USE OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES IN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
1 03-1^ .\EING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL SERVICE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JUNE 22, 1993
Serial No. 103-14
Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-0A4017-3
70— fi^n n _ Q/i _ 1
^
/ USE OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES IN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CML SERVICE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JUNE 22, 1993
Serial No. 103-14
Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
m 2 4 /S54
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-660 WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Govemmenl Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044017-3
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
WILLIAM L. CLAY, Missouri, Chairman
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado
FRANK McCLOSKEY, Indiana
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Columbia
BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
LESLIE L. BYRNE, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North CaroUna
ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland
GREGG LAUGHLIN, Texas
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
BENJAMIN A. OILMAN, New York
DON YOUNG, Alaska
DAN BURTON, Indiana
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
THOMAS J. RIDGE, Pennsylvania
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
Gail E. Weiss, Staff Director
Robert E. Lockhart, General Counsel
Doris Moore-Glenn, Deputy Staff Director
Joseph A. FIsher, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on the Civil Service
FRANK McCLOSKEY, Indiana, Chairman
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CONSTANCE A MORELLA, Maryland
Deborah Kendall, Subcommittee Staff Director
(II)
^^S
CONTENTS
Hearing held in Washington, DC, June 22, 1993
Statement of: Page
Hajrwood, Willie, President, local 51, American Federation of Government
Employees; accompanied by Christopher Campbell, former firefighter;
and Roger Archibald, former smokejumper, U.S. Forest Service 34
Keener, Robert, President, National Federation of Federal Employees;
Robert Tobias, President, National Treasury Employees Union; Bobby
Hamage, national Secretary/Treasurer, American Federation of Gov-
ernment Employees 64
King, James B., Director, Office of Personnel Management; accompanied
by Edward McHugh, Director of staffing policy 19
Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Hawaii 4
Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera:
Archibald, Roger, former smokejumper, U.S. Forest Service, prepared
statement of 48
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indi-
ana, prepared statement of 18
Hamage, Bobby, National Secretary Treasurer, American Federation of
Government Employees, prepared statement of 119
Haywood, Willie, president, local 51, American Federation of Government
Employees, prepared statement of 36
Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of 125
Keener, Robert, president, National Federation of Federal Employees,
prepared statement of 66
King, James B., Director, Office of Personnel Management:
Prepared statement of 21
Response to written questions 23
McCloskey, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana, prepared statement of 3
Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Hawaii, prepared statement of 6
Tobias, Robert, president. National Treasury Employees Union, prepared
statement of 113
ail)
USE OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1993
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Civil Service,
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Frank McCloskey (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives McCloskey and Morella.
Mr. McCloskey. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.
The blatant abuse of temporary employees in Federal agencies is
one of the most disturbing occurrences I have encountered during
my time in Government. Temporary employees should not be forced
to endure sweatshop conditions, low wages, no rights, and no bene-
fits.
For the past 4 years I, along with Congressman Kanjorski who
served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources,
have been committed to addressing this problem.
Also leading off our hearing this morning will be Patsy Mink,
who has been working this issue fiercely and constantly for several
years now.
Prior to my becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil
Service, I introduced legislation that would have provided perma-
nent position benefits to long-term temporary employees. During
consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill last
year, I attached an amendment that would have provided perma-
nent position benefits to long-term Department of Defense tem-
porary employees. This amendment passed the House.
However, during conference, the language was changed to re-
quire the Office of Personnel Management, 0PM, to submit a re-
port on providing rights and benefits to temporary employees who
had been employed for an extended period of time. This report was
submitted to Congress this past April and is the subject of this
hearing.
Once I announced that I was conducting this hearing, my office
received numerous calls from temporary Federal employees. My
staff spoke with employees who had worked as long as 13 years
with a Federal agency in a temporary capacity — I might say in my
experience in southern Indiana, people more or less worked con-
stantly in temporary positions, particularly Mr. King, for 18 years
or more.
(1)
Other employees said they had been hired with the understand-
ing that they were to become permanent employees. These workers
do not receive one single benefit — not health insurance, not life in-
surance, not retirement, nor statutory appeals rights. These work-
ers are left helpless to plan for their future and have no job secu-
rity. It is obvious these positions are not temporary.
OPM regulations leave endless possibilities for the manipulation
of temporary workers. Agencies can easily circumvent OPM's regu-
lations by switching temporary employees from job to job or termi-
nating employees and rehiring them later. This break in service
discontinues their work record; thus, their time as a temporary em-
ployee will start over with each successive position.
Tlie OPM report is a first step toward addressing the abuses of
temporary employees, and OPM has taken a number of actions
that were outlined in the report. By proposing that agencies limit
temporary appointments to a total of 2 years, meaning a not-to-ex-
ceed [NTE] 1-year appointment that could only be renewed once,
whereas now an NTE 1-year appointment can be renewed up to 4
years, OPM will eliminate some of the problems with temporaries.
While I support these measures, I feel that more needs to be
done, particularly in terms of health insurance for temporary em-
ployees. The General Accounting Office [GAO] has found that pri-
vate employers offer a better benefits package to temporary work-
ers — generally offering the opportunity to enroll in both hegdth and
life insurance programs after 6 months of employment. Federal
temporary employees are not eligible to purchase health insurance
until they have 1 year of service with no break in service of more
than 3 days.
Furthermore, there needs to be better access for all temporary
employees, not just term employees, to apply for permanent posi-
tions within the Federal Government. It is simply unfair that after
years of employment a temporary applying for a permanent posi-
tion job is no better off than someone off of the street applying for
a permanent job. Agencies could save large sums of money on edu-
cation and training by hiring more temporary employees for perma-
nent positions.
Finally, there needs to be strong leadership from OPM — and I
am hopeful and I am sure we can get this — to inform agencies that
they can no longer abuse temporary employees. Temporary workers
deserve to be employed in a fair, decent, and honest workplace. The
fact that a temporary worker has been employed for 20 years with-
out any rights is heinous and must not be allowed to continue.
I do not ask that every temporary worker receive full benefits.
I well understand that, in some cases, it is cost-effective to use
temporary employees. In light of the recent base closures, I expect
the demand for temporary employees to increase. But I stress that
temporary employees should only be used for temporary work.
Some of today's witnesses will not present a flattering picture of
temporary employment in the Federal Government. There is a dire
need for reform. Whether through legislation or administrative re-
view, this problem must be addressed.
I welcome today's witnesses, particularly Ms. Mink, Mr. King,
and our Federal representatives. I look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Frank McCloskey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank McCloskey, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Indiana
The Blatant abuse of temporary employees in Federal agencies is one of the most
disturbing occurrences that I have encountered during my time in Government.
Temporary employees should not be forced to ensure sweatshop conditions — low
wages, no rights, and no benefits. Over the past few years, I, along with Congress-
man Kanjorski who served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources,
have been committed to addressing this problem.
Prior to my becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, I introduced
legislation that would have provided permanent position benefits to long-term tem-
porary employees. During consideration of the Department of Defense authorization
bill for FY 1993, I attached an amendment that would have provided permanent po-
sition benefits to long-term Department of Defense temporary employees. This
amendment passed the House. However, during conference, the language was
changed to require the Office of Personnel Management [0PM] to submit a report
on providing rights and benefits to temporary employees who had been employed
for an extended period of time. This report was submitted to Congress this past
April and is the subject of this hearing.
Once I announced that I was conducting this hearing, my office received numer-
ous calls from temporary Federal employees. My staff spoke with employees who
had worked as long as 13 years with a Federal agency in a "temporary" capacity
and other employees who said they had been hired with the understanding that
they were to become permanent employees. These workers do not receive one single
benefit — not health insurance, not life insurance, not retirement, nor statutory ap-
peals rights. These workers are left helpless to plan for their future and have no
job security. It is obvious these positions are not temporary.
0PM regulations leave endless possibilities for the manipulation of temporary
workers. Agencies can easily circumvent OPM's regulations by switching temporary
employees from job to job, or terminating employees and rehiring them later. This
break in service discontinues their work record; thus, their time as a temporary em-
ployee will start over with each successive position.
The 0PM report is a first step toward addressing the abuses of temporary employ-
ees, and 0PM has taken a number of actions that were outlined in the report. By
proposing that agencies Umit temporary appointments to a total of 2 years, meaning
a not-to-exceed [NTE] 1-year appointment could only be renewed once, whereas now
an NTE 1-year appointment can be renewed up to 4 years, 0PM will eliminate some
of the problems with temporaries.
While I support these measvu-es, I feel that more needs to be done, particularly
in terms of health insurance for temporary employees. The General Accounting Of-
fice [GAO] has found that private employees offer a better benefits package to tem-
porary workers — generally offering the opportunity to enroll in both health and life
insurance programs after 6 montiis of employment. Federal temporsiry employees
are not eligible for health insvu*ance until they have 1 year of service with no break
in service of more than 3 days.
Furthermore, there needs to be better access for all temporary employees, not just
term employees, to apply for permanent positions within the Federal Government.
It is simply unfair that after years of employment, a temporary applying for a per-
manent position job is no better off than someone off of the street applying for a
job. Agencies could save large sums of money on education and training by hiring
more temporary employees for permanent positions.
Finally, there needs to be strong leadership from 0PM to inform agencies that
they can no longer abuse temporary employees. Temporary workers deserve to be
employed in a fair, decent, and honest workplace. The fact that a temporary worker
has been employed for 20 years without any rights is heinous, and must not be al-
lowed to continue.
I do not ask that every temporary worker receive full benefits. I well understand
that, in some cases, it is cost-effective to use temporary employees. In light of the
recent base closures, I expect the demand for temporary employees to increase. But
I stress that temporary employees should only be used for temporary work.
Some of today's witnesses will not present a flattering picture of temporary em-
ployment in the Federal Government. There is a dire need for reform — whether
through legislation or administrative review, this problem must be addressed.
I welcome today's witnesses, and look forward to their testimony.
Mr. McCloskey. Patsy, I thank you for all your efforts on this.
I look forward to hearing from you right now. Your full statement
is included in the record. You are more than welcome to come after
up afterward and participate in the hearing. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I commend
you for your tenacity on this issue that we have worked on for a
number of years.
As you know, I am author of a bill and so are you that directs
attention to this enormous problem.
The report that has been produced by the Office of Personnel
Management is a starter, and I think we can look to it for the dis-
cussion and further investigation of a number of options. But I am
here today to bring attention to the Congress of this very disturb-
ing practice which has systematically denied Federal workers clas-
sified as temporary or seasonal access to Government health care.
The reason why I feel that this issue is particularly pertinent
now is because we are discussing comprehensive national health
reform while we as a matter of policy have been perpetuating a
systematic denial of health care coverage to workers who have been
making great contributions in a wide variety of occupations
throughout the Federal system.
So whatever may be the result of the health care reform, it
seems to me we ought to take care of the problems within the Fed-
eral Government first as an example of a real intent on the part
of the Federal Government to correct itself, to be a role model, in
essence, and to set the example.
The chair is absolutely correct that the report that we have just
received a copy of indicates that in the private sector they are
doing far better than we are in the Federal Government in dealing
with the temporary workers and availing them of the specific op-
portunities and perquisites of their employment. So while we are
discussing the 37 million Americans without health care coverage
it is very, very important that the Congress recognize that there
may be 100,000 or 200,000 individuals within the Federal service
who in any description should be entitled to at least the very mini-
mum of health coverage as well as all the other points the chair
has made.
I came across this issue because of a Park Service employee who
pointed out to me the desperate conditions under which he worked.
He had a family with a number of children, his spouse did not
work, and he wanted very much to stay in his employment at the
Park Service. And yet he felt in grave jeopardy every day because
he was not given the opportunity for health care coverage.
After raising this issue, Mr. Chairman, with the Park Service in
my district, I have a letter which I would like to attach at this
point in the record.
[The information referred to appears on page 8.]
Mrs. Mink. This is from the Pacific Area National Park Service,
and says there are 69 temporary employees and that the condition
is very severe, and he would wish that somehow the opportunities
for health benefits at least could be accorded.
And for Hawaii it is absolutely an anomaly to regard these peo-
ple as seasonal. We don't have seasons. Everybody works the full
365 days of the calendar year. Everybody works except for this arti-
ficial device of laying them off so that they can continue under the
definition of a temporary.
My intent is not to alter the definition of what is a temporary.
I don't think we want to get into that administrative situation.
What we are attempting to do is say, whatever your definitions are
of temporary, if they are there in their employ, even though not
continuous for the 365 days for the year, that they ought to be of-
fered the opportunity to purchase health care benefits.
The comment that I received from the Office of Personnel Man-
agement — when asked the question, they said, well, this practice is
not being entered into with the deliberate design to deny people
health benefits because, obviously, under the current requirements
that employee, because he or she is temporary, would have to pay
100 percent of the health benefits. So, obviously, it is not a cost fac-
tor.
So my question immediately is, if it is not a cost factor to the
government why not open up the opportunities for these employees
immediately to at least purchase health coverage for themselves
and their families? That is the minimum good will that the govern-
ment ought to extend to these workers who extend their employ-
ment beyond a year, even though it may not be consecutive.
My bill goes beyond that, Mr. Chairman. I understand you do not
have jurisdiction to report the bill out, but my bill goes beyond that
because it accords these temporary workers not the privilege of
buying at 100 percent personal cost but at the same formula under
which all Government employees are given an opportunity to pur-
chase health benefits.
I think that that is the employment justice and equity that we
ought to be seeking for these employees.
Mr. McCloskey. At what point in the process would they have
equal coverage?
Mrs. Mink. One year, regardless of whether it is continuous or
not. They ought to be given the opportunity to buy in at 100 per-
cent cost for starters. I see no reason, given what the position is
of the Office of Personnel Management that it is not a cost factor.
So what is it that presents a barrier? We are not saying when you
buy into health benefits you automatically are not considered tem-
porary. We are not altering that definition at all.
So for whatever bookkeeping, auditing, statutory requirements
there may be, that temporary status would continue. All I think as
a matter of fairness and justice is for the Government to imme-
diately rectify this egregious offense to workers who contribute so
much to our Nation's employment situation.
That is basically the point I wanted to make today, that there
is an immediate remedy. My bill goes beyond that. It requires a
cost factor equivalent to what employees now enjoy if they are on
a permanent, full-time basis.
But the remedy that so many of them have spoken to me about,
which they want immediately, is the opportunity to have coverage
immediately. And as the Director of the Park Service said to me
in his letter, which I want to leave for the committee, is that the
opportunity to buy it through the Government would be of consid-
erable savings to that employee rather than buying it out on the
market as an individual family.
I thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to be here
today and to vent my anxiety about the disadvantage that so msmy
of these constituents have in my district.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Patsy.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Hawaii
Mr. Chair and members of the Civil Service Subcommittee, I am pleased to par-
ticipate in this hearing on the role of temporary Federal employees and to discuss
ways we can assure that this important segment of our Federal workforce is treated
in a fair and equitable manner.
I commend the chair of his leadership on the issue of equity and fairness for tem-
porary federal workers. I was pleased to work with the chair on his amendment last
year to the Department of Defense Authorization bill, which was the genesis of the
Office of Personnel Management (0PM) study, "The Rights and Benefits of Tem-
porary Employees in the Federal Government," currently under review by this Sub-
committee.
I am here today to bring to the attention of this Subcommittee a very disturbing
practice, which has systematically denied Federal workers classified as "temporary"
or "seasonal" access to government health care insurance.
Mr. Chair, at a time when we are in the midst of a national debate on health
care reform and the Administration and Congress are grappling with ideas on how
to expand access and reduce costs of health care in this nation, I find it extremely
appalUng that Federal agencies are engaged in a practice which prevents temporary
workers access to the federal health care insurance program.
The result is that an untold number of our own Federal employees are among the
37 million Americans without any health insurance coverage.
According to the 0PM a "temporary" or "seasonal" worker is eligible to participate
in the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Program once they have com-
pleted 1 year of current continuous employment, excluding any break in service of
5 days or less.
However, managers have been able to circumvent this requirement for health ben-
efits by terminating temporary workers just short of the consecutive year period
necessary to qualify them for benefits, and then rehire these same employees short-
ly thereafter to resume their positions without eligibility for Federal benefits.
In other words, managers will terminate a temporary employee when he/she is
just six days shy of reaching the one-year threshold that qualifies them for health
benefits, and then rehires this employee after a six-day period. Thereby denying the
employee the full 1-year of continuous service in order to qualify for health Senefits.
Mr. Chair, this is an abusive practice that violates the most basic principles of
fairness and decency in our society.
I have many Federal workers in my district who are victims of this kind of abuse,
working for over a decade for the Federal government, yet consistently denied their
rightful benefits.
One particularly egregious example involves a "temporary" employee who has
been working for the Federal government on a full-time basis since 1986. Her job
entails fire fighting, scuba diving, helicopter operations, mountaineering, rock climb-
ing, and search and rescue operations. However, despite the fact that she has been
with the Federal government for 6 years and engages in often hazardous activities
because of the nature of her job, she has been denied health benefits under the fed-
eral system.
Others have worked for the Federal government for 10 or 15 years — every year
faced with the choice of losing their job or going along with a practice which denies
them the health care benefits they rightfully deserve.
The 0PM denies that this practice exists. Attached to my testimony is a copy of
a letter I received from 0PM in January of 1992, stating that they cannot find any
evidence that this practice exists. I might also note that although the issue of health
care benefits for temporary employees was included in the April 1993 report by
0PM on the rights and benefits of temporary employees, this specific practice of de-
hberately denying health care coverage was not addressed.
The OPM contends that because temporary employees who do become eligible for
health care coverage by working continuoiisly for more than 1 year are required to
pay 100 percent of the health insurance premium, there is no incentive for Federal
agencies to deliberately deny health insurance.
However, there may be other incentives for this type of practice, including ceilings
on permanent workers and costs of other benefits, such as life insurance and retire-
ment. And the fact is that through this practice of systematic laying-off and rehiring
of temporary workers, agencies have employed individuals for many years on a so-
called temporary" basis, without fulfilling their obligation to provide health insur-
ance benefits.
To eliminate this loophole in the law that allows the federal government to deny
access to health care insurance, I introduced H.R. 98, which requires that Federal
employees categorized as "temporary" receive health benefits equivalent to a perma-
nent employee, once they have completed a total of 1 year (non-consecutive) of serv-
ice in the same position within the preceding 2 years. It is important to note that
the 1 year of service required under my bill does not have to be continuous service,
but simply a total of 1 year of employment with the Federal government.
As there is a high percentage of women in the temporary federal workforce, my
bill, H.R. 98, has been included in the Women's Economic Equity Act. this legisla-
tion which will be introduced by the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues in
July is a compilation of bills that seek to promote equity and fairness in the work-
place for women.
Mr. Chair, I realize that this Subcommittee does not have specific jurisdiction
over my bill — it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Compensation and Em-
ployee Benefits. However, as this Subcommittee looks at the role of temporary work-
ers in the Federal government, this egregious violation by the Federal government
in den3dng its own employees the health benefits they have rightfully earned cannot
be overlooked.
It is the moral responsibility of the Federal government to assure our workers fair
and equitable treatment, whether they are temporary or full-time employees. And
I urge this Subcommittee to seriously consider H.R. 98 and other legislation to help
assure that the hard working men and women who provide dedicated service to the
Federal government receive the benefits they so rightfully deserve.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this issue before you today; I will be happy
to answer any questions.
UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON. DC. 204 1S
: K OF TDK DIKKiroK
Honorable Patsy T. Mink
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-1102
Dear Representative Mink:
We have gathered the information on the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHBP) that you requested in your letter dated
January 24, 1992. The information constitutes our best estimates
based on 1991 data.
The total cost of health insurance coverage under the FEHBP for
1,742,282 non-Postal and 687,108 Postal active employees in 1991
was $8,021 million. The Government paid $6,284 million and
employees contributed $1,737 million of this amount.
The remainder of the numbers are baled on a' combination of data
from the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) and reports from the
United States Postal Service (USPS) . These sources undercount
the actual enrollment by about 10 percent. This is partly due to
the fact that certain groups, such as the legislative branch and
the CIA, do not contribute data to the CPDF. Also, the data from
the USPS shows no ineligible employees. We are providing the
most accurate estimates possible. Currently, we are requesting
new data from the USPS and will notify you if this data changes
our estimates. The enclosed Tables provide categorical
breakdowns .
Temporary employees who become eligible for coverage by working
continuously for more than 1 year are required to pay 100 percent
of the premium. Therefore, there would be no incentive for the
agencies to deliberately drop temporary employees to circumvent
coverage since they do not cost the agency premium dollars. We
have no data that would show temporaries being deliberately
dropped .
The definitions of covered individuals are established by Title
S, O.8.C., Chapter 89 S 8901(1). Under the regulatory authority
given 0PM in S 8913, we have published implementing regulations
in 5 C.F.R. 890.102. Additional guidance is provided in the
Federal Personnel Manual Subchapter 84 (FPN Supplement 890-1) .
We have enclosed a copy for your convenience. As you will note
in these materials, many employees are eligible for FEHB coverage
immediately.
Honorable Patsy T. Mink 2
We estimate that it would cost $756 million a year to cover
currently ineligible workers, including ineligibles in the full-
time, part-time and seasonal categories. The Government's share
of the cost would be $578 million per year. We have not included
in this estimate those temporary employees who are now eligible
for coverage under FEHBP but do not now receive a Government
contribution .
It would cost the Government an additional $127 million per year
to cover full-time temporaries. Covering part-time temporaries
with a contribution in the same way as part-time permanent
employees would cost the Government an additional $236 million
per year. These amounts include both currently eligible and
currently ineligible temporary employees.
