AFGE National President John Gage Offered the Following Statements Regarding Proposed Provisions of the 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill on the Annual Pay Raise and Competitive Sourcing
Statement on 2005 annual pay raise for federal employees:
AFGE is disappointed that the Executive Office of the President opposes the 3.5% pay increase provided in the FY 2005 Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a shame that Administration officials are standing against the long-standing and bi-partisan tradition of fairness in wages and valuing hard work. The White House unfortunately is out of the mainstream of Republicans and Democrats who have voted overwhelmingly to provide civilian employees with the same across-the-board pay raise as military personnel.
Statement on competitive sourcing provisions:
For two consecutive years, a bipartisan majority of congressional lawmakers has voted to eliminate the Bush Administration's pro-contractor A-76 privatization process. Bush Administration officials have consistently opposed all attempts to make the privatization process more accountable to taxpayers and more fair to federal employees. In fact, the Bush Administration yesterday issued a veto threat in response to a bipartisan provision authored by Representatives Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Frank Wolf (R-VA) to allow federal employees to submit their most competitive bids and require contractors to at least promise savings sufficient to pay for the cost of conducting privatization reviews. This language has been the law of the land for two years in the Department of Defense, which conducts three-fifths of all service contracting. The Bush Administration's opposition to this common sense, bipartisan proposal shows that its privatization quotas are designed to replace federal employees with contractor cronies regardless of the cost. Why else would the Bush Administration oppose allowing federal employees to submit their most competitive bids and require contractors to at least promise savings sufficient to offset the often significant cost of conducting privatization reviews?