or explanation, increase the point range needed to obtain a rating level from that of last year? This arbitrary increase means that some TSOs will have to achieve a higher score than before just to maintain the same rating.

It is illogical to increase the point range when TSA has struggled with several evaluation components that constitute it, including training and testing. Former TSA Administrator Kip Hawley even admitted to flaws in PASS, stating that it ‘distracted the workforce from its primary mission with its confusing procedures and burdensome administrative and testing requirements.’ Unfortunately, that remains true.

Furthermore, the decision to increase the point range will prevent some TSOs from receiving the larger increases to base salary and one-time lump sum PASS performance bonuses than in previous years.

Because lump sum bonuses are not included in pensions, TSOs see thousands of dollars diverted from, and a devaluation of their pension. Conversely, salary increases under the GS System—which AFGE believes TSOs should be brought under—become part of the base pay on which retirement pay is calculated.

Additionally, the ratings are largely based on the subjective perceptions of TSA managers, some of whom even evaluate TSOs they do not work with. And because the point spread between the various levels is so close, managers could easily manipulate an employee’s score by a point or two to move them up or down a level. Moreover, TSOs report that TSA management is poorly trained in administering PASS evaluations. A TSO’s basic compensation and standard of living should not be subject to the whims of individual managers.

Many of these issues could easily have been avoided by a collective bargaining agreement. AFGE would have negotiated with TSA to ensure that the training and testing reflected what TSOS actually do every day on the job, and that there was a fair opportunity for TSOs to receive the appropriate training prior to taking the tests. A bargaining agreement would ensure that the evaluation process was fair and equitable and that TSOs would be able to grieve unfair individual evaluations before a neutral third party, a right that TSOs currently do not have.

There is no question that TSOs must be capable of performing their duties as assigned, but we take issue with a flawed performance system that is subject to favoritism, nepotism and unregulated supervisor discretion."

• PASS 2009 Final Rating Thresholds & Payout Information

Martin states, "During the past eight years, the agency has been starved of the resources necessary to enforce this nation's laws barring workplace discrimination."  From 2001 to 2008, EEOC lost 25% of its workforce to a multi-year hiring freeze caused by several years of level funding.  According to EEOC's 2009 report card, just released on November 16, 2009, the agency's case backlog has ballooned to 85,768, which is double what the agency had previously claimed was a "manageable level."  The agency report concedes the backlog can be explained in part due to the loss of "a total of 271 front line investigators—more than 33 percent of its total investigative workforce." 

Martin explains, "A train wreck was imminent," when staffing hit a record low in FY07, then a record high number of charges of discrimination was filed with the agency in FY08.  According to the recent report card, the number of charges in 2009 was the second highest in the past 20 years.  Even with a spate of new hires, mostly at the end of FY09, the EEOC's total staff hovers just above 2,300 employees.  More work distributed to fewer EEOC investigators and support staff means employees, job applicants and employers wait longer for resolution to discrimination complaints. "It now takes on average over 9 months to process a charge of discrimination.  So, for instance, a pregnancy discrimination claim can't even be resolved before the baby is born," comments Martin. 

What does the Union hope to see in new permanent leadership at the EEOC?  Martin reflects, "The last administration wasted time and money on a failed outsourced call center and on slicing and dicing EEOC's office jurisdictions to the public's detriment.  It's time to get back to the basics- hire enough front line staff to do the job, give them the tools they need to do the job, and flatten the agency to a 10 to 1 employee to supervisor ratio."

Labor management relations also suffered under the leadership of the last two permanent EEOC Chairs. The situation is exacerbated by an outstanding arbitration decision against the EEOC, which found the agency committed overtime violations against its own staff.  Martin readily extends an olive branch to the new team, "I look forward to meeting with the new Chair to discuss how we work together to improve working conditions for all Americans, including employees in our own agency."

There have been a number of reports suggesting the federal government may consider acquiring the Thomson Correctional Center from the state of Illinois to house Guantanamo Bay detainees under Department of Defense and BOP supervision.

“We fully support housing Guantanamo Bay detainees at the Thomson Correctional Center,” said AFGE National President John Gage. “This is an opportunity to bring thousands of good-paying jobs to an area in desperate need of an economic revival. Furthermore, we do not see a safety risK to the surrounding community. Our correctional officers are the best-trained, most-qualified candidates in the world for this job. We have no doubt BOP correctional officers are up to the tasK.”

Additionally, CPL President Bryan Lowry added, “Supervising terrorists is nothing new for our BOP correctional officers. They’ve maintained a safe and secure environment at Supermax and they can do it at the Thomson Correctional Center. We welcome the idea of protecting our nation, and the world, from these detainees.”

“The federal workforce is the premier workforce in the world,” said Gage. “Our members succeed at every level, at home and abroad. In order to ensure that the hiring system continues to recruit the best and brightest it is imperative that it be competitive and transparent.”

The FCIP was originally created by Executive Order 13162 on July 6, 2000 as an excepted service hiring authority under the oversight of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).As an excepted service hiring authority, the FCIP gave federal departments and agencies enormous power to hire employees without using the competitive hiring process or public notice.

AFGE has had grave concerns about the program’s weaknesses and propensity for violating basic fairness in federal hiring since the program was originally introduced. At that time AFGE was vocal about its concern that the FCIP would swallow the rule of competitive hiring. In response to those concerns OPM asserted that the FCIP would only be used as part of a series of improvements to the federal hiring process. Now, such agencies as Citizenship and Immigration Services, (ICE), the Social Security Administration, (SSA), and the Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) rely on the program for thousands of new hires.

AFGE believes that the FCIP represents the unrestricted use of a hiring authority that grants managers total control over a subjective hiring process. FCIP, also gives managers unregulated control over newly hired employees, whose entire tenure is characterized by the absence of procedural due process protections.

“If not eliminated or dramatically revised, FCIP’s inherent lack of transparency has the ability to undermine basic civil service protections that date back to the Pendleton Act over 100 years ago,” said Gage. “The FCIP simply is not compatible with merit system protections. And, we know that the federal workforce cannot succeed at the expense of merit systems principles or at the expense of competitive fairness.”

“The Federal Protective Service faces daunting challenges and its officers and inspectors have been shocked and dismayed by the recent GAO reports and vulnerabilities that still exist” said David Wright at a hearing on FPS reform before the House Homeland Security Committee today. Stating that FPS “still has significantly less boots on the ground when it joined DHS”, Wright asked the Committee for its support of additional resources and assistance in making sure those funds make it to the agency.

“We need your help to make sure the embedded, intransigent and unaccountable bureaucrats at OMB cooperate to provide the minimum resources necessary to accomplish our mission” he said.

In addition, Wright told the Committee that FPS reform legislation must include the in-sourcing of private security guards at the highest security buildings protected by FPS.  

“In 2001, there were 5,000 contract guards and FPS was authorized more than 1,450 total personnel. By 2009, there were 15,000 contract guards, but FPS was authorized only 1,225 total personnel. A three-fold increase in guards coupled with a 16 percent cut in FPS staff was a recipe for failure” Wright said.

Wright added that “the state of the FPS right now is little different from that of the airline industry security prior to 9/11. When America demanded professional security at airports, Congress and the administration responded by hiring some 40,000 federal officers to staff the Transportation Security Administration. It is long past time to do the same thing at FPS.”

Wright also expressed concern about security at the upcoming terrorism trials to be held in New York City. “The khalid Sheikh Muhammad trial at the New York federal courthouse presents a security risk that FPS is ill-equipped to handle without leaving other secure buildings in the country unprotected.”