Thank you very much for your interest. Please let me know if I
may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Constance Berry Newman
Director
Enclosures
10
TABLE A
(millions)
Contributions
Non-Postal
Postal
Total Actives
Government
$4,045
$2,239
$6,284
Employee
$1,489
$248
$1,737
Total
$5,534
$2,487
$8,021
11
TABLED
(All Employees)
Categories
Population
Eligibles Participating
2,429,390
Eligibles Waived
530,205
InEligibles
285,876
Total
3,245,471
12
TABLE C
(Total Temporaries)
Categories
Full-Time
Part-Time
Total
Eligibles Participating
35,921
4,878
40,799
Eligibles Waived
39,208
30,653
69,861
InEligibles
68,527
144,080
212,607
Total
143,656
179,611
323,267 1
13
Subchapter S4. Coverage
13
S4-1. EMPLOYEES COVERED
a. General. All employees except those excluded
by law or regulation are covered.
b. Cooperative employees. Employees not exclud-
ed by law or regulation who serve in cooperation
with non-Federal agencies and who are paid in
whole or in part from non-Federal funds (such as
certain employees of the Agriculture Extension Ser-
vice) are covered by the law, provided arrangements
for withholdings and contributions are approved by
0PM. In such cases, withholdings and contribu-
tions must be made from Federally-controlled funds
and must be timely paid, or the cooperating non-
Federal agency must agree in writing with" the
Federal agency concerned to make and timely remit
the required withholdings and contributions from
non-Federal funds.
c. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
County Committee employees. Unless excluded by
regulation, persons employed by the county com-
mittees established pursuant to section 8(b) of the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act are
eligible for coverage under the program.
d. Employees transferred to public international
organizations. An employee who transfers, under
the Federal Employees International Organization
Service Act, to a public international organization
may elect to retain coverage, provided all necessary
withholdings and contributions during the service
with the international organization are currently
paid. Instructions on such transfers appear in FP^
Chapter 352, Reemployment Rights.
e. U.S. commissioners. Any United States com-
missioner is eligible for health benefits coverage if
he or she is subject to the Civil Service Retirement
law or the Federal Employees Retirement law.
S4-2. EXCLUSION BY LAW
a. Individuals First employed by the District of
Columbia Government on or after October 1, 1987.
Public Law 99-335 specifically excluded these in-
dividuals from participation in the FEHB Program.
However, as provided by Public Law 98-621,
enacted on November 8, 1984, this exclusion does
not apply to employees of St. Elizabeth's Hospital
who accept offers of employment with the Distrct
of Columbia government without a break in service.
b. Non-Federal employees. Public Law 100-238
excludes all non-Federal employees hired on or after
October 1, 1988, who would have been entitled to
FEHB benefits under a provision of law other than
Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
c. Members of a "uniformed service" as
defined in section 1072 of title 10, United States
Code. The effect of this exclusion is that no per-
son can acquire coverage by virtue of status as a
member of a uniformed service. For this purpose,
"member of a uniformed service" means a person
appointed, enlisted, or inducted in a component of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast
Guard (including a reserve component, but ex-
cluding a temporary member of the Coast Guard
Reserve), or in one of these services without
specification of component; a commissioned officer
of the Environmental Science Services Administra-
tion or of the regular or Reserve Corps of the Public
Health Service, and any person serving in the Ar-
my or Air Force under call or conscription.
d. Noncitizen employees whose permanent duty
station is.located outside a State of the United States
or the District of Columbia. This excludes non-
citizen employees in foreign countries, in Puerto
Rico, and possessions of the United States. Tem-
porary assignment to duty within the United States
does not confer coverage upon such excluded
employees.
e. Employees of the Tennessee Valley Authori-
ty. These employees are covered by other health
benefits programs.
f . Employees in any corporation under the super-
vision of the Farm Credit Administration if any
member of the board of directors of such corpora-
tion is elected or appointed by private interests. The
corporations affected are Regional Banks for
FPM Sapplement 890-1
Inst. 50
March 10. 1989
14
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS
Cooperatives, Federal Iniermediate Credit Banks,
Fed ral Land Banks, Production Credit Corpora-
tions, and the Central Bank for Cooperatives.
S4-3. EXCLUSION BY REGULATION
a. Employees serving under appointments limited
to one year or less, except acting postmasters and
Presidential appointees appointed to All unexpired
terms. The type of appointment governs in each in-
stance. A series of appointments and extensions
limited to one year or less does not confer eligibili-
ty. However, Public Law 88-631, approved October
6, 1964, provides that no teacher in the employ of
the Board of Education of the District of Colum-
bia, whose pay is established by section 1 of the
District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955
(69 Stat. 521), as amended (sec. 31-1501, D.C.
Code, 1961 edition), shall be excluded on the basis
of the fact that the teacher is serving under a tem-
porary appointment if the teacher has been so
employed by the board for a period or periods total-
ing no less than two school years (see subsection
S4-2(a)).
b. Employees whose employment is of uncertain
or purely temporary duration, or who are employed
for brief periods at intervals, and employees wbo
are expected to work less than six months in each
year, except an employee who is employed under
Ian OPM approved career-related work-study pro-
Igram under Schedule B of at least 1 year's dura-
tion and who is expected to be in a pay status for
at least one-third of the total period of time from
the date of the first appointment to the completion
of the work-study program. This applies to
seasonal, emergency, student trainee, and other
employees for whom there is no definite expecta-
tion of immediate substantial employment. The
main criterion is whether or not the employee's pro-
bable period of service will amount to_at_least six
months each year. A student trainee, however, who
is serving under a formal career-related work-study
program is eligible for health benefits if it is ex-
pected that he or she will be in a pay status for at
least one-third of the total period of time from the
date of first appointment to the completion of the
work-study program.
c. Intermittent employees — nonfull-time
employees without a prearranged regular tour of
duty. A regular tour of duty exists only if there has
been an administrative determination in advance,
prescribing as a definite work schedule a certain
number of hours or other time units in a day, week,
month, or year. An employee may work full time
for short periods without having a regular tour of
duty for health benefits purposes.
d. Employees whose pay on an annual basis is
$350 a year or less. This excludes employees serv-
ing without compensation or at pay which would
be too small to justify withholdings and
contributions.
e. Beneficiary or patient employees in Govern-
ment hospitals or homes. This refers to any
beneficiary and patient employees of the United
States Soldier's and Airmen's Home, the Veterans
Administration, and other United States facilities.
It does not apply to persons such as trainees, nurses,
interns, and others who are regularly employed and
who may reside on the premises.
f . Individuals paid on a contract or fee basis, ex-
cept employees who are citizens of the United States
who are appointed by contracts between the
employees and the Federal employing authority
which require their personal services and are paid
on the basis of units of time. This exclusion applies
to persons who are employees of a contractor or
who obtain a contract to deliver an end product
such as a report, or furnish a particular service
which may or may not require their personal serv-
ices or which may or may not be performed under
the supervision of a Federal officer, or who are paiclj
a stipulated fee for the finished product or service.'
A citizen employee appointed or reappointed on or
after July 1, 1967, by a contract between the
employee and a Federal employer which has
statutory authority to appoint by contract, which
requires his or her personal service, who is paid on
the basis of units of time, and who is a Federal
employee in every respect is not excluded from
coverage.
g.' Employees paid on a piecework basis except
those whose work schedule provides for regular or
full-time service or for part-time service with a
regular tour of duty. Generally, pieceworkers are
excluded; however, part-time pieceworkers with a
regular tour of duty, and regular or full-time
pieceworkers such as certain employees of the
United States Capitol folding rooms and garment
sewers in certain naval establishments are not ex-
cluded by this provision.
Inst. 50
March 10, 1989
FPM Supplement 890-1
15
. Subchapter S4. Coverage ^^^ J5
cupies, a position under which he or she would nor-
S4-4. CO^mNUING COVERAGE IN CER- mally be excluded from coverage by paragraph a
TAIN EXCLUDED POSITIONS b, or c of secUon S4-3, continues the enrollment
. , u • , J .... . '° ^^ "*^ position provided there was not a break
An employee who « already enroUed m a plan . -^ ,,^,, ^f more than three calendar days. unS
under this program and who transfers to. or whose ^^e person is excluded by paragraphs d trough g
employment status changes so that he or she oc- of section S4-3.
Inst. SO
FPM Sapplemoit 89(^1 March 10. 19«9
16
103d congress
1st Session
H. R. 98
To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that any Federal employee
serving tinder a temporary appointment who has completed at least
1 year of service in such position within the preceding 2 years shall
be eligible for the Grovemment's health benefits program, and for other
purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Jamtary 5, 1993
Mrs. Mink introduced the foUowing bill; which was referred to the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service
A BILL
To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that any-
Federal employee serving under a temporary appoint-
ment who has completed at least 1 year of service in
such position within the preceding 2 years shaU be eligi-
ble for the Government's health benefits program, and
for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH BENEFITS.
4 (a) In General. — ^Paragraph (4) of section 8913(b)
5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as fol-
6 lows:
17
2
1 "(4) an employee who is occupying a position
2 on a temporary basis, if such employee has, in the
3 a^regate, completed the equivalent of at least 1
4 year of service in such position within the preceding
5 2 years.".
6 (b) Technical and CoNFORmNG Amendments. —
7 (1) Section 8906a of title 5, United States Code, is re-
8 pealed.
9 (2) The table of sections for chapter 89 of title 5,
10 United States Code, is amended by striking the item relat-
1 1 ing to section 8906a.
12 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
13 (a) In General. — This Act and the amendments
14 made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enact-
15 ment of this Act, and any change in contributions payable
16 by or on behalf of an individual to the Employees Health
17 Benefits Fund (described in section 8909 of title 5, United
18 States Code) as a result of the enactment of this Act shall
19 take effect as of the first appUcable pay period beginning
20 on or after such date.
21 (b) Ckeditability of Prior Service. — Service
22 performed before the effective date of this Act may be
23 taken into account for purposes of the amendment made
24 by section 1(a).
O
•HR 98 IH
18
Mr. McCloskey. I might say I agree 100 percent as to every-
thing you said. We have identical concerns as a matter of common
sense.
I know in my own district, around Crane, I remember talking to
a lady making $13,000 to $14,000 a year who had been at Crane
for years, and had health care problems in the family. She had a
right to buy in, but I forget the exact dollars. If she wanted to pay
100 percent of coverage it would have been $500 or $600. And try-
ing to keep several kids in high school, she didn't buy in.
It is just a terrible stress we put Federal employees. So I appre-
ciate what you are doing.
As I have said, Mr. King is here. You are welcome to come up,
Patsy. I know all of us will have questions.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you.
Mr. McCloskey. Ms. Morella, good to see you, Connie.
Ms. Morella. I don't have a formal statement, but I want to
commend you for having this very important subcommittee meeting
on temporary employees.
I certainly am surprised to learn that as many as 157,000, or 7.2
percent of our Federal employee population fell into that category
of temporary employees, and certainly, as a minimum, that means
that a great many of those employees and their immediate families
don't, as has been brought out, have any health insurance coverage
and job security at a minimum. Think of what that does to morale,
productivity, if you want to add that as a cost factor.
I also want to recognize Dr. King's role as Director of the Office
of Personnel Management. His statement and testimony dem-
onstrates real compassion for employees.
I have got to throw accolades to my colleague, Congresswoman
Mink, for her leadership in this area. I know she is a leader on the
Education and Labor Committee, and she is the chair of the task
force of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues that deals
with workplace policies. I look forward to working with you. Patsy,
on your bill. I appreciate the compassion that you have shown and
look forward to hearing from the other witnesses.
Mrs. Mink. I would like to add that the bill I introduced is about
to be included in the economic equity package that is to be spon-
sored by the Congressional Women's task Force. With that support,
we are hoping to create momentum, Mr. Chairman, for its speedy
enactment.
Ms. Morella. Thank you.
If I could have permission, Mr. Chairman, to put into the record
an opening statement of our colleague, Dan Burton, who is not
with us.
Mr. McCloskey. Without objection.
Ms. Morella. He has indicated his interest in this issue.
[Prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Indiana
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on temporary Federal
employees in this Federal Government. During the previous Congress, the Human
Resources Subcommittee, on which I served as the ranking republican member, also
looked into this issue. Now the Office of Personnel Management has completed a
19
thorough review of the laws and regulations pertaining to temporary employees.
This should serve as a good starting point for discussions on a legislative response.
Temporary employees provide many important services to the American public.
Yesterday Mr. Roger Archibald, who is here to testify this morning, sent me a maga-
zine article he wrote about smokejumpers in the U.S. Forest Service. This sounds
like difficult, but exciting, work. Obviously, there will continue to be a need for Fed-
eral agencies to hire temporary employees during peak work seasons.
It would be ideal if the Federal Government could afford to provide temporsuy em-
ployees with health insurance as well as all the other benefits which permanent
Federal Employees now receive. But since budget constraints make this unlikely in
the near future, I think we should focus on more feasible alternatives. One of the
best things we can do for temporary employees is to increase their opportunities to
compete for permanent positions in the Federal workforce when these become avail-
able. I think that a temporary employee who has done a good job should be eligible
to compete for permanent Federal positions that currently are open only to perma-
nent Federal employees.
0PM has prohibited agencies from refilling temporary positions when these posi-
tions have been occupied by temporary employees for four years. While I believe
that we need to allow Federal agencies flexibility in accomplishing their missions,
their comes a time when an agency needs to decide whether a full-time position is
needed or whether the position should be eliminated.
I look forward to this morning's testimony, and I also look forward to working
with you, Mr. Chairman, and my other colleagues to address the problems that are
being brought before us today.
Mr. McCloskey. Just one question. Back at Crane we have had
a couple cases — they are not totally common, but they have worked
18 to 21 years. What have been the extreme lengths of time in Fed-
eral service of temporaries you have encountered out in beautiful
Hawaii?
Mrs. Mink. The one I recall was one in the Park Service for 14
years without health coverage.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you very much. Join us if you can.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCloskey. Our next witness is a leader in the area, Hon.
James B. King, Director of the Office of Personnel Management. If
you would introduce your colleague, we will accept your statement
for the record and look forward to what you have to say.
STATEMENT OF JAMES B. KING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PER-
SONNEL MANAGEMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD
McHUGH, CHIEF OF STAFFING POLICY
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague from the
OPM is Mr. Edward McHugh, Chief of Staffing Policy.
Mr, Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the
use of temporary employees in the Federal Government. As you
know, OPM recently submitted a report to Congress on the rights
and benefits of temporary employees. Specifically, Public Law 102-
484 required us to report on the feasibility of providing to tem-
porary employees the same rights and benefits that permanent em-
ployees generally have.
Currently, temporary employees — those whose noncompetitive
employment is limited to 1 year or less — are excluded from the
Government's retirement, health insurance, and life insurance pro-
grams. However, temporaries who have completed a year of contin-
uous employment and whose jobs are renewed may enroll in our
health benefits program provided that they pay both the employee's
and the Grovemment's share of that premium.
20
Also, temporary employees who get permanent jobs may, under
certain conditions, receive retirement service credit for temporary
employment before 1989 if they pay a deposit to the retirement
fund. This provision does not apply to more recent temporary work-
ers, as you know, Mr. Chairman, although temporary employees
are covered by Social Security.
Another benefit that is available to career permanent employees
but not to temporaries is the right to be considered for other posi-
tions through an agency's internal stafTmg procedures, without
having to compete with outside applicants. Temporary employees
are not eligible to apply for positions that are filled through inter-
nal merit promotion procedures and that are closed to applicants
outside the Government. Therefore, they do not have the mobility
that employees serving under the competitive permanent appoint-
ments enjoy.
The disparity in benefits for temporary employees is particularly
troubling where we know that temporary appointments have been
used inappropriately; that is, where employees remain in the work
force for many years under temporary appointments that are con-
tinually renewed. This does not happen in a majority of the agen-
cies that use temporary employees.
However, as you know, we have experienced particular problems
in some of the land management agencies which, because of budget
constraints and personnel ceilings, have felt compelled to employ,
we are told, portions of their workers under temporary noncompeti-
tive appointments that are renewed year after year.
It is clearly a misuse of the temporary appointing authority for
an agency to keep an employee in its work force several years
doing essentially the same work under a series of temporary ap-
pointments. More important, this practice thwarts the spirit of
partnership that should be fostered between Federal workers and
their employing agencies.
Worse yet, I believe what it does is it turns its back on the com-
petitive service features that have been the backbone of our public
service. The misuse of temporary appointments sends a very nega-
tive message to our work force that the Government wants the
services of these workers as cheaply as it can get them with no in-
vestment in the employees' career development — if you will, public
service sweatshops. This is not a message we ought to be sending
to our public servants or to our public.
0PM is committed to doing its part to change this situation.
First, we have already prohibited temporary positions from being
refilled after they have been occupied for 4 years. But we would
want to go further. We have proposed to agencies that work under
noncompetitive temporary appointments be limited to a total of 2
years. In other words, a 1-year appointment could be renewed only
one time.
We recognize that certain agencies such as the Department of
Defense may face special circumstances, that is, long-term signifi-
cant reductions that may require special treatment. We would like
to maintain flexibility, Mr. Chairman, but we would still like to
recognize that there have been abuses in the past and that we need
to stop these abuses.
21
We are also encouraging agencies to use term appointments for
longer lasting work that is not expected to be permanent. Term ap-
pointments are those with a time limit of more than 1 year but not
more than 4 years, and we would like to extend the maximum du-
ration of term appointments to 5 years without 0PM approval and
authorize longer term appointments with 0PM approval. Employ-
ees serving under term appointments are entitled to retirement
and insurance coverage.
In addition, we are considering seeking authority from the Presi-
dent to permit term employees who have completed a specific
amount of service, perhaps 2 or 3 years, to be selected for perma-
nent positions through merit promotion procedures. This would not
require agencies to convert term employees to permanent status. It
would merely enable term employees to apply for permanent vacan-
cies and to be selected if they are found to be among the best quali-
fied candidates within the agency.
In the April memorandum for Federal personnel directors,
unions, and other employee organizations, we at 0PM sought com-
ments on these proposals as well as on the proposal to simplify and
consolidate the numerous appointing authorities for temporary po-
sitions. We will be receiving comments through mid-July. At that
point, we will proceed with the proposed regulations unless we en-
counter substantial opposition to this method of job placement.
On the question of benefits, it is clear that health insurance is
a benefit most desired by all employees, including our temporaries,
as well as one which is costly to provide. While we do not oppose
benefits for temporary employs in principle, we believe the issue of
health insurance coverage for temporary workers must and will be
addressed in the context of the President's proposal for national
health care reform. The issue of how to provide coverage cannot be
separated from the question of how to pay for coverage.
Federal agencies often face difficult choices in attempting to rec-
oncile their need to hire temporary workers with budgetary con-
straints that may make them unable to provide benefits for these
workers.
We understand that both coverage of temporary employees and
funding of that coverage will be addressed in a comprehensive way
as part of the President's health care proposal. We believe that is
the appropriate context in which to address the issue of benefits for
temporary workers, at least the health care aspect.
In the meantime, the other changes we propose, which I have
outlined here today, should go a long way toward eliminating the
problems that have resulted from the inappropriate use of non-
competitive temporary appointments.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to assist the subcommittee in
examining this important issue. I would surely be happy to respond
to any questions you or the committee may have.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you very much, Mr. King.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of James B. King, Director, Office of Personnel
Management
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the use of temporary employees in the Federal
Gk)vemment. As you know, 0PM recently submitted a report to Congress on the
22
rights and benefits of temporary employees. Specifically, Public Law 102-484 re-
quired us to report on the feasibility of providing to temporary employees the same
rights and benefits that permanent employees generally have.
Currently, temporary employees — those whose appointments are limited to 1 year
or less — are excluded from the Government's retirement, health insurance, and life
insurance programs. However, temporaries who have completed a year of continuous
employment and whose appointments are renewed may enroll in our health benefits
program, provided they pay both the employee's and the Government's share of the
premium. Also, temporary employees who get permanent appointments may, under
certain conditions, receive retirement service credit for temporary emplo5Tnent be-
fore 1989 if they pay a deposit to the retirement fund. This provision does not apply
to more recent temporary service, although temporary employees are covered by So-
cial Security.
Another benefit that is available to permanent employees but not to temporaries
is the right to be considered for other positions through an agency's internal staffing
procedures, without having to compete with outside applicants. Temporary employ-
ees are not eligible to apply for positions that are filled through internal merit pro-
motion procedures and that are closed to applicants outside the Government. There-
fore, they do not have the mobility that employees serving under permanent ap-
pointments enjoy.
The disparity in rights and benefits for temporary employees is particularly trou-
bling where we know that temporary appointments have been used inappropriately;
that is, where employees remain in the work force for many years under temporary
appointments that are continually renewed. This does not happen in the majority
of agencies that use temporary employees. However, as you know, we have experi-
enced particular problems in some of the land management agencies, which, because
of budget constraints and personnel ceilings, have felt compelled to employ large
portions of their work forces under temporary appointments that are renewed year
after year.
It is clearly a misuse of the temporary appointing authority for an agency to keep
an employee in its work force for several years doing essentially the same work
under a series of temporary appointments. More important, this practice thwarts
the spirit of partnership that should be fostered between Federal workers and their
employing agencies. The misuse of temporary appointments sends a very negative
message to our work force. That the Government wants the services of these work-
ers as cheaply as it can get them and with no investment in the employees' career
development. This is not the message we ought to be sending to our public servants.
0PM is committed to doing its part to change this situation. First, we have al-
ready prohibited temporary positions from being refilled after they have been occu-
pied for 4 years. But we would like to go further. We have proposed to agencies that
work under temporary appointments be limited to a total of 2 years. In other words,
a 1-year appointment could be renewed only once. We recognize, however, that cer-
tain agencies, such as DoD, may be facing special circumstances, that is, long-term
significant reductions, that may require special treatment.
We are also encouraging agencies to use term appointments for longer lasting
work that is not expected to be permanent. Term appointments are those with a
time limit of more than 1 year but not more than 4 years. We would like to extend
the maximum duration of term appointments to 5 years without 0PM approval and
authorize longer term appointments with 0PM approval. Employees serving under
term appointments are entitled to retirement and insurance coverage.
In addition, we are considering seeking authority from the President to permit
term employees who have completed a specified amount of service — perhaps 2 or 3
years — to be selected for permanent positions through merit promotion procedures.
This would not require agencies to convert term employees to permanent status; it
would merely enable term employees to apply for permanent vacancies and to be
selected if they are found to be among the best qualified candidates within the agen-
cy.
In an April memorandum for Federal personnel directors, unions, and other em-
ployee organizations, we sought comments on these proposals, as well as on a pro-
posal to simplify and consolidate the numerous appointing authorities for temporary
positions. We will be receiving comments through mid-July; at that point we will
proceed with proposed regulations, unless we encounter substantial opposition.
On the question of benefits, it is clear that health insurance is the benefit most
desired by temporary employees, as well as one which is costly to provide. While
we do not oppose benefits for temporary employees in principle, we believe the issue
of health insurance coverage for temporary workers must and will be addressed in
the context of the President's proposal for national health care reform. The issue
of how to provide coverage cannot be separated from the question of how to pay for
23
coverage. Federal agencies often face difficult choices in attempting to reconcile
their need to hire temporary workers with budgetary constraints that may make
them unable to provide benefits for those workers. We understand that both cov-
erage of temporary employees and funding of that coverage will be addressed in a
comprehensive way as part of the President's health care proposal, and we believe
that is the appropriate context in which to address the issue of benefits for tem-
porary workers.
In the meantime, the other changes we are proposing, which I have outlined here
today, should go a long way toward eliminating the inequities that have resulted
from the inappropriate use of temporary appointments.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to assist the subcommittee in examining this
important issue, and I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Response to Written Questions Submitted to James B. King
Question 1. Mr. King, in your statement you say 0PM is considering seeking au-
thority from the President to permit term employees who have completed a specified
amount of service to be selected for permanent positions through merit promotion
procedures.
What about providing other types of temporary employees this authority?
Answer. We will soon propose regulations limiting temporary appointments to
jobs lasting 2 years or less. When the regulations become effective, we will give
agencies a chance to convert current long-term temporaries to term appointments.
The employees could then be covered by any new Presidential authority allowing
term employees to be selected for permanent appointments.
If we limit future temporary hiring to short-term jobs, we do not believe that spe-
cial provisions for temporaries to enter the career service will be needed or justified.
People hired for truly short-term jobs will have no expectation of longer employ-
ment. We should not create a "back door" for short-term temporaries to enter the
competitive career service.
Agencies are allowed to take procedural short-cuts to hire temporaries. The public
notice required by law can be very short and limited to the commuting area. Com-
parative ranking can be minimal. These short-cuts are appropriate for temporary
hiring, but not for permanent hiring. Converting temporaries to permanent status
could create the appearance — and maybe the fact — of circumventing statutory com-
petitive requirements.
Question 2. In NTEU's testimony, Mr. Tobias discusses temporary employees who
are part of the excepted service. He specifically refers to employees at the FDIC.
Under your plans, would excepted service employees follow the same regulations as
competitive service?
Additionally, how closely are you following personnel practices at the FDIC?
Answer. The time limits for temporary appointments established in our proposed
regulations would apply equally to the excepted and the competitive service.
We have met with FDIC officials to discuss the need for special Schedule A hiring
authority for liquidation positions. Based on that discussion, we expect to withdraw
Schedule A authority for most positions on January 1, 1994. FDIC may propose re-
taining Schedule A authority to hire personnel of closed institutions for very short
periods (probably 2 or 3 months) to prepare records for transfer to FDIC.
Withdrawing Schedule A hiring authority will not make FDIC's temporary em-
ployees permanent. The employees will become temporaries in the competitive serv-
ice. FDIC will have a chance to convert them to term appointments if our proposed
regulations are adopted.
FDIC must decide whether particular jobs are temporary, term, or permanent.
The agency is considering various options for structuring its liquidation workforce.
We understand that the eventual mix may include a larger percentage of permanent
jobs, possibly concentrated in a smaller number of offices.
Oxu- evaluation of FDIC personnel practices is limited by the fact that FDIC is
exempt from OPM's authority in certain major program su-eas, such as position clas-
sification and performance management. In areas where we do have jurisdiction, we
monitor FDIC's practices as closely as those of other agencies.
Question 3. NTEU urges this subcommittee to amend the Civil Service Due Proc-
ess Amendments of 1990 to allow temporary employees who have served two years
to appeal an adverse action or non-renewal of a contract to the MSPB. would you
please comment on this recommendation?
Answer. The changes we are making, particularly limiting the use of the tem-
porary appointments to a maximum of 2 years, should obviate appeal rights for tem-
porary employees.
24
In any event, it is important to recognize that temporary appointments are com-
monly used when the work to be done is known to be short-term, although its pre-
cise duration is uncertain. Consequently, temporary appointments are typically used
with a "not to exceed" date, leaving uie employer free to terminate the employee
at any time before that date. We believe the employer needs to be able to terminate
a temporary employee whenever the need for that employee's services has ended.
This authority is integral to the concept of temporary emplojmient. Of course, the
employing agency has a responsibility to make sure that all prospective temporary
employees clearly understand the terms of their employment.
Similarly, we do not beUeve it would be appropriate to establish an appeal right
for non-renewals of temporary appointments on their scheduled ending date. The
terms of a temporary appointment, including its ending date, are conditions of em-
plojonent which a prospective employee understands and agrees to when accepting
a position. No grievance or appeal right exists for comparable actions that simply
fulfill a condition which the employee agreed to at the start of employment.
Regarding similar concerns for employees serving on term appointments, our posi-
tion remains that any action terminating an appointment at its scheduled ending
date should not be appealable under adverse action procedures. If such employees
have completed their trial periods, they are granted appeal rights if they are re-
moved prior to the expiration of their appointments.
Question 4. How does 0PM enforce compliance with its regulation on temporary
employees? Do you have any plans for a stronger oversight of agencies?
Answer. 0PM conducts a program of regular recurring review of personnel prac-
tices at Federal installations. Temporary employment has been a part of our review
agenda nearly continuously for the last several years. When we find instances of
non-compliance, we direct corrective action.
We do not have plans for stronger "oversight" per se. We will, of course, accelerate
our oversight and compliance activities when specific situations require it, and in
the past we have done so. We believe this current level of oversight is appropriate.
Question 5. What is the timeUne for implementation of the new regulations that
0PM is considering?
Answer. We expect to submit proposed regulations changing the time limits for
temporary and term appointments to 0MB m the next few weeks and to publish
the regulations during the first quarter of the coming fiscal year. The rulemaking
Srocess takes about 6 months. Barring unforeseen delays, we expect the new time
mits to be in place for the 1994 summer hiring season.
Question 6. 1 am extremely concerned about access to health care for temporary
employees. I do not believe that waiting for enactment of the President's Health
Care Plan is realistic or fair to temporary workers. They deserve these benefits
today — not one or two years from now. Would you please further discuss providing
access to FEHBP for temporary employees after 6 months of employment? I believe
at the very least 6 months should be enough time to administer the health plan.
Answer. It would be feasible to reduce from 1 year to 6 months the service re-
quirement for temporary employees to become eligible to enroll in the FEHBP at
tneir own expense.
Question 7. Do you envision a major revamping of the civil service system in Ught
of Vice-President Gore's Performance Review and the task forces that you have set
up at OPM? How will that affect temporary employees?
Answer. We expect the Federal personnel system to become less centralized and
less prescriptive. The basic principles of public notice, open competition, veterans'
preference, and merit selection wul remain, but not the detailed requirements for
carrying them out.
We envision agencies designing their own procedures within the basic framework.
Agencies would need procedvu-al short-cuts only for truly short-term temporary
hires. They would be expected to use the same procedures to fill both permanent
and longer-lasting nonpermanent jobs.
Even if we did nothing else, that change alone would alleviate a major complaint.
Ciurently, some temporaries work for years but can never be reached under perma-
nent hiring procedures. That situation would be less common if those long-term em-
ployees had competed under the same procedures for their temporary jobs.
We would Uke to do more, however. We are considering creating a single type of
competitive appointment that would be used for all outside hiring except for strictly
short-term temporary jobs. Longer-term employees would compete for permanent
jobs through merit promotion after a specified amount of service — probably 3
years — under that entry appointment.
Question 8. Later in the hearing, we will hear from a witness, Mr. Willie Hay-
wood, who is employed by the Department of Veteran's Affairs at their fire depart-
ment in Ohio. This department clearly violates OPM's regulations regarding tem-
25
porary employees. Mr. Haywood says in his testimony that there are only 4 perma-
nent employees in a workforce of 15. How is this acceptable in a fire department?
Obviously, the agencies must be turning a blind eye to these types of abuses. What
can and shovdd be done to prevent that from happening?
Answer. We reviewed the situation described by Mr. Haywood early this year as
part of OPM's program of review of agency personnel practices. We found that the
VA had been planning since 1984 to decommission its fire station at the Cleveland
VA Medical Center. Consequently, it began using temporary appointments at this
facility in 1985.
0PM guidance specifically approves the use of temporary appointments to staflF
activities that are being considered for contracting out. In the case of the Cleveland
VA fire station, employees hired under temporary appointments have been informed
of the temporary nature of their employment, beginning before they were hired and
consistently and repeatedly since they were hired. None of these temporary employ-
ees has exceeded OPM's current 4-year limitation on temporary employment. More-
over, the Department of Veterans Affairs informs us that, because of the nature of
the firefighters' work schedules (24 hours on duty, 48 hoiu-s off duty), seven of the
eleven temporary firefighters concurrently hold positions with local community fire
departments or other employers.
Nevertheless, the decommissioning process in this case has been unusually long.
Consideration of contracting out the facility began in 1985. When no bidders re-
sponded to the solicitation, negotiations were initiated with the City of Brecksville
to turn over the facihty to local control. A construction project was initiated to cor-
rect certain deficiencies in the sprinkler system and other features of the facility
which had to be addressed before the fire station could be turned over to the city.
The construction currently is scheduled to be completed by the end of October 1993.
The decommissioning of the fire station has been prolonged by negotiations over
and revisions of the construction contract, the construction itself, and an audit of
the Brecksville City Fire Department to determine whether and how it could meet
the staffing standards that the VA had set for ensuring that its medical facilities
have adequate firefighting protection. In April 1993, the Department of Veterans Af-
fairs determined that the Brecksville City Fire Department's full-time firefighters,
supplemented by its paid on-call personnel, do provide a level of firefighting services
that is equivalent to the DVA's minimum standard.
During this process, vacancies at the fire station have been filled by temporary
appointments. The VA determined that the use of permanent appointments in this
situation would be irresponsible, given its consistent efforts to contract out or other-
wise decommission this facility. Although 0PM is concerned that the process has
been unusually protracted in this case, we cannot conclude that the VA's use of tem-
porary appointments was inappropriate, particularly because it appears the precise
duration of the decommissioning process was not foreseeable. The Department of
Veterans Affairs now assiires us that it intends to decommission the fire station no
later than mid-November of this year, upon completion of the sprinkler renovation
project.
Question 9. One of our other witnesses, Mr. Roger Archibald, had truly devoted
himself to government employment. He has been a temporary employee since 1980
in the most dangerous of positions — a smokejumper and fire guard. Recently, he was
not rehired after 6 years of successful smokejumping — the positions for
smokejumping still exist, however — and Mr. Archibald has no recourse against not
being rehired. His years of devotion to the Federal Government mean nothing. He
has no rights, no benefits and no retirement. What can 0PM do to address this
problem as far as rights to adverse action?
Answer. Our proposed regulations cxirtaihng the service limits for temporary ap-
pointments would address this problem for many seasonal employees. Agencies
would have to fill seasonal jobs involving 6 months or more work each year through
term or permanent appointments, which confer adverse action rights.
The regulations would, however, permit agencies to make successive temporary
appointments to seasonal jobs in which the employees work less than 6 months a
year. We believe the 6-month limit strikes a necessary balance between legitimate
needs of employees and agencies. Jobs lasting less than 6 months a year typically
represent casual or secondary employment, and the employees make no commitment
to Federal service. We would not favor extending adverse action protections to cas-
ual employees.
We are aware that some employees work more than 6 months a year in a com-
bination of seasonal jobs, sometimes even moving across the country. Obviously,
those are not casual employees. However, they are atypical and are concentrated in
the land management agencies, including the Forest Service where Mr. Archibald
26
worked. We will continue to work with the land management agencies to seek solu-
tions to their atypical problems.
Question 10. In the Interagency Advisory Group Memorandum for Directors of
Personnel, it says that each temporary appointment would require supervisory cer-
tification that the employment need is truly temporary and that the proposed ap-
pointment meets the regulatory time limits.
What is required in a supervisory certification? Is there any way to ensure that
this will be effective? How does this differ from what currently exists?
Answer. The supervisor would be required to sign a statement giving specific rea-
sons for the temporary employment and certifying that the position meets regu-
latory time limits, including the restriction on successive temporary appointments.
The certification would be made on the request for personnel action and, if the su-
pervisor has official appointing authority, on the final appointment docimient as
well.
Currently, 0PM regulations require docvunentation of the nature and reasons for
temporary appointment, but do not specify who should supply the documentation.
In practice, this means the certification is often made by a personnel specialist.
However, personnel offices process actions for many components or facilities within
an agency. Regional personnel offices often serve installations in several states. The
personnel specialist who signs the statement may not have first-hand knowledge of
its accuracy.
One goal of our efforts to improve the personnel system is to give managers the
freedom to manage — and to hold them accountable for their actions. Supervisory
certification provides accountability.
Question 11. Mr. Archibald lists in his testimony a series of reasonable rec-
ommendations regarding temporary employees. (1) There needs to be an established
standard for written performance appraisals provided to all temporary employees at
the completion of their service. (2) There needs to be a systematic and efficient
grievance procedure instituted for temporary employees that goes beyond the right
to petition one's supervisor. (3) In the event that an agency cannot rehire all its
temporary employees who have performed satisfactorily in a previous season, the se-
lection of those it can re-hire should be based on seniority.
Would you please comment on these recommendations?
Answer. (1) Employees who serve in temporary positions for a year or more are
currently covered by performance appraisal requirements. We would not favor ex-
tending these requirements to employees serving in shorter-term appointments.
(2) There are a number of avenues available to temporary employees to obtain re-
view of a complaint or grievance.
Temporary employees may have grievance rights through the Negotiated Griev-
ance Procedure (NGP) if they are in the bargaining unit and the matter at issue
is not otherwise excluded from the NGP. Temporary employees not covered by the
NGP have access to the Agency Administrative Grievance Procedure. Both grievance
procedures provide review of the employee's concerns by levels above the immediate
supervisor.
Temporary employees, like nearly all employees, always have the right to file a
claim of discrimination through the EEO complaint process (leading ultimately to
review by EEOC) or to file a complaint of prohibited personnel action (as listed at
5 U.S.C. 2302) with the Office of Special Counsel.
(3) We do not believe rehiring decisions should be based on seniority alone. Se-
niority may have a place in those decisions, but other factors such as performance
and veterans' preference have a place also. Agencies need to consider all relevant
factors when reducing their seasonal workforce, as they do when downsizing their
permanent workforce.
Oxu- proposed regulations restricting successive temporary appointments to the
same positions wovild largely eliminate the need for special rehiring provisions. Em-
ployees who apply for different temporary positions would be considered through
new hire procedures. Rehiring should be an issue only for seasonal employees who
work less than 6 months a year.
Question 12. How do you feel about the suggestion that temporary employees
should receive within-grade pay increases?
Answer. The extension of eligibility for within-grade increases to temporary Gen-
eral Schedule employees does not seem unreasonaole, particularly in view of the fact
that temporary prevailing rate (wage) employees already receive within-grade in-
creases under the Federal Wage System. Of course, such a change would require
legislation.
Question 13. Do you think it is administratively possible to shorten the suggested
6-month period for FEHB inclusion to 3 months?
27
Answer. No. We do not believe it would be administratively feasible to allow em-
ployees who are going to be on board for less than 6 months to enroll in the FEHBP
because of the time it takes to get people on and off a carrier's rolls.
Mr. McCloskey. I know from our conversation previously today
and just from the thrust of your statement that you really don't
need to provide us with a lot of gory details as to what happens
with people with years on the Federal work force without health
coverage. Needless to say, you heard my comments as to the
woman making $14,000 or $15,000 deciding that she couldn't afford
to pick up the full health tab.
As I recall from reading some of the Federal union statements
from last night there is going to be one or two cases or more like
that with regard to individuals. I believe one had 8 years of experi-
ence faced with $46,000 to $60,000 in bills.
You heard Ms. Mink's concern and suggestion as to full coverage
being available at full cost. Federal and employee, from day one
and having the right to normal treatment after a year. Could you
comment on this? Why not, as we consider these concerns, could
not this be administered soon, given the fact that health care re-
form is coming down the line but we don't know when it will kick
in or what the details will be.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I would like to think the health care
system would come sooner rather than later. Therefore, I have set
it aside on that basis.
I think that every employee ought to have health care as a part
of the total package of employment. So there is nothing suggested
by the committee that is inconsistent with OPM's position.
What I am suggesting is a time line we are trying to work with
and to, I think, heighten for everyone the importance of the na-
tional health care proposals being acted on. As you say, we are
going to pay one way or the other. How we pay is really up for dis-
cussion because we are paying as it is now. So there is nothing sug-
gested that is inconsistent with where we are.
Mr. McCloskey. I might say, as in anything, the most out-
rageous cases have a matter of personal and group impact. Often
that initiates the interest, but my heart has been truly touched by
cases from Crane, Indiana, and some of the administrators at
Crane don't like me talking about this. I love Crane. I love the
Crane administrators. They are all good people, and they are up
against a system, too.
But we have literally, as I said, 18 years in, if you can imagine,
on a bomb line where for 14, 15, 18 years at different times they
are standing all day, 8 hours a day at a conveyer belt. Every 3V2
feet on this belt there is a brick wall with the belt going through
the brick wall. And there have been various accidents, and these
people make the equivalent of $7 or $8 an hour at most without
benefits.
I do not want to get to playing a violin about it — patriotic, de-
serving, courageous, wonderful Americans. The idea that you can
do that for 16 years on a bomb line and not get a dollar in Federal
retirement and have no rights and, in essence, where people have
served in the military and have permanent Federal Cjovernment
service can tack that military on as a buy-in right.
28
For example, I have 4 years of Air Force which I am privileged
and happy to be able to add to whatever my Federal service is.
Could you comment on that or say is there anj^thing as we dis-
cuss regulations and legislation that these extreme cases could be
considered or at least those that have put multiple years in as so-
called temporary employees?
Mr. Kjng. First of all, the work you describe could not by any
stretch of anyone's imagination be considered temporary. I think
that is a term of art that has been used by some, and, frankly, it
is to bypass the law. In b3T)assing the law we normally victimize
the law. In this case we victimize the individual, the human being
involved.
I think there can be a remedy for that. I would like to think that
through a regulatory process there may be some suggestions that
will be coming forth when the report is completed.
I doubt if we can, solely through the regulatory process, give you
the perfecting things that could deal with the extraordinary and
extreme cases that you cite. We may be looking for legislative help,
and we would come back to the committee at that time if that is
agreeable to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCloskey. As a matter of your personal preference, what
do you think I could hold out to people at Crane and in Honolulu
and what not that have had 16 to 18 years under the temporary
guidelines?
Mr. King. We should be able to identify a bright line that is so
egregious that there could be no question in a reasonable person's
mind that it was part of an exploitative process, not something
where someone inadvertently stepped over the line.
I don't have a number right now, but I would like to see what
the professionals who are working on this on a daily basis might
establish as a point of discussion. I think there is a bright line that
could be established that shows clear intent for permanent employ-
ment and then it is just manipulating the system to use temporary
appointments.
Mr. McCloskey. Ms. Morella.
Mr. King. Certainly not the interests of the employee.
Ms. Morella. Again, Dr. King, I am really very pleased with the
recommendations that you have offered. As I mentioned in my
opening statement, I commend you for the compassion you have
shown in going to the employees and recognizing this has been ex-
ploitation carried on for a long time, whether inadvertent or not.
It seems to me the dollar signs were such that they determined
that this was the way to go.
I notice in the report also the indication there has not been any
difficulty in recruiting temporary people, which is probably a reflec-
tion of our economy.
Let me pose another situation. You probably have some people
that come on temporarily every summer. You proposed placing a
time limit, constraint line to agencies that work under temporary
appointments be limited to 2 years. Can you find another situation
where you need some latitude or agencies need latitude like the
park rangers or whatever?
Mr. King. Yes, there are some seasonal employees — ^you may get
someone who is of college age standing at the geysers so none of
29
us fall in if we visit. They come back every year from freshman to
senior year.
But that is an exception. That could be explained, and it is clear-
ly spelled out what they are doing, when they are doing it, how,
et cetera.
The other situation we are talking about covers a tiny minority.
About 92 percent of all temporaries complete their employment
within 2 years. We are really talking, then, of 8 percent going be-
yond that second year.
We are focusing — we have identified a number of different places
such as you are suggesting where their seasonal help is traditional,
and it draws from a rather interesting plane. In this process, there
is a form of patronage that goes on. I don't mean this in a political
sense. It is the old boy network where, if you are in an isolated
area that you are very limited in whom you draw from.
So the choice becomes very interesting. The process of temporary
employment has a number of facets to it, some of them quite in-
triguing, especially at the local level.
But we can make the review you suggested, and we can identify
places where there has been a profile of direct management manip-
ulation. I would like to think that within a year or two, if we
should ever have to reconvene a discussion on this subject, we will
have the names of those people, and they could appear and tell the
committee why they are doing that to our fellow citizens.
Ms. MORELLA. I am glad you understand the various ramifica-
tions and what we can do about it.
Where do you go with your proposals now?
Mr. King. We will go into our rulemaking, and we are seeking
opinions. We should be through probably, I would like to think, be-
fore the hiring season of 1994 if everything continues to move along
smoothly. That is our general timetable.
We would be in consultation with you before then because, as
you know, there are a series of public steps, and as we finish one
we move to the next.
Ms. MoRELLA. And consultation with the union representatives
and employee groups as well as this committee?
Mr. King. Yes.
Ms. MORELLA. As somebody who used to be in higher education —
I can't speak for the private sector, but I can certainly say that
higher education has been noted for exploiting temporary employ-
ees. In some instances, in some departments, they have had more
temporary people than they have had permanent people, and they
have had some temporary people for 10 to 15 years, same kind of
thing.
Mr. King. Yes. Sometimes they are called junior faculty.
Ms. MoRELLA. That is absolutely right. So it is something that
should be stopped in that arena, also, and others. But certainly I
think the Federal Government should be a model in this and
should not be exploiting its people.
I thank you very much. I look forward to continuing to work with
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you Ms. Morella.
Mrs. Mink.
70-660 0-94-2
30
Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to the practice that is commonplace by many of the
agencies in hiring temporary — full-time temporary workers, is this
a result of the fact that these agencies have been restricted on
their number of full-time permanent hires, that there are caps in-
stalled through budgetary processes or otherwise? How have vve
gotten into this practice of temporaries? Is it to put somebody in
and not have to go through the lengthy process of an exam or
qualifying? What is the background of this, in order to get a grasp
of how to deal with it permanently.
Mr. King. In a word, flexibility. That is how it started. It started
in part because was that we recognized seasonal work such as we
suggested within our national parks or other sorts of facilities espe-
cially during the summer months.
We also recognized that there was work that may run a year or
two or would have some other definite time limit. For example,
working on the savings and loan programs. As you know, there are
a number of people that have been brought in — really a number of
them have been term appointments, but some have been temporary
appointments — and it looks as if the problem will not go away
quickly so they could be extended.
I have not mentioned the Department of Defense, but it is almost
a separate issue. But in those cases they were held out, and it op-
erated rather well.
In some situations, especially in the isolated parts of the country,
a number of the people as you look at their profile they are much
older than the ordinary temporary and, for some folks, it is a way
of life. They work for the Government 6 months, then do other sea-
sonal work and come back to the Government.
What happens is they develop a relationship with the folks out
in the field. They understand it. They love the work they are doing.
They enjoy it. They want to stay on in the seasonal or temporary
basis and sometimes stay for years on that basis. So although it
is temporary work the idea is it would turn over every few years.
We think of this in terms of, in my region, a lifeguard. No one
thinks of a career as a lifeguard. We look to younger people to take
those seasonal jobs.
Mrs. Mink. We have career lifeguards.
Mr. King. Well, I guess that is the principal difference between
the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast, and the particular latitude
you are at. Unless you enjoy purple you wouldn't swim long in our
area.
But even career lifeguards you probably have a limitation. I
would hate like the devil to be a career lifeguard at age 65 or 70,
although there are those who might meet that.
But, coming back, that was the process that was ideal.
About 10 or so years ago at my department, the then-Director
suggested in a very public way that this was the first step toward
privatization of Grovemment. 0PM encouraged a number of man-
agers to use the temporary technique as a way to start down that
road. It received very wide coverage, this announcement. As you
may have noticed, virtue is not covered heavily but something of
this nature is. A number of managers felt that may have captured
the message of the moment, and that message continued on.
31
We checked the data. There was a small rise in temporary em-
ployment, and it went back down. It has remained stable, on aver-
age. But there was an attitudinal thing that contributed to that.
That was not true in the Department of Defense as a whole. In
the Department of Defense it didn't take anyone from 0PM or any-
where to manage how they did. Somehow they developed a culture
that determined that using people on a temporary basis for posi-
tions that were clearly long term and career were to be used in this
particular manner. And quite possibly what motivated them was
cost. But they did do it, and there is no question about it.
What we would like to do is. No. 1, stop it. We don't want to vic-
timize the victims. On the other hand, we want to be sure this
stops because in the process we compromise the integrity of our
civil servants who came in through a career process that is very,
very rigorous as we all know. So we are looking for fairness and
equity and understanding our history and what we contributed to
it.
That is a very long answer. I am a little rambling. My apologies.
Mrs. Mink. No, no.
In your testimony, you described a second category other than
the temporary employees that you
Mr. King. Term appointments.
Mrs. Mink. Term appointments. In your testimony, you talked
about the possibility of extending retirement and insurance bene-
fits to those under term appointments. Why not health benefits?
Mr. King. They would have all benefits. They would, basically,
come through the competitive service except they wouldn't have the
procedural rights in the case of a RIF, for example. They would
know their term would run
Mrs. Mink. They would have medical benefits.
Mr. King. Oh, yes, everything, all benefits except certain admin-
istrative features.
Mrs. Mink. Is there a third category, permanent less than full
time?
Mr. McHUGH. There is a third category that have no restriction
on their tenure. Within that, we have those who work full time,
that is, 40 hours a week and those who work less than full time,
less than 40 hours a week. They are part time.
Mrs. Mink. Those that work less than full time but are in perma-
nent category, they have all the benefits?
Mr. McHUGH. Yes, they have all the benefits. The only difference
is, as a result of legislation, they receive health insurance, but the
amount that the Government contributes to that health insurance
is prorated according to their schedule. And, essentially, the same
formula works on their retirement. But they are eligible for both
of those benefits.
Mrs. Mink. Is it a possible remedy that you could look at all
these people who are in this temporary category but who have been
there longer than 2 years and ascribe to them the status of perma-
nent so they would have these benefits of insurance, retirement
and health?
Mr. King. That could be done. The real question before us,
though, at least for us, is what is the benefit package. The benefit
package for Federal employees on a career basis in the competitive
32
service is extraordinarily generous. The benefit package that would
meet minimum needs as prescribed in the private sector, for exam-
ple, including administrative practices, could meet the reasonable
needs that you are talking about within the Federal system and
still work with temporary help full and part time.
Mrs. Mink. It just seems to be so highly discriminatory. In every
other category you described, health benefits are available but not
to the temporary workers. And surely a distinction can be reached
where the temporary work continues beyond 2 years as in my bill,
that they would be immediately accorded the opportunity to at
least, at the minimum, have health benefits. I see no reason why
we can't do that since we have all these different categories of em-
ployees.
Mr. King. You could, but we wanted to discourage that and cut
it off after 2 years and then go to term employment which reestab-
lishes your career profile, and we go back to the merit system for
hiring.
Mrs. Mink. But if you tie in the condition of the temporary work-
er to restrictions with regard to their budget, what happens if you
invoke the rule that said after 2 years no more temporaries? All
these people would be out of work. The 69 workers in the Park
Service in my State would be out of work. The services would not
be rendered.
There is no money there to put people into a full-time status.
There is a cap on the number that can be hired. What would hap-
pen to our Park Service?
Mr. King. I think the first thing I would say is if that work
needs to be done there is a problem with the folks that need to do
it. They say they come in on a noncareer and selected basis, and
that leaves a great deal to be desired.
If they are needed, we can meet that by making them term em-
ployees if they were permanent.
Mrs. Mink. You can do that administratively then to correct this
situation?
Mr. King. Yes, that should be done through the term appoint-
ment, and that would be renewed every 5 years. And you can go
to the situation of whether they should be made permanent.
What this was was based on
Mrs. Mink. Sounds very logical. I hope that that would be done.
But my final question has to do with the suggestion that you
made that because there is all this talk about a comprehensive
health reform package coming down the pike that perhaps you
ought not to delve into the possibility right now of making part of
the employment benefits at least the opportunity to purchase at
100 percent cost a Government health plan for workers who have
been hired on a temporary basis.
It seems to me that that is just 100 percent consistent with the
current administration's idea of what entitlement is as a con-
sequence of emplo3nnent. If we don't do it ourselves within the Fed-
eral Grovernment how can we expect the private sector to follow
through?
Mr. King. True.
Mrs. Mink. So I would hope, at the minimum, this can be done.
As I understand it, it can be done administratively. All you are
33
doing is offering the employee the right to buy the health plan at
100 percent personal cost. Is that true or not true?
Mr. McHUGH. Unfortunately, that would require statutory ac-
tion. Congress would have to legislate that.
Mr. King. Could we respond to it? Yes.
Mrs. Mink. How could you not do that administratively?
Mr. McHUGH. Because the authority that we have is to provide
health insurance under conditions that are essentially established
by Congress. One of the conditions is that if a temporary employee
is hired the only ability we have to give them health insurance,
even at their cost, is after 1 year of service. That is in the statute.
We don't have discretion.
Mrs. Mink. And in my bill the prerequisite is getting the 100
percent coverage.
Mr. McHuGH. Yes.
Mrs. Mink. Thank you.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you. Patsy.
Could you comment on the status and agency's plans on griev-
ance and appeal rights as to temporary and term employees? I un-
derstand, except for EEO, there is not much in the way, unless it
is a matter of union contract or local grievance procedures, of the
right to the MSPB protection and so on. What is likely to come out
of that? I expect to hear from the unions on that today.
Mr. King. I think that is being reviewed at this time, and that
report should be forthcoming. That is certainly part of it.
I don't think you are going to see, even in that report, though,
anything that would be even close to what the administrative prac-
tices and protections are for full civil servants under the career
service.
Mr. McCloskey. But there ought to be to a right to grieve.
Mr. King. I think we will have some issues in there, but I would
mislead you if I suggested it would look anything like the Civil
Service Code we are presently familiar with.
Mr. McCloskey. Mr. McHugh, did you want to comment on
that?
Mr. McHUGH. Yes, sir. Currently temporary employees are sub-
ject to negotiated grievance procedures at the discretion of the local
activity and the union. So they have those protections.
In our report, we had not identified any options as far as provid-
ing additional protections through the Federal system.
Mr. McCloskey. Is it not true if there is no local negotiated pro-
cedure then, many of them would have no rights to appeal or pro-
test arbitrary treatment?
Mr. McHuGH. They would have the rights that are negotiated for
employees at a particular activity.
Mr. McCloskey. They are not going to be subject to local nego-
tiated agreements are they, however? I could be wrong. Tell me.
Mr. McHuGH. It would cover all situations, but it is, essentially,
a local determination. Permanent employees are given up to the
top by statute rights against adverse actions and RIF and so on.
That is not provided to temporaries. What they get is coming out
of the local union contracts.
Mr. McCloskey. I would like further review on that. And, at the
risk of speaking without comprehensive knowledge, I believe we
34
will have Mr. Archibald speak later today. I didn't get a chance to
read his statement last night for some reason, but staff tells me
that he had testified as to his concerns for temporary employment
treatment to Mr. Kanjorski. And, subsequent to his appearance in
Washington here, he was not rehired as a temporary. He was given
critical or negative personnel or performance reports. And, for
whatever strange reason, it is said — this is by word of staff here —
that his records have been lost. I would say another very conven-
ient record lost. That is true.
I know you have concern for fairness and equity on things like
this. He will be on the record later this morning, and I would sug-
gest a review, at least an informal administrative review, of his
case. Is that possible, Mr. King, do you think?
Mr. King. For this committee, anything is possible, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. McCloskey. What an attitude. I am calling President Clin-
ton this afternoon, if he will take the call.
Connie, do you have anything else?
Ms. MORELLA. No, just to tell him I like that attitude.
Mr. McCloskey. May be the best administration witnesses we
ever had, Mr. King, we look forward to working with you. Thank
you.
Lo and behold, we will next call upon Roger Archibald, former
smokejumper, accompanied by Willie Hajrwood, vice president of
Local 51, American Federation of Grovemment Employees.
Gentlemen, you are welcome. Your statements are accepted for
the record. And when you get settled you may proceed.
I am told Mr. Haywood will also have someone accompany him.
He will be accompanied by Christopher Campbell, former fire-
fighter, local firefighter.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIE HAYWOOD, VICE PRESIDENT, LOCAL
51, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES;
ACCOMPANIED BY CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL, FORMER
FIREFIGHTER; AND ROGER ARCHIBALD, FORMER
SMOKEJUMPER, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Haywood. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I
am Willie Haywood. I am the vice president of Local 31 of the
American Federation of Government Employees. To my right is Mr.
Christopher Campbell, my coworker and union colleague and also
the president of the fire division at Local 31 of the AFL-CIO, De-
partment of Veterans Affairs, Brecksville Division, Cleveland OH.
We would like to express our appreciation and gratitude to Chair-
man Frank McCloskey for inviting us to testify at this hearing.
I have worked over 16 years of Grovemment service with the
DVA. For the first 13 years, I worked in the fire department at the
Brecksville Division. TTie agency began hiring temporary employees
when vacancies occurred, starting in 1983, in the belief that the
fire department would eventually be contracted out to a private
firm. By 1989, when the decision was made to solicit bids from pri-
vate contractors, 7 out of 15 fire department workers were on tem-
porary status.
35
As it happened, no firm was awarded a contract, and the tem-
porary employees who were hoping for permanent positions did not
receive any change in their employment status.
At this time, I was the union steward. I approached the agency's
management on the question of their intentions concerning the fu-
ture of the fire department as well as the problem that time was
running out for the majority of the temporary workers.
A decision had to be made. The temporary workers were all per-
forming satisfactorily, and all desired to become permanent em-
ployees.
The agency responded that they would continue the practice of
hiring only temporary employees who would have no chance of ob-
taining permanent status. As a result, since 1989, 20 people have
quit employment at the fire department solely because their tem-
porary status deprived them of any financial security. These were
mostly younger people who needed job security and health benefits
in order to raise their families.
The fire department has lost valuable, skilled employees and has
had to spend large amounts of money on training replacements —
money which could have been used to finance benefits for good em-
ployees who desired permanent status but were denied it because
of the DVA's policies on temporary employees. Most of the workers
who left did so because of the lack of benefits. In almost every case,
the department lost knowledgeable personnel whose expertise in
fire science could have benefited the agency.
A further problem with the agency's decision to hire only tem-
porary personnel was that, due to the almost constant turnover,
the Fire Department is often well below its minimum staffing lev-
els. The result has been an enormous amount of overtime work for
the remaining personnel. This has created a burden on the agency's
budget. In addition, it has produced morale problems among both
the permanent and temporary employees.
It is obvious to everyone that the agency's refusal to change the
status of temporary employees was costing rather than saving
money in overtime and training costs. The permanent employees
resented working so much overtime, and the temps realized that,
despite the sacrifices they were making to work extra hours and no
matter how flexible they were willing to be, they would not become
permanent and would not receive benefits.
This practice has also led to a drain on qualified personnel. It
has been so difficult to recruit new people due partially to OPM's
qualification standards that in one case an individual was rehired
into the department after he reached the 4-year limitation on tem-
porary workers after being laid off for just 3 months. Indeed we
found that this was in violation of OPM's regulations. Another indi-
vidual left and returned in 1 year to begin another 4 year tour as
a temp.
OPM's April 1993 report states specifically that such a practice
is an inappropriate use of the authority to use temporary employ-
ees. The report explains that once a position has been filled con-
tinuously over a 4-year period it can no longer be considered a tem-
porary position. The person who has held the job continuously over
that period also should not be considered a temporary employee.
The DVA at Brecksville has been doing this for 10 years.
36
At present, the agency has started a new series of temporary hir-
ing to replace the ones who have left for better opportunities or be-
cause they have reached their time limitations. Currently, out of a
15-person work force, only 4 are permanent employees. This situa-
tion has created a weak chain of command.
The agency has eliminated the fire chief position, which puts an
unfair burden on the lead person or crew chief. He or she must per-
form administrative duties along with trying to run the department
on a daily basis. All daily duties are performed by the temporary
personnel. The DVA has temporary employees in other services
throughout our installation, but, in my opinion, they have exploited
the system in the fire department at the Brecksville Division.
I support many of the recommendations contained in the 0PM
report, but I do not believe that they go far enough. For example,
OPM has proposed lowering the maximum number of years a posi-
tion can be considered temporary from 4 years to 2 years as a
means to discourage the abuse of temporary hiring authority.
Taken alone, that recommendation would hurt rather than help
temporary employees because it would reduce the time they would
be able to hold their jobs.
We believe that if a position continues to exist beyond one year,
both the job and the individual should be eligible for all the same
benefits provided to permanent workers. This would be the most ef-
fective strategy to deter the abuse of temporary hiring authority.
Providing term employees benefits including health and life in-
surance as well as opportunities for promotions is a matter of both
equity and efficiency. Agencies will no longer be able to pay work-
ers who hold essentially the same jobs differently, and departments
such as ours will function more efficiently due to increased stability
and experience on the part of employees.
Once the employees who occupy so-called term positions are
treated with the dignity they deserve, they will be able to see their
jobs as a career position from which to raise a family and plan
their future.
I urge the committee to act to improve the situation of temporary
workers and prevent agencies from abusing their authority to des-
ignate positions as temporary. It will allow an individual to work
for a short time if he wishes but also allow to work with dignity.
Thank you.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Haywood.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haywood follows:]
Prepared Statement of Willie Haywood, Vice President, Local 51, American
Federation of Government Employees
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Willie Haywood,
and I am the Vice President of Local 31 of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Department of Veterans Affairs, Brecksville Division, Cleve-
land, Ohio. I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to Chairman
Frank McCloskey for inviting me to testify at this hearing.
I have over 16 years of government service with the DVA. For the first 13 years,
I worked in the Fire Department at the Brecksville Division. The agency began hir-
ing temporary employees when vacancies occurred starting in 1983, in the belief
that the Fire Department would eventuaUy be contracted out to a private firm. By
1989 when the clecision was made to solicit bids from private contractors, 7 out of
15 Fire Department workers were on temporary status. As it happened, no firm was
awarded a contract, and the temporary employees who were hoping for permanent
positions did not receive any diange in their employment status.
37
At this time, I was the union steward. I approached the agency's management on
the question of their intentions concerning the future of the Fire Department, as
well as the problem that time was running out of the majority of the temporary
workers. A decision had to be made: The temporary workers were all performing
satisfactorily and all desired to become permanent employees.
The agency responded that they would continue the practice of hiring only tem-
porary employees who would have no chance of obtaining permanent status. As a
result since 1989, 20 people have quit employment at the fire department solely be-
cause their temporary status deprived them of any financial security. These were
mostly younger people who needed job security and health benefits in order to raise
their families.
The Fire Department has lost valuable, skilled employees and has had to spend
large amounts of money on training replacements — money which could have been
used to finance benefits for good employees who desired permanent status but were
denied it because of the DVA's policies on temporary employees. Most of the workers
who left did so because of the lack of benefits. In almost every case, the department
lost knowledgeable personnel whose expertise in fire science could have benefitted
the agency.
A further problem with the agency's decision to hire only temporary personnel
was that due to the almost constant turnover, the Fire Department is often well
below its minimum staffing levels. The result has been an enormous amount of over-
time work for the remaining personnel. This has created a burden on the agency's
budget. In addition, it has produced morale problems among both the permanent
and temporary employees. It is obvious to everyone that the agency's refusal to
change the status of temporary employees was costing rather than saving money in
overtime and training costs. The permanent employees resented working so much
overtime, and the temps realized that despite the sacrifices they were making to
work extra hours, and no matter how flexible they were willing to be, they would
not become permanent and would not receive benefits.
This practice has also led to a drain or quaUfied personnel. It has been so difficult
to recruit new people due partially to OPM's qualification standards that in one case
an individual was rehired into the department after he reached the four-year limita-
tion on temporary workers afi«r being laid off" for just 3 months. Indeed, we found
that this was in violation of OPM's regulations. Another individusil left; and returned
in one year to begin another four year tour as a temp. OMP's April 1993 report
states specifically that such a practice is an "inappropriate" use of the authority to
use temporary employees. The report explains that once a position has been filled
continuously over a four year period, it can no longer be considered a temporary po-
sition. The person who has held the job continuously over that period also should
not be considered a temporary employee. The DVA at Brecksville has been doing
this for 10 years.
At present, the agency has started a new series of temporary hiring to replace
the ones who have left for better opportunities or because they have reached their
time limitations. Currently, out of a 15 person workforce, only 4 are permanent em-
ployees. This situation has created a weak chain of command. The agency has elimi-
nated the Fire Chief position, which puts an unfair burden on the lead person or
Crew Chief He or she must perform administrative duties, along with trying to run
the department on a daily basis. All daily duties are performed by the temporary
personnel. The DVA has temporary employees in other services throughout our in-
stallation, but in my opinion, they have exploited the system in the Fire Department
at the Brecksville Division.
I support many of the recommendations contained in the 0PM report, but I do
not believe that they go far enough. For example, 0PM has proposed lowering the
maximum number of years a position can be considered temporary for 4 years to
2 years as a means to discourage the abuse of temporary hiring authority. Taken
alone, that recommendation would hurt rather than help temporary employees be-
cause it would reduce the time they would be able to hold their jobs.
We believe that if a position continues to exist beyond one year, both the job and
the individual should be eligible for all the same benefits provided to permanent
workers. This would be the most effective strategy to deter the abuse of temporary
hiring authority. Providing term employees benefits including health and life insur-
ance, as well as opportunities for promotions is a matter of both equity and effi-
ciency. Agencies will no longer be able to pay workers who hold essentially the same
jobs differently, and departments such as ours will fiinction more efficiently due to
increased stability and experience on the part of employees.
Once the employees who occupy so-called "term" positions are treated with the
dignity they deserve, they will be able to see their jobs as career positions from
which to raise a family and plan their future. I urge the committee to act to improve
38
the situation of temporary workers, and prevent agency's from abusing their author-
ity to designate positions as temporary. It will allow an individual to work for a
short time if he wishes, but also allow him to work with dignity.
Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Archibald, you may proceed. It would be
helpful if you could summarize so we would have time for full dis-
cussion as to all your concerns.
Mr. Archibald. I am Roger Archibald. I come from Philadelphia,
PA.
On and off since 1984 I have been employed as a temporary for-
estry technician/smokejumper by the U.S. Forest Service. I spent 2
years at Redding, CA and since 1989 I have been, or had been, em-
ployed at the aerial fire depot in Missoula, MT.
Because I also have experience working for the National Park
Service, last summer I was invited to testify before the former Sub-
committee on Human Resources, I believe, which was in session in
Missoula, MT. I was there at the invitation of Representative Pat
Williams. And Representative Kanjorski was there, and Represent-
ative Moran also attended.
I was invited to testify, basically, because I had had experience
with three — actually four, excuse me — four different Federal agen-
cies as a temporary employee. That testimony is part of the record,
and I have some additional copies here for you.
Subsequent to that testimony, I completed the season. I was laid
off at the end of the fire season.
And toward the end of the fire season there had been a lot of con-
cern at the base about cutbacks in the number of jumpers. Over
the last two seasons the Missoula smokejumper base received what
they called severity funding which allowed them to increase the
numbers from the normal 60 to 86.
With weather patterns subsiding and El Nino subsiding and so
forth, the word was out that we may not get severity funding next
year. From the beginning of last year, all temporaries were told
that we may face cutbacks. "We may not be able to hire you." The
base manager said right off the bat that "if I have to cut back I
will base the cutbacks on performance, not on seniority or any
other criteria, on performance." This issue is kind of in the back-
ground the whole season.
On September 15, 1992, we held a general smokejumper meet-
ing. It is a tradition at the end of the season. And the minutes of
that meeting, portions of them I have distributed as exhibits to the
members of the committee.
[The information referred to follows:]
39
Sept. 15. tjfllz'
GENERAL SMOKEJUMPER MEETING
FALL 1 992
MEETING PURPOSE
The purpose of this meeting was to review the 1 992 fire season from a smokejumper perspective. Bring
up ideas, concerns, opportunities for change, anything we as jumpers want to discuss in regard to the
Missoula Smokejumper program. Gary Benavidez asked that when participants bring up concerns,
that they also recommend a proposal to elevate the concern.
Joe Wagenfehr led the opening remarks by saying it was a pretty good year for the jumper program. In May
of this year it looked like we were faced with a critical fire season, but wet weather in July helped out and fire
intensity moderated. Joe said "Good Initial Attack was done, we did well, you did well". The long term problem
is that when initial attack is successful the corresponding fuel buildup leads to the potential for larger fires
In the future, but until someone comes up with a better solution initial attack is the way to proceed. Because
of the rural urban interface good initial attack will always be needed. Joe was concerned about the number
of injuries this summer, 'injury rate was unacceptability high'! He has directed Gary Benavidez to look into
injury trends and formulate an action plan.
Joe talked about FY 1 993 budget saying that 1 05 jumpers for the Region 1 program would be funded at 1 00%.
However some of the true costs of a quality program such as off tour training were not funded and he sees
this as a concern. Overall Region 1 is looking at a 7 million dollars increase in its fire budget for FY 93, with
the large majority of this increase going directly to the Forests.
AWARDS
Judy Hewitt was presented with a print of "Jump into Hell* in appreciation of her help to the Smokejumper
Program over the years.
Kim Jacobsen and John Miller Visitor Center Employees received cash awards from the Smokejumper
Program for their outstanding work in coordination of Visitor Center activities.
ISSUES
The question was asked 'What is the outlook for future appointments, will GS-7 positions turn into PFT
appointments? Will this increase in GS-7 tours be at the expense of GS-6 13/19 positions?
Gary responded that a 50% - 50% ratio of temporary to long term appointments Is what the organizational
plan calls for. This is based on 1 0% of the jumper force being available year-around for fire assignment.
Correspondingly there will be an increase in tours for some GS-7 appointments. Increase in GS-7 tours will
come from GS-6 6-20 positions as they become vacant. Gary stated. the 13/19 GS-6 position currently
advertised will be filled in the near future. The GS-7 PFT safety position has been filled.
40
Action Item include In first newsletter question on who wants dorm rooms for refresher training and
during the summer.
Carlsen suggested that we strengthen our presentations to the Region 1 forests about jumper capabilities.
Tom suggested identifying specific individuals in the jumper organization who would be responsible for
meeting with specific forests.
WW 11 recommended sending representatives out to more Forest meetings.
Gary responded by saying that we asked to be included on Forest FMO meeting agendas but have not
received invitations.
A suggestion was made to poll dispatchers, and forests to get their input on the jumper program. A
questionnaire would need to be developed.
Action Item Wayne Williams, Tom Carlsen, Jim LInvllle, Scott Belknap, Tod Onken and Bob Cunningham
will develop presentations for Forest FMO's, District and Forest Dispatchers in Region 1.
Beck who needs x-large jump suits? Hammack, Burtch, and Cunningham.
Chamberlin suggested we look at a jump suit boot strap which x-crosses under the heal. This might provide
better ankle support.
Rodger Archibald said congress will be working on temporary employee issues this winter. If anyone has input
give it to Roger and he will pass it along to the appropriate people.
POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN JUIMPER NUMBERS FOR 1993
Gary a major issue may be a reduction in jumper numbers for the Region if there is no severity funding for
next year. This could require reducing the number of jumpers in Missoula from 85, the number this year, to
60 for next season. Performance will be the deciding factor, In making any reduction, not seniority or
popularity.
The question was asked are performance evaluations the most valid criteria, understanding that due to the
nature of the jumper job, supen/isors are rarely with the people they rate? Evaluations need to be objective
and timely, what is the process?
Gary a Crew Rating Form has been used for a number of years to help supeivisors get input on employee
performance on fires. These forms are filled out by the jumper-in-charge on each fire. On two person fires
the rating is optional as peers are grading one another. Copies of the Crew Rating Fomris are in map cases
and are also kept in Operations. Completed rating forms are kept in a file for supervisor review. When an
employee receives a superior, weak, or unsatisfactory rating they are informed by their supervisor. When year
end ratings are done supervisors use the Crew Rating Forms as one indicator of employee performance. In
addition a Fire Evaluation form is sent out via DG for each fire staffed. This information is used to determine
individual jumper performance and overall user satisfaction with the jumper program.
Comments from jumpers indicated that lots of folks were unaware of the Crew Rating Forms.
Gary asking for specific recommendations, what would the jumpers like to see used as criteria for reducing
jumper numbers, if a reduction in jumpers is necessary?
41
Response, Seniority is a criteria commonly used by the courts.
Objectivity is a concern when performance is evaluated by supervisors, but don't agree with seniority being
used as the primary criteria.
Question is seniority based on years of jumper experience or years of fire experience?
In past years when the seniority system was used to determine details, subbase assignments, and winter
work preference it worked as such: 1 point was given for each year of Federal service, Forest Service, f^ilitary,
etc. and 1 point was given for each season of jumping.
Comment was made that employee performance rating should be broad based, not just input from one
supervisor. There was agreement from the jumpers on this point.
Will Affirmative Action be a consideration if jumper numbers are reduced?
Gary responded yes, consideration will be given to Affirmative Action policies if a reduction in jumper numbers
is required.
Will people who were funded under the severity management code this summer be the ones to be cut?
Gary, people were funded under different management codes this summer on an arbitrary basis and this
would not effect who is or is not hired back.
If people are not rehired can they expect help in getting a job with another jump base.
Gary it is up to the individual to find employment. If one jump base experiences cuts all bases will probably
be cut. We can supply addresses of other bases and Hot Shot Crews.
Key Input From Jumpers
Performance, input from all overhead, should be primary factor In determining any cuts, not seniority.
Beck overall job performance not just fire performance should be considered.
Performance should be primary factor, seniority should be the tie breaker.
Consideration should be given to those who are around for the entire season, come early stay late.
Jumpers should do an all-around good job.
Suggested that the opinion of senior GS-6"s should be considered when making any decision about who
would not return for the 1993 season. They have a good idea of jumper work performance.
Consider additional qualifications that individual jumpers have, EMT. falters etc.
Send out newsletters early so people know whats going on. This will give people the option of deciding not
to come back if a cut is coming, freeing up space for people who would like to return.
Be timely in letting people know what the hiring situation is for the 1993 season.
Gary one change for FY 93 is that we will have some FFF dollars funded up front. Meaning that we will known
sooner if funding will be available for jumper positions in addition to the normal 60.
42
Gary if a reduction in jumpers numbers is required, the decision on which Individuals will be effected will be
made by the Overhead as a group. If you have not received a bad performance rating then you shouldn't
be concerned.
WELFARE FUND
Termination party will be Oct. 10. The Welfare Fund has commissioned a 100 Fire Jump pin, cost will be
$20.00, $10.00 paid by the Welfare Fund, $10.00 by the individual. Current Net Worth of the Welfare Fund
is $7,000.00
VISITORS CENTER
Visitor numbers increased again this year to over 30,000 people. Wayne Williams is concerned about the
impact visitors have on the ability of jumpers to do their on base jobs. As such he will reduce the size of tours
through the Loft to a maximum of 1 5 people per tour, with 5 tours scheduled per day. In addition tour guides
will reduce the amoung of time they spend in the loft building and concentrate more of the tour in the Visitors
Center.
NEW PARACHUTE
Gary Benavidez brought everyone up to date on the development of the new Smokejumper Parachute. He
passed out copies of the Speed Memo from Missoula Equipment Development Center (MTDC) outlining the
initial development steps and time frames, (see attachment #1). Gary said based on cun-ent information
Missoula will buy 4 large and 2 small canopies. These canopies will be jumped next year in practice jump
situations by Missoula Overhead to determine their initial suitability. Gary continued by saying that MTDC will
be in charge of technical evaluation. The canopy must meet criteria listed in the Smokejumper Parachute
Meeting letter March 3-4, 1992, (see attachment #2). The BLM will be involved in testing to determine
suitability for their operations. Gary concluded by saying the main benefit of a new smokejumper canopy is
injury reduction.
The question was asked what input will the GS-6 jumpers have in the development and evaluation of the new
canopy.
Jim Cyr responded by saying that GS-6 will have input.
Bob Cunningham outlined the process used during the field evaluation of the FS-12 parachute. Seven
jumpers including GS-6's were given canopies to jump for 1 field season. After field evaluation the input from
those 7 jumpers was reviewed. This input was a key factor in the determination to adopt the FS-12 canopy
as the current smokejumper parachute.
Gary: Overhead will be jumping the canopy in the preliminary stages of the evaluation. Once the canopy
design has been finalized then a select few GS-6 jumpers wil assist in the jumping evaluation.
AIRCRAFT SIMULA SEATING
Gary said all Region 1 aircraft will have Simula seating for the 1993 field season. TTiis is a side facing bench
seat system designed to improve jumper safety.
DISTRICT FIRE EVALUATIONS
Gary talked about two areas where districts have problems with jumpers. Jumpers often do not do a good
job of filling out their Fireman's Reports. This is key information to the Districts and must be provided. It reflects
43
Mr. Archibald. The subject of potential reduction in jumper
numbers was discussed at length. It goes on for two pages in here.
At the beginning of the discussion, the base manager stated per-
formance will be the deciding factor in making any reduction, not
seniority or popularity. Then there is a fair amount of input. It was
further stated later on that performance should be the primary fac-
tor, and seniority should be the tie breaker. At the meeting that
was just the suggestion that was thrown out.
Finally, the base manager ended the discussion by stating, in, I
believe, an effort to placate concerns, quote, "if you have not re-
ceived a bad performance rating then you shouldn't be concerned."
This was at the meeting in September.
At the end of the month we were laid off, and I went to my win-
ter quarters and heard nothing more until January. In January, I
received Jumper Newsletter No. 1, this exhibit right here.
[The information referred to follows:]
44
DECEMBER 1. 1992
JUMPER NEWSLETTER #1
. DECEMBER 1992
REVIEW OF THE 1992 JUMP SEASON
1992 was an average year for the Missoula Smokejumpers when compared to our ten year average.
Fire seasons in Region 3 and Alaska did not materialize having a negative effect on out o* Region
activity. *^
Vital statistics follow:
Total Number Jumpers In R-1:
MSO: 86 -GAC 29 WYC 16 Total 131
Number fires attacked or Jumped:
Jumped: 225 Initial Attack 182 Follow-up fires: 43
Total Number of Fires:
MSO: 104 GAC: 90 WYS: 36 Total: 230
Total Number Fire Jumps:
MSO: 434 GAC: 333 WYS: 137 Total: 904
Total Person Hours on Rrb:
MSO: 25,560 GAC: 10.581 WYS: 7.382 Total: 43.523
WINTER WORK LOAD
Winter woricat the AFD is adequate to employ all 1 3/1 9 jumpers. We have been authorized to complete
projects for other government agencies without using Full Time Equivalence (FTE's). This other agency
wort< combined with FFF refurtsishment will keep us busy through the winter.
1993 BUDGET AND SMOKEJUMPER STAFFING
Budget
The good news is current Region 1 A&FM budget advice tells us we are looking at an adequate budget
for 1993.
Downsizing
Based on direction from the Director Aviation & Fire Management Region 1, the tentative plan is for
Missoula to be staffed at approximately 60 jumpers for the 1 993 field season. This is a reduction from
86 for 1992. During the last few years Jumper positions atxjve 60 have tieen filled in Missoula in
anticipation of national fire needs. Drought conditions in the Western U.S. have moderated thus the
return to normal jumper staffing levels. The Regton 1 Smokejumper Program is committed to rehiring
all returning temporary jumpers for 1993. However based on the potential reductton in staffing we
recommend to Missoula's temporary jumpers that they look hard at openings that may be available
in Grangeville or West Yeltowstone for the 1993 season. West Yellowstone will be increasing from 16
to 18 jumpers for 1993. Grangeville will probably have 2 vacancies. We will keep you updated, don't
hesitate to call if you have questions.
In additional the Regkxial Office Aviation and Fire Management of which were are a part has been
directed by the Regional Forester to reduce FTE's by 8%. This means the jumper program will have
to reduce its FTE's tjy 1 to 2.5. It is anticipated the jumper numbers in Missoula will expand and contract
over the next few years in response to fire severity. As such Missoula will maintain its core overhead
in order to provide supen/isk>n when jumper numbers increase. The reductk>n in FTE's will be
accomplished by not filling 13/1 9 positions as they become vacant. There will be no Reduction in Force
45
INJURY REDUCTION
There is a strong commitment to reducing injuries for the 1993 season and Iseyond. We have received
many good ideas from jumpers to help in accomplishing this goal and are open to more. Contaa
Smokejumper Training if you have any input. Enclosed is a new Conditioning Guide for R-6
Smokejumpers developed by Redmond. We hope this will assist you in the coming months.
EMPLOYMENT DATES FOR 1993
Your employment with the Forest Service requires you to be available for work during your tour of duty .
If you can not be available for the dates listed below you need to contact Smokejumper Operations,
at least two weeks in advance to make other arrangements.
13/19's PP7-19 March 21 -September 18
6/20's PP 12-17 June 13-September 4
Temporaries PP 12-17 June 13-September 4
REGION 3 DETAIL
The R-3 crew will t>e 29 jumpers for 1 993. Crew member selection for Missoula will be made by jump
list order from those individuals indicating on their questionnaire they are available for long term fire
assignment or detail to Region 3. We'll give you specific Region 3 Detail information in the second
newsletter. Region 3 crew composition for the 1993 season is as follows.
REGION 3 OVERHEAD
Region 1 Foreman Region 1 Squadleaders 4
Region 1 Assistant Foreman
CREW COMPOSITION
Region 1: 14 Region 6: S
Region 4: 6 Region 5: 4
Total: 29
OPERATIONS GUIDELINES
Inclosed is a copy of the Operations Jump List Policy. As identified as an Action Item in the General
Smokejumper Meeting last fall the Jump List Policy is included for you to review and comment upon.
JUMP RECORDS
Inclosed is your 1992 jump and fire record. Be sure to review, update, and return this record with your
questionnaire. Your Red Card Qualifications are based on this record. The Smokejumper Trainers
update Red Card Qualifications in late winter and will not b>e responsible for misinformation based on
your jump record.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Complete and return the enclosed questionnaire before January 22, 1993.
Gary V. Benavidez
R-1 Smokejumper Program Coordinator
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU AND YOUR FAMIUES!!
46
Mr. Archibald. And in Jumper Newsletter No. 1, dated Decem-
ber 1 — ^but actually I didn't receive it until January 2 because it
wasn't mailed until, I think, December 18. It was sent book rate
so it was further delayed over the holidays. So I just got it before
I had to leave home.
In this document under the heading of downsizing, again the
base manager wrote: "The tentative plan is for Missoula to be
staffed at approximately 60 jumpers for the field season. This is a
reduction from 86 for the 1992 season. So that is an over 30-per-
cent reduction in the numbers. So he is stating right off the bat
this is what they anticipate.
However, he goes on to say in the same paragraph, "the Region
1 smokejumper program is committed to rehiring all returning
temporary jumpers for 1993." He further states, we will keep you
updated.
So I read that, and I figured there is no problem. I got a job.
That seems to be pretty straightforward.
I heard nothing else from the agency until March 12 of this year.
I had been out of the country abroad for 3 months. In the winter,
I worked as a merchant marine officer so I had been at sea.
When I was repatriated on the 11th, the day after, I got a form
letter from Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service in Missoula from an
officer I had never heard of, a personnel officer, and it just said,
due to budgetary constraints we have had to cut back numbers and
you are "not one of those selected. Thank you for your interest in
emplo3rment with the Forest Service."
What he sent me was a form letter they send to applicants — out-
side applicants — for jobs who were unsuccessful. No other expla-
nation was there of why I didn't have a job.
So I didn't know what rights I had at the time, but I sought to
pursue whatever they were. I called up the base. I called my
former supervisor and went up the chain of command. I ultimately
talked to the base manager.
What I learned in that time was that, apparently, faced with this
cutback, the agency was ultimately — ^they got more severity fund-
ing so they were able to hire 70 instead of 86. But it worked out
that there were going to be 10 people they would not be able to
hire back.
So, rather than go by the evaluations — written evaluations that
we had all received at the end of the season — apparently, all the
jumpers got fully satisfactory — successful, excuse me — evaluations.
So there is no way they could differentiate jumpers based on those
evaluations.
So rather than use seniority as a tie breaker as they had indi-
cated in the previous meeting, what they did was to decide to re-
evaluate everybody. They did not inform any people being re-evalu-
ated that they were being re-evaluated. They did not communicate
the standards of re-evaluation to any of these people.
They created a form that they called the matrix, this form right
here, and I have attached a copy of it to my statement that I have
on the table here. As you can see if you look at it — I believe you
folks have it as well — what it is is just a Crosshatch with names
down one side and criteria, handwritten, in the top. There is space
for 12 names. There were 48 temps at the base.
47
What they did on February 4 is they held a meeting, all eight
foremen and the base manager. Each was given four of these
forms. And each one, without discussion, rated on the scale you see
below, zero to four, each and every temporary jumper. The num-
bers were totaled on the right there.
The numbers were then, I guess, averaged and crunched in var-
ious ways.
The results were transcribed onto a master list that numerically
ranked every 1 of the 48 jumpers. Then each and every one of
forms was destroyed that they had filled out. It was not lost. It was
intentionally destroyed. It was shredded.
So there is absolutely no record of the original data that led to
those numbers on that list.
When — I was incredulous when I heard this because my under-
standing is every employee has a right to see documents relating
to their performance. When I asked about that I was told these are
not really evaluations. These are "work sheets" and — "work
sheets — work sheets developed in the course of a selection
process"
Mr. McCloskey. Who told you that for the record since I think
Mr. King is interested in such things for the record?
Mr. Archibald. I was told that, actually, by the, I believe, per-
sonnel clerk at the base and also — there are only four people I
talked to. I talked to the two foremen in the chain of command, the
base commander and personnel clerk. I got more or less the same
story from all of them.
When I asked how this could be, they said when you are engaged
in a selection procedure, any work sheets that are developed, which
I understand to be scratch paper, are destroyed. They are not kept.
These were treated as work sheets. They were destroyed. And all
that was left was this list of names and numbers.
When I asked the two foremen I spoke to, well, "how did you rate
me?" they had difficulty remembering. They said, well, "I think I
gave you average marks."
When I asked the base manager when did this meeting take
place — when I initially asked him he wasn't quite sure what year
it was. There was this institutional amnesia that accompanied this
destruction of records. I became very suspicious.
I was told at the time that I could file what they call an informal
agency grievance, which amounts to just writing a letter to your
boss's boss and that I did. And the results of that — all my concerns
were totally denied by the agency.
I have talked to other people. I talked, actually, to an officer of
the 0PM, and I expressed my concerns to that person. And their
first comment to me when I mentioned I had been a temporary
was, basically, "you have no rights, period."
When I explained the development of this matrix and how it was
destroyed, and they — in a sense, they evaluated us twice. And the
response of that person was, well, "obviously, they didn't do it right
the first time." That was their response.
So I figured that was not a very good approach to seek redress.
But I talked to some other people both in and out of Government,
legal counsel and other people who are familiar with these things,
48
and virtually everyone I talked to was incredulous that an agency
would consider or even think of doing such a thing.
At the same time, they advised me that there is really not a
whole lot I can do because, while an agency may have violated its
own policies or regulations or even ethical considerations, there is
no mechanism that I can use short of just writing a letter to my
boss's boss to seek redress. There is no binding power or authority
outside that can decide these matters other than the Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Act. Essentially, that is the situation I am
left in.
I am basically told by people in so many words that, "we can do
anything we want to do." There are no regulations in this matter.
That is essentially where the case stands at the moment.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you.
Mr. Archibald. I have suggestions for changes in the law. They
are in my statement. I have gone overtime, but I can mention what
they are or leave it to questions.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Archibald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger Archibald, Former Smokejumper, U.S. Forest
Service
Let me begin by thanking the committee for this opportunity to testify before you
again on the subject of temporary employment within the Federal Government. It
was just about eleven months ago when I last testified, on July 25, 1992, to the
former Subcommittee on Human Resources in session at Missoula, Montana. At the
time I was employed by the U.S. Forest Service as a temporary smokejumper based
at the agency's Aerial Fire Depot.
Subsequent to that testimony, my employment relationship with the Forest Serv-
ice summarily ceased, even though I had received a "Fully Successfvil" performance
evaluation for my work diuing 1992. After six seasons of jumping during which I
accumulated almost one hundred jumps, I was simply informed by the agency that,
due to budgetary constraints, I was not one of those selected" for a smokejumper
position in 1993.
BACKGROUND
I have been a civilian temporary employee of the Federal Government on and off
since 1980; previous to that, I was an enlisted man in the U.S. Navy from 1965 to
1970, service which entitles me to a five-point Veterans' Preference in Federal em-
ployment.
In June, 1980 I was hired as a temporary GS-3 fire guard (Park Technician se-
ries) by the National Park Service at Redwood National Park, California, a job that
continue only through the summer fire season. I returned to that position during
the summers of both 1981 and 1982. Between February and April of 1983, I took
a temporary winter seasonal GS-4 position in interpretation with the Park Service
at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pa. where I had been at-
tending graduate school, and where I continued to reside. During the following sum-
mer, I worked very briefly as a GS-3 temporary fu^fighter for the Bureau of Land
Management, Carson City (Nevada) District, assigned to an engine station in Doyle,
California. Then I retimied to the National Park Service for the balance of the sum-
mer employed as a temporary GS-5 Interagency Information Specialist at Gates of
the Arctic National Park and Preserve in Fairbanks, Alaska.
In May, 1984 I was hired by the U.S. Forest Service as a temporary rookie
smokejumper candidate at the Northern California Service Center in Redding, Cali-
fornia. On my seventh, and final, rookie training jiunp, I sustained a fractured left
ankle and was medically restricted from doing anything other than Ught duty for
the remainder of the season. The following year, I returned to Redding aft«r recover-
ing from my injury, and was again required to complete the fiill course of rookie
training. After successfully doing this, I finished the season with a total of ten fire
jumps.
In December, 1985, over two months after my temporary seasonal smokejumper
position with the Forest Service in Redding, Ca. had been terminated, I received in
49
the mail a numerically based evaluation of my job performance that indicated I had
performed unsatisfactorily. Based solely on an average of rating numbers, and no
other remarks or supporting evidence of any kind, I was told I would not again be
rehired as a temporary smokejumper by the U.S. Forest Service in Redding, Califor-
nia.
This notification was the first indication to me from anybody in a supervisory ca-
pacity that my job performance was anjrthing other than completely satisfactory. At
no time during the 1985 season was I ever given either verbaJ or written advisories
about my alleged performance shortcomings. Nor had any standards for evaluation
ever been communicated to me during this same period of time.
My only recourse was to initiate the three-step grievance procedure stipulated by
the agreement between the Forest Service and the National Federation of Federal
Employees. Unlike most other temporary employees in the agency, those working
on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (which had personnel administrative respon-
sibility for the Redding, Ca. smokejtunper base) were covered by this contract's pro-
visions. My efforts in seeking reUef through this means, however, were fruitless.
The case eventually ended up eighteen months later in Federal arbitration, where
I again lost.
In making my case, I produced evidence of several occasions where supervisors
made untrue statements concerning my performance. The arbitrator was satisfied
that my version of events was true and accxirate, and stated so during the two-day
hearing. He nevertheless ruled against me in his final decision, however, which was
based primarily on his strict reading of the contract. That agreement contained no
provision requiring parties to be honest in their dealings with one another. Thus,
complaints arising from claims of dishonest and duplicitous treatment at the hands
of one's supervisors apparently were simply inadmissible, since the contract did not
specifically forbid such behavior.
That was my first encounter with what appears to be a systematic and institu-
tionalized axiom of human resources management within the U.S. Forest Service:
that unless a specific agency policy or directive exists to the contrary, an3rtiiing goes.
Presuming my opportunity to work in this pubUc service had come to an end, I
returned to the private sector. But, as anyone who has ever successfully done the
job will tell you, smokejiunping casts a lifelong spell over its adherents. 1 kept sub-
mitting applications, and in 1989 I was again offered admission, this time by the
base in Missoula, Montana. There was a price, however: successful completion of
rookie training yet a third time.
That I did. And I have continued my career as a temporary smokejumper at Mis-
soula ever since, acciunulating forty-four fire jumps and ninety-four total jumps
through the end of the 1992 fire season. During that time, I have never received
an unsatisfactory performance evaluation and have always been led to believe my
job awaited me the next season, even when the organization faced the immanent
possibility of significant cut-backs, as it did this year.
When not on fires, I have sought to play an active role in the organization back
at the base. I have routinely volunteered wr project work. I have completed all the
prerequisites for F.A.A. Senior Rigger certification, and have been cleared by the
Loft Foreman to pack main parachutes for use by all jumpers. Utihzing my experi-
ence in visitor services while employed by the National Park Service, I have served
in the Smokejumper Visitors Center, providing tours of the base and information
to members of the public.
Beyond the functions of the job itself, I additionally have organized blood donation
efforts for which the American Red Cross certified its appreciation. I've taken re-
sponsibility for assuring the kitchen in the smokejumpers' dormitory remained clean
and sanitary. And in July of 1992, I accepted your invitation to testify before Con-
gress about some of the problems faced by temporary employees of the Federal Gov-
ernment. In short, I beUeve I've been a good citizen.
CURRENT DILEMMA
The text of my remarks at last summer's hearing is already a part of the record
of the Subcommittee. So I won't reiterate its contents here. But many of the serious
concerns of temporary Federal employees I expressed before the Subcommittee con-
vened at the University of Montana in Missoula on July 25, 1992 became personally
quite relevant for me by subsequent events occurring within the Missoula
smokejumper organization during this past Winter.
As indicated above, the base faced a potential reduction in temporary personnel
of over thirty per cent. Special severity funding made available due to anticipated
extreme fire conditions over the past two seasons had resulted in an increase of the
base staffing level from the normal compliment of sixty jumpers to eighty-six. With
50
weather extremes abating and precipitation reaching more normal levels, it was an-
ticipated that severity funding would be similarly curtailed, creating a budgetary
short-fall if all 1992 temporary smokejumpers sought to return in 1993.
With this in mind, the Base Manager had let it be known from the beginmng of
the season that if such reductions became mandatory, they would not be based on
seniority or funding status, but rather on individual performance evaluations. For
this purpose, he was re-instituting the practice of providing each temporary jumper
with a written performance evaluation at the end of the season, something which
had been discontinued for the previous two years following objections from the Na-
tional Federation of Federal Employees that were never clarified to the temporary
employees. , , . , ., . ...
Because of my previous bad experience with evaluations while serving at the
smokejumper base in Redding, California (detailed above), the plan by this super-
visor to base potential reductions in temporary personnel solely on performance
evaluations sounded an immediate danger signal. I was concerned about the pos-
sible subjectivity that can influence such appraisals, especially if the evaluators are
aware in advance that their ratings will determine who keeps or loses their job. I
wondered how they would proceed if every temporary received a satisfactory evalua-
tion, and were thus unable to be differentiated. And the idea that management
would completely ignore in its decision such a basic element of the profession as
jump experience — something acquired at considerable expense to the taxpayer, but
which management nevertheless constantly promotes as being fundamentally nec-
essary to both the development of safe jumpers and the reduction of injuries —
seemed simply unfathomable.
Toward the end of the fire season on September 15, 1992, a general smoke jumper
meeting was held at the Missoula base during which the subject of the potently re-
duction in temporary employees was discussed at length. As verified by the official
minutes of that meeting (a copy of which was sent to each temporary jumper after
termination of the fire season), many different ideas and concerns were voiced, but
the position of the Base Manager remained unchanged throughout. He opened the
discussion by stating, ". . . Performance will be the deciding factor, in making anv
reduction, not seniority or popularity." Somewhat later, he closed it when he said,
"If reduction in jumpers numbers is required, the decision on which individuals will
be effected (sic) will be made by the Overhead as a group. . ." (Overhead is Forest
Service jargon for supervisors.) In an apparent effort to placate those voicing con-
cern about his stated poUcy, he added, "It you have not received a bad performance
rating then you shoulon't be concerned."
A little over two weeks later, I did receive my written performance evaluation for
the 1993 season. It was "Fully Successful." The supervisor responsible for preparing
it said he had gone over all the crew reports of fires to which I'd been assigned dur-
ing the season, and had found nothing to indicate I had performed in any way other
than satisfactory. I received it on October 1, 1992 and the Base Manager signed it
the next day. . t u j
After being terminated at the end of the fire season and returmng home, 1 heard
nothing from the Missoula Smokejumpers until early January, 1993 when I received
the first off-season newsletter. It was dated Dec. 1, 1992, but inexplicably had not
been mailed until Dec. 18. And because it was sent "Book Rate" (Special 4th.
Class— Printed Matter), even though it contained personal communication, it did not
arrive until January 2, 1993, the day I departed my home for three months at sea
in my winter job as a Merchant Marine Officer.
Under the heading of "Downsizing," the newsletter reported that the Missoula
Smokejumper Base anticipated a reduction in numbers of over thirty percent for the
1993 fire season— a cut-back from eighty-six to sixty. It would all be absorbed by
the temporary jumpers. The special severity funding received over the previous two
years would apparently not be forthcoming in 1993, thus the retrenchment. How-
ever, despite full recognition of this fact, the Base Manager nevertheless went on
to write. The Region 1 Smokejumper Program is committed to rehiring all return-
ing temporary jumpers in 1993." His only qualification of this affirmation was that,
". . . Missoula's temporary jumpers . . . look hard at openings that may be available
at Grangeville (Idaho) andf West Yellowstone (Montana) for the 1993 season." He
was referring to the two other smokejumper bases in Region One (Northern Rocky
Mountains) of the U.S. Forest Service. He concluded his remarks on the subject by
stating, "We will keep you updated."
Attached to the newsletter was a short questionnaire to be filled out and returned
by each recipient no later than January 22, 1993. It asked only two things: pre-
ferred refresher training (early/April or late/June)? and preference in regional jump
bases (Missoula, Grangeville or West Yellowstone)? I presumed that a proper re-
sponse to the "look Hard" suggestion concerning regional jump bases (above) could
51
be made on this form, and selected West Yellowstone as my first choice, followed
by Missoula and Grangeville.
Despite the Base Manager's assertion to the contrary, this newsletter was the last
"update" — or any other communication for that matter — I ever received from him.
During the ensuing winter, I served as Second Mate aboard a fully inspected (by
the U.S. Coast Guard) U.S.-flag Sailing School Vessel embarked overseas between
5 January and 11 March, 1993. Upon repatriation, I received at my shipboard ad-
dress a rather terse letter from an official in the Forest Service Region One person-
nel office. It informed me that I was "not one of those selected" for a GS-6
Smokejumper position for 1993, and concluded by thanking me for my "interest in
employment with the Forest Service." Just two paragraphs, that's all — a form letter
normally only provided to unsuccessful outside candidates for agency positions.
What that letter failed to report speaks volumes about the approach the Forest
Service takes toward its temporary employees.
It made no mention of the fact that all temporary employees of the Missoula
Smokejiunper Unit had been subjected to a clandestine re-evaluation procedure to-
tally without their knowledge. Both the proceedings and the results of this gather-
ing were never intended to be reported. A crude evaluation form referred to only
as "the matrix" was manufactiired by hand and criteria assigned to it were never
further defined or discussed by the group of smokejumper foremen — the "over-
head" — who all were directed to use it to re-evaluate each and every one of the
fortv-eight temporary jumpers who had been terminated four months earlier. The
authorship of ratings assigned to specific temporary smokejumpers on the matrix
was intentionally anonymous. Quite in contrast to the routine standards of written
performance evaluations, no provision was provided on the form for supervisors'
name or signatures. It hardly needs to be mentioned that the normal practice of
communicating evaluation standards to affected employees themselves was also to-
tally ignored in this event.
While the matrix contained a space for "remarks," whether or not any one of the
overhead ever made any such entries will never be known, since once their numeri-
cal ratings had been recorded, averaged, collated and transcribed onto a master list
numerically ranking all temporary smokejumpers, the original matrix forms — the
only evidence relating individual supervisors' ratings to inmvidual smokejumpers —
were destroyed.
"I shredded them," the personnel clerk for the jump base reported.
The rationale provided for this destruction of evidence of their surreptitious delib-
erations was that these docvunents now were not actually evaluations as such, but
rather "work sheets" developed in a "selection" process which are routinely de-
stroyed once selections have been made.
The resulting list numerically ranking all temporary smokejumpers — what might
be termed as ' reverse register" since its sole purpose was to eUminate jobs rather
than fill them — was used to determine which eUgible returning temporary jumpers
would be "selected" and who would not.
Since it was produced in secret, completed anonymously, then destroyed so that
any evidence linking any supervisor to any assigned rating would be forever eradi-
cated, what the matrix ultimately created is a blacklist.
Presumably, a cut-off" point was determined and those falling below it were not
selected. But when I asked that question directly to a foreman who had participated
in the proceeding, the best he could say was, "more or less." The Base Manager de-
clined to answer the same question. And further attempts on my part to obtain in-
formation from unit supervisors have been curtailed by directives to them from the
Regional Office not to discuss the case with me.
Before this gag order was issued, however, the best justification that could be of-
fered by any Federal official for the agency's own performance in this matter was
basically, "We can do anything we want to do." I was told repeatedly that there are
no regulations or directives which in any way limit the methods a Federal agency
may choose to eliminate temporary employees. More than one person reiterated
what an O.P.M. official flatly stated to me: "Basically, as a temporary, you have no
rights." When I recounted to that person the siureptitious creation and implementa-
tion of the matrix, detailed above, their only reply was, "Well, obviously they (evalu-
ating supervisors) didn't do it right the first time."
Yet when I have explained these same circumstances to other people, both inside
and outside the Civil Service, who are knowledgeable about Federal Government
poUcies and practices, but who have no connection with the specific agency units in-
volved in this case, they are incredulous. They confirm my belief that in creating
this thing called the "matrix," the U.S. Forest Service not only ignored its own poli-
cies and practices, but it has also significantly violated broad ethical standards re-
lating to the way employers everywhere treat their employees.
52
Unfortunately, the same people advise me that there is little under current law
that I can do about it. Short of engaging in costly, lengthy litigation the results of
which, in view of past cases, would not likely be successful, I have no recourse as
an aggrieved temporary Federal employee to seek effective relief None that any
Federal agency has to take seriously, that is, unless I fit into one of the categories
covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Thus, the condition is created
that's been repeatedly stated to me: "We can do anything we want to do."
What they're really saying is, "We can get away with anything we want to do."
And until this situation is legislatively relieved, I'm afraid they're right.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of what I have experienced as a former temporary employee of the U.S.
Forest Service, I believe the following recommendations should be implemented into
law to prevent any Federal agency from ever treating any temporary employee in
this manner again. I am well aware that Congress is mandated to prevent the cost
of effective government from rising, and I believe this concern is reflected in my rec-
ommendations. I do not believe the implementation of any of them will significantly
increase the cost to the taxpayer.
(1) There needs to be an established standard for written performance appraisals
to be provided to ali temporary employees at the completion of their service. It
should be based solely on criteria communicated to them by a statement that they
sign at the outset of their employment. Any performance less than satisfactory
should be documented in writing and signed by the supervisor observing the per-
formance. Employees should be promptly informed whenever any less-than-satisfac-
tory performance occurs so they have the opportunity to correct it and improve. Any
documentation developed pertaining to any employee's performance shoiild be pro-
tected by law from destruction by the employer. All employees should have the right
of access to any documentation produced by the employer pertaining to their per-
formance and emplo)Tnent in general.
(2) There needs to be a systematic and efficient grievance procedure instituted for
temporary employees that goes beyond the right to petition your supervisor's boss.
The existing three-step grievance process mandated by the contract between the
Forest Service and the National Federation of Federal Employees should be ex-
tended to cover all temporary employees of the Federal Government. Eventual cul-
mination of such complaints by temporary employees should involve mediation and
arbitration services completely independent of any of the parties involved. And once
in place, employing agencies should be required by law to inform all their temporary
employees of their rights and options under the law.
(3) In the event that an agency cannot rehire all its temporary employees who
have performed satisfactorily in a previous season (as documented in writing follow-
ing #1, above), the selection of those it can re-hire, aft«r giving proper consideration
to written Affirmative Action plans already in place, should be based on a seniority
system directly tied to the date when an employee was first hired to do the job for
which he or she is being considered for re-hire. In cases where two or more persons
share the same date, their individual seniority should be determined by their rel-
ative place on the original applicant register developed by the personnel office when
they were first hired.
As an alternative to the above, an agency faced with a reduced number of posi-
tions could instead elect to have all former temporary employees seeking re-hire file
an updated Application for Employment (Standard Form 171), and then fill their po-
sitions according to established personnel standards and practices relating to selec-
tion.
In conclusion, I believe all of these recommendations are reasonable and feasible.
They are nowhere near as stringent as existing policies concerning the manner in
which career Federal Government employees are treated under similar cir-
cumstances. To a great extent, they are identical to practices currently followed by
many employers in the private sector. Finally, if the ultimate goal is to get improved
work from an improved work force, they just make good sense.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration of my testimony.
53
06/21/93 17:39
ami at rf/^r.n cj>ii o^ >
Fi£ Tpoiue^ ef^-:ree
seuietlmj^ijre /^i^f * -■ /
54
^■Tir^t United States
m f}A Office of
Personnel Management Washington, d c 20415-0001
Mr. Roger W. Archibald * fiJfo 5 1993
4618 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19139
Dear Mr. Archibald:
We have thoroughly reviewed the material you left with us and
have also conducted a review of hiring procedures with the
U.S. Forest Service Region One in Missoula, Montana.
As I am sure you know, 0PM' s jurisdiction over positions in the
excepted service is necessarily very limited inasmuch as the
purpose for the exception is to remove the positions from the
provisions of law and 0PM regulations governing employment in
the competitive civil service.
In essence, we basically confirmed what the Forest Service told
you in response to your grievance. According to Region One
personnel representatives, 1993 is the first year that they
have had more reappointment eligibles than positions to offer
them. This resulted from the higher than average number of
seasonal appointments made in 1992 and reduction in position
funding for the 1993 season.
After considering the views of smoke jumpers, management decided
to base reappointments on the results of an evaluation of
seasonal employees, using the six performance-related criteria
contained in the matrix that the Forest Service sent you. The
Aerial Fire Depot foreman and five or six other supervisors
rated each candidate on the six factors.
Of the 48 reappointment eligibles, the Aerial Fire Depot and
sub-bases at Grangeville and West Yellowstone hired 41
individuals. Of the remaining seven, two were appointed by
other installations, three declined or were unavailable, and
two were not selected. You were rated number 46 and the other
individual not selected was rated number 48.
Since the Forest Service determines the criteria it will use to
reappoint its excepted service smoke jumpers, we are not in a
position to question its methodology. We can say that the
procedures used appear to be job related and appear to have
55
-2-
been applied fairly and uniformly. The agency insists that
your age and exercise of free speech played no part in its
decision and that reappointment was determined strictly by the
combined rating on the six factors. Your veterans' preference
was no help because you were not passed over to select a lower-
ranking non-veteran.
Should you continue to believe that the agency's actions
violated the Prohibited Personnel Practices in law
(5 U.S.C. 2302), you may appeal to the Office of the Special
Counsel by writing to them at 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20005.
You may be interested to know that we are undertaking a review
of all Schedule A excepted service appointing authorities,
including those of the Forest Service, with a view toward sim-
plifying and streamlining the appointment process. This could
have an effect on Forest Service policies for the coming year
so you should stay in touch with your personnel office if you
intend to seek reappointment in 1994.
I can appreciate your disappointment at not being offered
reappointment as a smokejumper. I hope you have been able to
locate other equally challenging and rewarding work.
I'dAtd P. McHugh, t)irector
Staffing Policy Division
56
^kji.
United States
Office of
Personnel Management
Washington, DC. 20415-0001
Mr. Roger W. Archibald
4618 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19139
JUL-21993
Dear Mr. Archibald:
Thank you for sending the documentation concerning your
complaint against the U.S. Forest Service. We have asked
0PM' s Office of Agency Compliance and Evaluation to look
into your complaint and determine whether the Forest
Service's reappointment procedures violated legal or
regulatory requirements. We will keep you informed of
the results of that review.
Singgrely,
57
PoiwT 5SCre/v)'. 0= UNAcoeprASL-e' (Nseo ^l><iun^JNiohon) '
J = NEEDS ii^ptloveo^fi -
Z- SAT<sPAcroR.y
rAj/ce/'
5f *>/i'«//'MSrF« /(.CffK -■ /
/^«..
58
Mr. McCloskey. Did Mr. Campbell have any comments or obser-
vations?
Mr. Campbell. Good morning.
First of all, I thought I was crazy for going into fires, but this
guy has a lot of nerve to do what he does, jumping out of airplanes
going into forest fires.
Our situation sounds the same with the temporary status in
term status. Who classifies what, how it is classified, we don't
know.
OPM, we talked to them
Mr. McCloskey. You are out there on the job now at
Brecksville?
Mr. Campbell. I work at the VA Brecksville unit in Cleveland,
OH. I am employed there. I am one of the lucky permanent fire-
fighters out of four.
Again, I just lost two of my temporaries because they say that
they would not renew the last two that I lost. I am losing two more
in October. Unfortunately, three of the four temps come October
are vets — ^Vietnam vets, a Navy vet and a Marine Corps vet. Unfor-
tunately, the last one that will be leaving in October is one of our
gentlemen that has been there 8 years, as a temporary, not a term.
That is why I say we want to know the explanation of why is it
called a temp instead of term. Why do we have neither one?
This job is not seasonal, you know, compared to what Mr.
Archibald's was. This is, again, a 365-day-a-year job.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.
I think all three of you have heard my concerns and the concerns
of my two colleagues. I think, frankly, specifically as to most of the
concerns you raise. I must say I was impressed very much by Mr.
King's presentation. I know from his public and private statements
he is very aware of all the inequities in the area, and I think he
is committed to major changes. But for Mr. Haywood and Mr.
Campbell, I guess one of the thoughts that comes to mind is you
are, in essence, VA employees, right, firefighters for the VA.
Mr. Haywood. That is right.
Mr. Campbell. Yes.
Mr. McCloskey. Are there other locations where there are tem-
porary fire fighters in the civil service?
Point of background for conversation, we in Indiana have fire-
fighters in the Federal service at Crane working for the Depart-
ment of Defense and I know they are permanent employees with
full benefits, full rights, pension, health care, retirement, griev-
ance, you name it. Obviously, if we have people in similar positions
in the Federal service doing identical duty year after year but by
reason of administrative or agency difi'erentiation they are getting
treated grossly differently, Mr. Haywood, I would say there is a
real equity problem right there in fire services, wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Haywood. Yes, sir. Like doing the survey we conducted, we
keep communicating among the different VA's, we are fire depart-
ments, and at this point it appears that most installations utilize
the temporary system within the OPM guidelines pretty well. At
this moment, Brecksville is really the one that really we feel is ex-
ploiting this system.
Mr. Chairman, another thing
59
Mr. McCloskey. To my specific question on that, are there other
locations that you know of treating permanent firefighters as tem-
poraries?
Mr. Campbell, May I ask, are you talking strictly the VA or De-
partment of Defense?
Mr. McCloskey. I am talking to your knowledge.
Mr. Campbell. Strictly the VA, of our 32 or 33 VA's that have
fire departments, there might be 3 counting myself. OK? What you
are talking about, 550 roughly firefighters, there may be 30. We
have the largest amount right now.
Mr. McCloskey. Ninety-five percent are being treated as perma-
nent, right?
Mr. Campbell. Right.
Mr. McCloskey. There is an inequity right there.
Mr. Campbell. May I tell you this, more than 10 or 30 percent
of the VA's in that listing were temporary firefighters and they
made those gentlemen permanent, also because of the fact some of
their fire chiefs did not want temporary firefighters; they wanted
all permanent because basically it is like what I call the stroke of
a pen that made the people permanent. The fire chiefs wanted to
suggest through their OPM, personnel office, that we wanted full-
time firefighters, permanent, not temporaries.
Mr. McCloskey. What benefits do your temporary people have
now?
Mr. Campbell. Zero. We are — our temporaries are GS-5, step 1
firefighters. They do not have the right to get a step increase. Not
getting a step increase is like money out of the pocket, you know.
It was $500 or $600 a year especially on these guys.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.
I might say I am kind of jealous of your life overall despite these
problems, Mr. Archibald, smokejumping, merchant marine officer,
excitement, ports of call every month of the year.
Mr. Archibald. It always looks more exciting from the outside
though, than from the inside, I assure you.
Mr. McCloskey. The movie fare in smokejumpers is everyone is
19 to 21. I suspect you might be over 25.
Mr. Archibald. I sometimes feel the agency wished it were that
way. Their policies have actually resulted, though, in a gradual in-
crease in the age of jumpers because it used to be considered one
of the primary entrance routes to the agency. Forestry students
would go to the University of Montana and jump for a couple years
in Missoula. Usually in your second year you were given a career
appointment, a 6 and 20 appointment. That meant it guaranteed
you six pay periods of work every year. That allowed you to apply
for other jobs.
If you were a forestry student or something, when you graduated
you were in perfect line to apply for forestry positions, but they
ended that in 1984. Since then, jumpers who have wanted to move
up and out and get out into other positions in the Forest Service
have been to a certain extent stymied.
Mr. McCloskey. How many years of Federal smokejumping
service do you have overall?
60
Mr. Archibald. I rate it by seasons. I don't know what the total
year count would be, but I have six full seasons since 1984-1984
and 1985 and 1989 through 1992.
Mr. McCloskey. What is a season? Six months?
Mr. Archibald. It is about 3 months. It depends on the place.
In northern California, it is a month or two longer, and the north-
ern Rockies, it tends to be a little shorter; Alaska. But 3 months
is generally — they actually budget it for six pay periods and then
as needed funding is made available to keep coverage until the fire
season ends.
Mr. McCloskey. How about health insurance and other bene-
fits? Could you tell me your experience on that?
Mr. Archibald. There is absolutely no health insurance, no re-
tirement, as the gentleman pointed out. The only benefits really
above and beyond what are required by law — I mean, when I hear
people talk about Social Security as a benefit the agency it is giv-
ing, I have a laugh, because we all get it. But the only benefits
above and beyond these statutory requirements are annual leave
which all temporaries get at a minimum of 4 hours per pay period
and sick leave, which all temporaries get and all employees. I get
it at 2 hours per pay period.
After you have 3 years' Federal service, it goes up to I believe
6 hours per pay period. Those are the only two benefits per se that
I am aware of that they give you that they are not required to give
you by law, as I understand it.
Mr. McCloskey. This is fantastically dangerous specialized serv-
ice. What is your pay, typical pay per season? How was it allo-
cated?
Mr. Archibald. My total take home, you mean?
Mr. McCloskey. Describe how much you make. What was your
pay like?
Mr. Archibald. The attraction of the job is primarily the pay, to
be honest; that sounds unusual.
Mr. McCloskey. Sounds interesting.
Mr. Archibald. It is the overtime and hazard pay. If there were
no fires in the whole season, you just sat at the base all year, it
would be a poor season. Jumpers in general have a good year — a
good year is a year with lots of fires. The base pay for a rookie
smokejumper is GS-5 and then for a smokejumper with 1 year ex-
perience and more, it is GS-6. You could jump for 30 years and it
is going to be GS-6. It will be GS-6, step 1. Never go above that.
That is your base pay.
As that base pay increases, your pay increases based on cost-of-
living allowance and things like that. As far as overtime, you get
paid time-and-a-half for every hour over 8 hours per day. If you
work on the weekend, you get time-and-a-half for every hour. I be-
lieve the hazard pay is rated at 25-percent increase over your base
pay. So it is another 25 percent thrown on.
You get hazard pay for every hour you work in any day where
you incurred a hazard. So if you come to work at 8 or 9 o'clock in
the morning and you go all day and jump a fire at 6 o'clock in the
evening and you work to midnight even though you were only expe-
riencing the hazard for 6 hours, you get hazard pay for every hour
from when you reported for work that day. That is a benefit, too.
61
Mr. McCloskey. a typical season could be what, $50,000,
$60,000?
Mr. Archibald. Oh, no, no, I would say the best season I ever
had — that was a long season from beginning of May until the end
of September, I made $16,000.
Mr. McCloskey. $16,000?
Mr. Archibald. $16,000, and I usually get $10,000 to $12,000,
that is with overtime, hazard, and everjrthing. That is working es-
sentially a 3-month season, June through the end of September.
Mr. McCloskey. OK.
Anything else? How about your points? They are on the record,
but for the benefit of all of us why don't you just, Mr. Archibald,
list your legislative and policy suggestions.
Mr. Archibald. There are three things I have and I will try to
summarize them. The first one concerns performance evaluations,
and I had no idea it was really necessary because it has been my
experience that this has already been sort of the institutionalized
case everywhere. A performance evaluation, the primary purpose is
to help an employee improve their job. So the very idea of evaluat-
ing an employee's performance and then destroying the record I
find totally ludicrous.
Mr. McCloskey. We will go along with that, and we raised that
to Mr. King.
Mr. Archibald. And communicate the standards, sign-up when
you come to work, if there is a problem, let you know. If you are
less than satisfactory, document it and give you a signed statement
at the end.
Second, I am concerned about the grievance procedure and essen-
tially the concerns you made. There has to be some system where-
by a temporary can take a grievance to someone other than just
the next person up the chain of command. They should go through
that step proposal, similar to the NFFE contract, but there should
be some independent arbitration or mediation authority that can
decide.
Finally, on the issue most near to my heart is the business of
layoffs. In fact, with temporaries who work seasonally, it is not a
layoff; you are all laid off. It is a matter of reselection.
I realize that in the future, as the Government has to pare back
and cut costs, I understand Mr. King mentioned that the Depart-
ment of Defense is going to have to significantly cut its temporary
force. There will be a time, obviously, when lots of these decisions
are going to be made. Rather than just sit down and shoot from
the hip, is really what this is, I think there ought to be a standard
practice. My suggestion is that you just use seniority — I should
amend that, first you take into account existing affirmative action
plans, written affirmative action plans in place, and after consider-
ation is given to those, just go by strict seniority. By that, I mean
the original date that you were first hired to do that job at that
site, not somewhere else but at that particular site.
In the case of smokejumping, that could be problematic. They are
hired in a class sometimes and they all report on the same date.
If you had 20 people hired at the same time, and you have to lay
off 10, how would you do it?
70-660 0-94-3
62
I have two suggestions: Either you go back to the original em-
ployment register, the document that was created from the applica-
tions, the SF-171's, and you take their ranking on that register
and you go in reverse order along that. That would be one way.
The other way is to say, "we are faced with a reduction next
year." Instead of giving anybody the noncompetitive rehire pref-
erence, say, "we will not give that to anybody." Everybody fills out
a new SF-171, and rerate those and come up with an employment
register, and do it that way.
Mr. McCloskey. Two quick questions and we are going to have
to move this to finish up when we need to. But did anyone in all
this experience coming out of your last appearance with Mr. Kan-
jorski, did anyone in a supervisory position or related position, in
essence, let out any clues that you will be persona non grata, or
comment or roll the eyes?
If no one did, I will say — assuming what happened that you were
suspicious of happening, they would be amazingly gifted and slick
administrators if there was not one clue anjrwhere other than the
terminal dump.
Mr. Archibald. Nobody did it in my presence. That is all I can
state.
There are some other issues. I think the fact that I was the only
person in the meeting on September 15 who vehemently opposed
the primary use of performance evaluations the way they had it —
but I developed that further in my statement — I was the only per-
son in that meeting who opposed that. Other people said, "I don't
know, maybe. . . ."
But I had a similar problem when I jumped in Redding, CA,
again, with a performance evaluation that was sent to me months
after the fact. I just said, "you are opening up a can of worms if
you only do performance evaluations; you should come up with
something that you can justify because of the possibility of subjec-
tivity."
I think as it turned out, they made all the wrong moves as far
as this matter was concerned.
Mr. McCloskey. How about safety? What is the track record on
serious injuries and fatalities among your brethren?
Mr. Archibald. The track record on fatalities is very small.
Until 2 years ago, there had been only three fatalities in the 50-
odd-year history of the program, and only one of those occurred be-
tween the plane and the ground. It wasn't due to a malfunctioning
parachute, it was due to a misroute of a static line that caused a
jumper to break his neck.
The other two fatalities resulted in errors when letting down out
of a tree. The jumper landed in the tree and had to get to the
ground. So they were not related to the parachute equipment but
errors the jumper made.
Two years ago a jumper was killed in an experimental capacity,
testing a new parachute, and so that was the fourth fatality. Actu-
ally, I have to amend that, there were three Forest Service and one
of those others was with the Army who was doing jumping.
Mr. McCloskey. If tragically that happens to your brethren on
occasion, what are the provisions for Federal life insurance?
63
Mr. Archibald. I have no recollection. That is something that is
never discussed.
Mr. McCloskey. That is an amazing thing, in something that
hazardous, if major life insurance is not provided as a matter of
course.
Mr. Archibald. I should point out that the risk to life in the job,
at least based statistically, is not that great.
Mr. McCloskey. I understand.
Mr. Archibald. The risk to injury is much, much higher. Last
year, they had a significant increase in injuries to jumpers. In fact,
the rookie class became known as the glass class because of so
many injuries.
Mr. McCloskey. And can you comment on economic repercus-
sions as to injuries?
Mr. Archibald. All injuries are on the job, so that the policy is,
I believe I should know; I broke my ankle in 1984 — ^you get full pay
for 45 days and then you go to workers compensation. So you get
Department of Labor picking up a portion of your salary, and you
are maintained on that level until you recover and are back to
jump status, or until some determination for settlement or some-
thing else is made if you, in fact, will never be able to jump again.
Mr. McCloskey. Are you aware of any medical injuries, not
where directly or indirectly were compensated from the Federal
service?
Mr. Archibald. I am aware of a number of problems and com-
plaints by people who were — ^who received career ending injuries
and who felt they were treated very shabbily by the agency. I don't
want to mention any names but there are three or four that come
to mind.
Mr. McCloskey. Could you provide them, not to put anybody on
the spot but maybe he would talk to them or provide the committee
with some background on what I think is something that we would
like to know?
Mr. Archibald. I would be happy to. Are you interested in tem-
poraries or all?
Mr. McCloskey. Use your judgment. You are a good communica-
tor.
Mr. Archibald. My understanding is temporaries and perma-
nent employees are treated the same when it comes to injuries,
compensation and so on.
Mr. McCloskey. I have no further questions.
Mr. Haywood. I would like to address one more issue, Mr. Chair-
man,
Like you stated earlier, as far as appeal rights for temporaries
and grievance procedures, and so on, being a AFGE officer now, as
I testified, I do cover the whole installation and different depart-
ments and some of the terms, the supervisor uses these meetings
as far as they have no appeal rights to intimidate certain individ-
uals, seeing individuals get laid off because they have caused
waves or have disagreed with management, and I do feel this is an
area that is needed to be addressed, too. Thank you.
Mr. McCloskey. I thank you very much, gentlemen. I hope we
will get some things resolved out of all of this today.
64
Our concluding panel are three, Mr. Robert Keener, president of
the National Federation of Federal Employees; Robert Tobias,
president of the National Treasury Employees Union; and Bobby
Hamage, national secretary-treasurer of the American Federation
of Government Employees.
I have read all three statements and I welcome you. You obvi-
ously see how the hearing is going with some of the concerns the
committee is raising, and the replies from Mr. King.
Your statements will be included in the record. You may proceed
as you wish.
STATEMENTS OF ROBERT KEENER, PRESmENT, NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; ROBERT TOBIAS,
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION;
BOBBY HARNAGE, NATIONAL SECRETARY TREASURER,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Keener. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the
committee, I am Bob Keener, president of the National Federation
of Federal Employees.
I would like ask that my statement be made a part of the record
and I would like to summarize some points from my statement.
The National Federation of Federal Employees represents tem-
porary Federal workers in many Government agencies. In fact, we
have several locals comprised entirely of temporary Federal em-
ployees. Most of the temporary workers we represent are employed
by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Forest Service.
The facts of temporary employment within the Federal Govern-
ment paint a bleak picture of the second-class status of tem-
poraries. Temporary Federal workers work side by side with their
permanent counterparts and perform the same work. They are held
to the same standards of accountability and quality of work output.
Yet, they are denied universal employment protections and bene-
fits. Temporary Federal employees compensated according to the
General Schedule do not receive annual within-grade wage in-
creases — step increases — ^nor do they have adverse action protec-
tion rights. Reduction-in-force [RIF] protection laws do not apply to
temporary Federal workers. They can be released from their jobs
tomorrow with no warning and no severance. Temporary Federal
workers do not receive employer-sponsored health insurance.
Temporary Federal employees are not eligible to participate in
the Federal thrift savings plan. As a result, many of these individ-
uals will lack adequate retirement incomes as they enter their
golden years. Finally, temporary employees are even excluded from
coverage under the recently enacted Family and Medical Leave Act.
In our opinion, there is no justification for treating temporary
workers differently than their permanent counterparts.
Many Federal agencies claim that the use of temporary workers
enables them to achieve necessary workplace flexibility. The NFFE
recognizes and accepts the need for flexibility in the workplace. As
such, we support the legitimate use of temporary workers by Gov-
ernment agencies as one way to achieve that goal. However, all too
often, agencies use temporary Federal workers to circumvent per-
sonnel hiring ceilings or to avoid the costs associated with perma-
nent employment. The trend toward Government downsizing has
65
increased agency use of temporary employees and has exacerbated
the problem as a result.
Current regulations prohibit agencies from employing a tem-
porary in the same capacity for more than 4 years. However, many
of our members have served in their current capacity well beyond
the 4-year limitation. In many cases, these individuals have re-
quested permanent appointments. Frequently, they have not only
been denied a permanent appointment but they have been prohib-
ited from even applying. While some of these people have been suc-
cessful in fighting their temporary status, many others are too
afraid to come forward. They need their jobs and cannot afford to
lose them.
Within the last 2 weeks, I received 20 letters from NFFE mem-
bers who are temporary employees. Their stories are heart-
breaking. Several wrote anonymously. Of those who wrote, 18 had
been employed as temporaries for 10 years or more. All have been
seeking permanent employment elsewhere. I would like to include
them in the record if I might.
One worker who wrote was recently forced into bankruptcy due
to $44,000 in unexpected medical costs. Another temporary was re-
taliated against by his supervisor for writing to his Congressman
seeking relief.
Yet another individual wrote to say they had undergone 12 sur-
geries in the last 18 months for which they have no insurance cov-
erage. Another individual currently faces losing her temporary job
because of a work-related injury that is not compensable under
workers' compensation and she cannot afford the continued treat-
ment necessary for complete rehabilitation.
The urgency of the letters, and the fact that they were written
at all indicates the despondency these individuals feel over their
status as temporary employees.
Mr. Chairman, last year, you successfully attached legislation to
the Fiscal Year 1993 National Defense Authorization Act requiring
the Office of Personnel Management [0PM] to conduct a study on
the feasibility of providing temporary employees with the same em-
ployment benefits as permanent workers. We have reviewed that
report and found it to be very informative and forthright.
However, we must respectfully disagree with OPM's assertion
that nothing should be done with respect to benefits until other is-
sues such as national health care are resolved. We believe that cer-
tain actions could and should be remedied now to prevent the fur-
ther abuse of temporary workers.
First, we believe that OPM's examples to agencies on the appro-
priate uses of temporary work are overbroad and invite abuse by
the hiring authority. In the current environment of downsizing and
severe budget restriction, these criteria could be applied easily to
any vacant position in the Government.
We urge that these guidelines be rewritten to send a clear mes-
sage to Federal agencies that temporaries should only be used to
meet varying work load demand in seasonal or emergency situa-
tions.
Second, we concur with several of OPM's proposed options re-
garding the provision of health insurance, retirement, thrift sav-
ings plan, within-grade increases, and promotion and conversion to
66
career appointments. Specifically, we would accept OPM's provision
to provide temporary workers with a reduced waiting period before
becoming eligible for health insurance benefits. We also believe the
Government contribution should kick in after a short length of
service.
We would also suggest that a 2-year waiting period is much more
equitable than the 5-year period suggested by 0PM. Moreover, we
believe that it is imperative to move forward with this option now
rather than wait for the national health insurance reform due to
the fact that such reform may not be implemented for several
years. Several years is a long time to suffer.
We further believe that provisions for life insurance should par-
allel the provisions of hezdth benefits.
With respect to the retirement coverage, we accept OPM's option
that retirement coverage should be provided once a certain thresh-
old of accumulated service has been reached. Again, however, we
suggest 2 years is more equitable than the 5-year limit. If the time
limit is longer than 2 years, then all service should be considered
fully creditable.
Finally, no justification exists, and 0PM offered none, to prohibit
workers under the GS schedule from receiving within-grade pay in-
crease or for prohibiting their transfer into career appointment po-
sitions. Currently, wage grade temporaries receive within-grade in-
creases. Clearly, the decision to deny such increases to GS schedule
workers is an abusive practice designed only to save money.
In conclusion, in many respects temporary Federal workers con-
stitute America's working poor. These workers, too, have a right to
expect their Government to be a model employer, not what it has
become for these employees, a callous and uncaring bureaucracy.
It is ironic that the Government that was designed to protect
them and defend their rights is the very employer who is abusing
them and assaulting their dignity. This abuse by our Government
must stop.
The integrity of the civil service depends on it.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you for an excellent statement, Mr.
Keener.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keener follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Keener, President, National Federation of
Federal Employees
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Committee, on behalf of the
National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), 1 appreciate the opportunity to
present our views on the use of temporary hiring authority by the federal govern-
ment. The NFFE is the oldest independent federal employee union and represents
approximately 150,000 federal workers in 53 different agencies across the country.
We hope that our experience with temporary federal emplovment will result in legis-
lative action which will correct the egregious inequities which cvurently plague the
system.
The National Federation of Federal Employees represents temporary federal
workers in many government agencies. In fact, we have several locals comprised en-
tirely of temporary federal employees. Most of the temporary workers we represent
are employed by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Forest Service.
The facts of temporary employment within the federal government paint a bleak
picture of the second class status of temporaries. Temporary federal workers work
side by side with their permanent counterparts and perform the same work. They
67
are held to the same standards of accountability and quality of work output. Yet,
they are denied universal employment protections and benefits. Temporary federal
employees compensated according to the General Schedule do not receive annual
within-grade wage increases (step increases) nor do they have adverse action protec-
tion rights. Reduction-in-force (RIF) protection laws do not apply to temporary fed-
eral workers. The can be released from their jobs tommorrow — with no warning and
no severance. Temporary federal workers do not receive employer-sponsored health
insurance. Temporary federal employees are not eUgible to participate in the federal
thrift savings plan. As a result, many of these individuals will lack adequate retire-
ment incomes as they enter their "golden years". Finally, temporary employees are
even excluded from coverage under the recently enacted Family and Medical Leave
Act. In our opinion, there is no justification for treating temporary workers dif-
ferently than their permanent counterparts.
Many federal agencies claim that the use of temporary workers enables them to
achieve necessary workplace flexibility. The NFFE recognizes and accepts the need
for flexibility in the workplace. As such, we support the legitimate use of temporary
workers by government agencies as one way to achieve that goal. However, all too
often, agencies use temporary federal workers to circumvent personnel hiring ceil-
ings or to avoid the costs associated with permanent employment. The trend to-
wards government downsizing has increas^ agency use of temporary employees
and has exacerbated the problem as a result.
Current regulations prohibit agencies fi-om employing a temporary in the same ca-
pacity for more than four years. However, many of our members have served in
their current capacity well beyond the four year limitation. In many cases, these in-
dividuals have requested permanent appointments. Frequently, they have not only
been denied a permanent appointment but they have been prohibited from even ap-
plying. While some of these people have been successful in fighting their temporary
status, many others are too afi*aid to come forward. They need their jobs and cannot
afford to lost them.
Within the last two weeks, I received 20 letters from NFFE members who are
temporary employees. Their stories are heartbreaking. Several wrote anonymously.
Of those who wrote, 18 had been employed as temporaries for 10 years or more. All
have been seeking permanent employment elsewhere.
One worker who wrote was recently forced into bankruptcy due to $44,000 in un-
expected medical costs. Another temporary was retaliated against by his supervisor
for writing to his congressman seeking relief. Since that time, this individual has
been repeatedly denied permanent jobs for which he was, and is, eminently well
qualified. Yet another individual wrote to say that she had undergone 12 surgeries
in the past 18 months — for which she had no insurance coverage. One individual
currently faces losing her tempMjrary job because of a work related injury that is not
compensable under workers' compensation. She cannot afford the continued treat-
ment necessary for her complete rehabilitation. The urgency of the letters, and the
fact that they were written at all indicates that despondency these individuals feel
over their status as temporary employees.
Mr. Chairman, last year, you successfully attached legislation to the Fiscal Year
1993 National Defense Authorization Act requiring the Office of Personnel Manage-
ment (0PM) to conduct a study on the feasibility of providing temporary employees
with the same employment benefits as permanent workers. We have reviewed that
report and found it to be very informative and forthright, if not somewhat controver-
sial, in its analysis and proposed options. We agree with 0PM that the issue of pro-
viding benefits to temporary workers is one of cost and equity. However, we must
respectfully disagree with OPM's assertion that nothing should be done until other
issues, such as national health care, are resolved. We believe that certain actions
could, and should, be remedied now to prevent further abuse of temporary workers.
First, we believe that the OPM's examples to agencies on the appropriate uses of
temporary workers are overbroad and invite abuse of temporary hiring authority.
Specifically, 0PM lists the following as appropriate uses of temporaries:
1. Staffing continuing positions when future funding and workload levels are un-
certain or when it is anticipated that funding levels will be reduced or that the ac-
tivity will be reorganized;
2. Filling permanent positions on a temporary basis in order to save them for
eventual incumbency by permanent employees expected to be displaced from other
parts of the organization; and,
3. Filling vacancies which occur in activities under study for possible contracting
out.
In the current environment of downsizing and severe budget restrictions, these
criteria could be applied easily to any position vacancy in the federal government.
These guidelines must be re-written to send a clear message to federal agencies that
68
temporaries should only be used to meet varying workload demand in seasonal or
emergency situations.
Second, we concur with several of OPM's proposed options regarding the provision
of health insurance, retirement, the thrift savings plan, within-grade pay increases
and promotion and conversion to career appointments. Specifically, we would accept
OPM's provision to provide temporary workers with a reduced waiting period before
becoming eligible for health insurance benefits. We also believe that the government
contribution should kick-in after a certain length of service. We would suggest that
a two year waiting period is much more equitable than the five year period sug-
gested by 0PM. Moreover, we believe that it is imperative to move forward with
this option now rather than wait for national health insurance reform due to the
fact that such reform may not be implemented for several years. We believe that
provisions for life insurance shoxild parallel the provision of health benefits.
With respect to the issue of retirement coverage, we accept OMP's option that re-
tirement coverage should be provided once a certain threshold of accumulated serv-
ice had been reached. Again, however, we suggest that two years is far more equi-
table than the five year limit suggested by OPM. If the time limit is longer than
two years, then all service should be considered as fiilly creditable.
Finally, no justification exists, and OPM has offered none, for either prohibiting
temporary workers covered under the General Schedule from receiving within-grade
pay increases or for prohibiting their transfer into career appointment positions.
Currently, Wage Grade temporaries receive within-grade increases. Clearly, the de-
cision to deny such increases to General Schedule workers is an abusive practice
designed only to save money. Living costs for temporary workers increase at the
same rate at that of all other workers. They should be provided with within-grade
pay increases as a matter of fairness and equity. Likewise, temporary federal work-
ers who have worked for the government for any length of time should not be forced
to compete with all outside candidates for vacancies in permanent positions. Many
of the temporary workers we represent have been employed with the government
for years. They often train new, permanent hires that eventually become their su-
pervisors. Obviously, such temporaries have enough value to the government to
train permanent workers. They should have enough value to be considered for per-
manent jobs themselves. Again, this is an issues of basic fairness and equity.
In conclusion, in many respects, temporary federal workers constitute America's
"working poor". It is ironic that the government that was designed to protect them
and defend their rights is the very employer who is abusing those rights and as-
saulting their dignity. This abuse by the federal government must be stopped. The
integrity of the civil service depends on it.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes may testimony. Again, I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today and I thank you for your continued commitment to the
issue of temporary emplojrment in the federal government. I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
69
6/04 16:48 page
Content-Length: 0000000078
Content-type: text
TBIS IS MY BORROR STORY' PLEASE ADVISE ME IF YOU RECEIVE-
R.E. PARKER: R06F01A
Content-Length: 0000001841
Content-type: text
Claire Renner-Hesset
NFFE National
Bello, my nane is Ramona Parker and an a temporary, NTE with the
DeGchutes National Forest, Supervisor's Office, Front Desk Information
assistant .
I am responding to the message received June 3, in regards to personal written
testimonies from temporary employees. I feel my story is worth sharing with
you and hope it will be read at the hearing in Washington, DC scheduled in June
1993.
I started out doing volunteer work for the Forest Service in February 1992, at
the Front Desk, as an Information Receptionist. Two months later I received a
180 day appointment which was followed by another 180 appt . I was terminated
in September and returned back to work as a NTE in October.
Being a single mother of two children, 2 and 6 years old, and without health
insurance of any kind, this can create many problems this day and age. With
medical costs being what they are it makes it impossible to provide the
essentials for daily living and pay for medical treatment.
In the last 13 months I have undergone 11 surgeries, and am scheduled for
another surgery again next week in Portland, Oregon. My doctors are aware
that I do not have medical insurance. The fact that I am not covered is the
reason I was unable to remain in the hospital overnight for extended
treatment. This may also be the reason surgery has been repeated many times.
I feel extrememly fortunate to be employed here on the Deschutes as I was
placed on the Donner Leave Program and many wonderful people donated hard
earned hours to me to help cover time loss, due to the surgeries I have
undergone .
I sincerely hope this "Horror" letter will help any and all temporaries that
are in a similiar situation.
Most Sincerely,
Ramona E . Parker
Information Assistant
Deschutes National Forest
70
Ed Hinds
206 E. S. 7th
Grangeville, ID 83530
June 6, 1393
NFFE National
Attn: Claire Renner-Hasset
1016 16th St. NW
Washington D.C. 20036
Dear Ms. Renner-Hassett :
I am writing this letter in response to your wanting input
on the Temporary Employment Issues. I have some stories I
would like to share with you.
To start out my career I applied for a Permanent Job
with the U.S. Forest Service in 1982 and was told that I
could not apply as I didn't already have a .job with the
Forest Service. I thought that was not giving me a fair
deal at a .job so I wrote my Congressman. My letter was
referred back to the personnel office in Grangeville and I
was called up to the office and informed by the personnel
assistant that if I ever wrote another letter like that to
my Congressman I would never work for the Forest Service
again. My wife was also told this by the same person. It
must have worked as I cannot seem to get a permanent job.
I have made several job certifications but no job. This
has haunted me ever since. I was asked by a District
Ranger who had only been on the forest for six months what
the deal was with me and the other district. There is
someone in a position of power on this forest that prevents
me from getting jobs.
Another example was when I applied for a job at a local
ranger district. I had been working at remote duty
stations for the past six seasons because I was unable to
work locally because of the earlier letter writing
incident. I had to live away from home during the week and
came home on the weekends. Anyway, I thought I would try
again as I was tired of living away from my wife and kids.
The timber forester called me up one day and ask if I was
interested in working on the timber crew, I advised
him that I was. He asked me to come up to the office and
talk it over. I went up to the office and was offered the
job and accepted. He advised me that we would start work
in about four to five weeks. After about four weeks went
by I was called by the Timber Management Assistant and told
that I did not have a job at the district anymore. I was
told by him that the District Ranger had made the decision
71
not to hire me. This was a real shock to me and my wife as
we had made plans around this Job. I went to the personnel
office and had a talk with the personnel officer and she
advised ttiat District Rangers could do anything they wanted
as I was just a temporary. I even set up a meeting with
the Ranger but he said he would not hire me with not
explanation as to why. I was very well qualified for this
job but I had to find another Job for the summer. It was
too late in the spring to find one with the Forest Service
so I took a Job with the State Dept . of Lands. The
following year I was able to get on temporary again for the
Forest Service.
Another so-called "policy" of the Forest Service is the
dual career policy one. My wife has worked for the Forest
Service for twelve years and I have yet to get a permanent
appointment. I have applied for numerous Jobs on the
forest where she originally worked and have made the "cert"
for about 507. of them. In one instance, I made the cert
for a Job on a specific district. Low and behold the cert
was cancelled because they wanted to hire a GS-11 and she
had a husband that had a NTE appointment and he needed a
Job too. The Job was again advertized and her husband was
given the Job. In another instance a GS-11 was coming to a
district but he had a wife that also needed a Job. One
came available and it was advertized. My wife applied for
the Job and again was in the top three on the cert but the
wife of the GS-11 was selected. In still another instance a
GS-9 was interested in a Job on this forest. However, his
wife was also with the Forest Service and would need a Job
also. A certification was prepared for a previously
advertized Job in which my wife was on the top three. When
this GS-9 was selected for his position, the cert was
cancelled and his wife was lateraled into the position.
On the forest my wife currently is on, I have made the cert
for at least six Jobs but to no avail. In one instance a
Significant Other was selected over me as a "dual career".
The dual carser policy is a good policy if it is fair to
everyone not Just the politically influenced positions.
And to select a person who is not even married to the
employee and is reimbursed for relocation costs does not
seem fair to me.
I am a still a GS-5/1 after working for the Forest Service
for 10 seasons. Being a temporary means no chance for an
increase in the step level. Some of my supervisors have
felt that training is only for permanent people, therefore
I have been denied training that would help my temporary
position. In one instance' I asked to go to a training to
become certified at the C level in the operation of the
chainsaws. My supervisor said that I could not go as they
should send a permanent, I finally got to go as the Fire
72
Management Officer realized that I was the most qualified
and he went to the Staff and it was a Staff decision that I
be allowed to go. As it worked out I became a "C"
Qualifier and am the only one on the Forest. I am one of
only 18 in the Region. Rather than the forest looking at
me as being beneficial, their response is better get a
permanent in this position in case I wouldn't be around in
the future, and that almost happened this year as being a
temporary I didn't know if I was going to have a Job due to
the budget. I finally got on with the district again but
it is in a different department. This is another thing
that drives me crazy. That is not knowing if I will have a
job from one year to the next. I don't consider myself an
itinerate worker being able to travel from town to town
looking for work. My wife has a Job here and my three
children are established in the school system. I am a
member of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to the School
Board. I coach Little Little and assist the High School
Softball coach. Just because I am a stable member of this
community does not mean I am unwilling to relocate. My
wife and I have applied for Jobs in Washington, Oregon,
Montana and California with the hopes of getting out of the
"temporary" mode and getting a permanent Job for me.
Sorry this letter is so late, but as usual the information
does not trickle through the system in a timely manner. I
do want my concerns heard, but I hope this letter will not
be detrimental to my "career" or that of my wife's. I am
sure there are several other individuals that could testify
on similiar incidents but are afraid of reprisal such as
not being hired back or blackballed. I know how that goes
- I've been there.
Sincerel y,
Ed Hinds
73
The Honorable Larry LaRocco April 12, 1993
U.S. House o£ Representatives B. 27100 River Rd.
Washington, D.C. 20513 Cataldo, ID 83810
Dear Mr. LoRocco:
This letter ia in reference to H.R. 606, recently introduced by Representative
Kanjorskl, and is to request that you co-aponsor this bill.
I have bo«n a tenporary employee (excepted service) on the Wallace Ranger
Diatrlet of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests since June 15, 1980. Although
I have progressed from a Wage Grade 02 laborer to My current position as a GS-7
Crew Leader in Silviculture, and hove received awards for outstanding
perforaance, Z an still not eligible for any of the benefits enjoyed by
pemanent employees. I cannot participate in the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Progran, the Federal Employees Retirement System, Federal Enployees
Croup Life Insurance, 1 get no step increases nor do I hove any assurance that
I will even have a Job next year.
Over the years a nunber of vacant positions for vhich I was qualified have been
advertised but I have not been able to apply because I do nor have "coapetetlve
status." U.R. 606 will give ae coTnpetetive status and enable me to apply for
future vacancies in the permanent work force.
Please give ne a chance to compete for a "real" job.
Sincerely,
Jerri Park
cc:Jeff Bell
74
tf^£ f o-r 3
Ohi THIS /5^ ^/»v or Ju^e /<?93^ fir-
/^io. Hours I REcei\/£o You^ b.q,, z>i^ecTi\/£
To IffTE^ //0ix}E\/£P. T /)fi 3£/JD/^G /CIA fil^O
//0P£S fV mi H^LP /fj T7f£ raTUfi£.
X fiM 51 i£RKS or fiGe fttJo f/fli/e aees!
UJoRKit^G Fc^R 7f^ FoRes,r ^S£•^y/c£^ f\[/£:R^
Rfit^<beR. OtSVfUZT^ ^5/K)CC /9SO^ GR /S Qoi>^
OF Course F\/ERi V€fl/? /=oft tHe First Fe\a/
i^f\RS X M/AS /)D\/iS£D Z IA/ouLO G£T fiN
/^f-ro»jrrf£-^r, For /Z <^F TH^se /V s^/?5oa/s
X /^ue u/oF.f<^D F/^oM 2 ro /o ho/^rH^ out
OF /f«/£-/?y YFflR RS f^ rtRtUFi^tJfifiCE p£RSot^ ^
Y=~uLL 71 ME TeMfofiafi.i ^ 77/fs SFflSc^i^ V^fiR
/i/ati&^fi /V, X f^MF 6e£tJ Cf\LL£0 &ftcK Tb
UJoRK fiS fl Part F/Me TFMfoRf^Ri /Ja/0
Pdv/ZS^O T CP>*>i OKitV (A/dftK' /=v?0M flPRiL (Jt^TlL
TBf Last of SFFTFriSE^ /?f3,
£'picH S£fisohi PRIOR 73 ny ^erafnJ To
UJ6RK -T ^£C£ft/£ p TTLePHi>Sl£ CALL /^5eOM HV
SuP£Ri//soR fiO(//S//<J0 Fl£ 7?/ftT 6ec(\us£ or
Budget- CuT^s, Me" /s a/oT sure usHctJ X vjiLL
&£. fiQLE To CoMf 6flCK To UJ<3«,K^ OK. (^uj /^oaJg
75
/s^fyVCf^AL
flq&e ^ cr 3
^ /4n 77te Sou I. Pa?ov<0€:/5 Foa ou«. >^use
I ''
I »
I OR. //OOL) /oaJQ -Z" a/AS <3o;MG rS /♦juc /? Jb6. AAiuJ
OUR CI-ilLDR£fJ ftRE <5RQ^rO /f/JO /ifif5/rJ(h ^M/it6S
OF THi^R oojaJ fKt^a X /9/^ ^r//L^. UJa/iK}rJ&
Ut4aER 7?/e 3f^rie /^ A/or uii,R5£ P/^eSSURE OR.
T z^t/iT A/o-r S££J^ MBL£- 72 /Pr/^a^D
flfiLiGhJfit^T Tumor 7^£'mooeo FHoti H^^ l£G)
ff/e /leOtZRL £'%PeN^>£S LU£/?e uJ£LI OyjCR
23^000 OolLFtRi * -2" PaOQBQLy /vS^x/^aJT
yeftR SiKicjE e>e/iJC ^rjPLoiCO BY 7?/e U»S.
Go\j£fifJMeAjr,
S/777a/G /a/ fl PlCKUl' CfiMPCR RT TfM fi\/£^1
f^tJQEJZ DlSTHKir A/or /^^/OuJA//^/G /r JT'm
GoinJG To 6e UJorKikIg -52 OR 9o //OORS THl5
Pps Per/od. rr jr Of^ti ujork r$z Mours^ i
K*4ciyj6 X CM A/or fiFfoKO 7& KEEP UP 7w/0
Pipces OF" RBSfDEfJcE ler fiLohiE oi^E, B^r
fii m 3ueeR,{/fsoR vJoaio Pur /r, " /r /ou
//^i/e /?A// PRo&LEei cu/tH rM-s, /ou cak/ <s7wirr
G»i/^ /? N> r. £. BPf>0ifJTtl£,4T fi f^aJ VE^RS
6/lcK /^/? hOUlSED ^r THE 7/ME r u/oaLO tE
ZfiiEj) of^f fir L£f^sT 30 VftYS our of ^i/e^y
76
fiiQ,e 3 cY i
SiMPiy /ieatiT X /?« /R FixLL Tff^e: 7^MPc>Kf\Ky
et^pL«>ye£ "A/ar To eKceeo" /Vo«e 7;%^n/ SLBt/etJ
/ioM77/s <9r aJcx?K j°a^ ye^^ , ^uSBuesi if iou
ftR 7We s/=»/i£ supeR.\ji$Qfii /^ 77<t Pasr /2. y£/»rs.
//e uJas A//CG EaJouGH To TFLL a/P A/or 7b Co^ff
6flC/< 7b WORK //^ X /^i) /9a/Y PRoaLEti UliW W'S,
Ms. P^^^Yj oaI JofJE JZajo 1995 T
\R£<i£iU€D FPn LerreR 3ic-2s 5u6JFcr,'
I A<irH<yR(ZieD use of T^H^oKf\^'i Rppon^rrtetJrs
UhiDEA ,5 QFR 3/6 - yo/, J' flfl S€^SD)tJQ> fi
Copy or YouR Gi^Ecnye fifJt> FPM Lfttsr
wiTH Wis //Jfbfi^firriOfJ.
^n /iMlFS^ Xp, 838CI
2o9 29S H792
77
FO^ CXiNOfteSS^P^jggg^Qg DISPLAY l'(M( (IWlAI.MfNK BUSH
To recfolks
From: Jaime Schmidt
Postmark: Jun 01.93 12:10 PM Deliveced: Jun 01.93 12:10 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Forwarded: TEMPS
Comments :
From: Jaime Schmidt: HOI F04D02A
Date: Jua 01,93 12:10 PM
Previous comments:
From: Don Kolo:R01F0'<D02A
Date: Jun 01.93 T-'i'* AM
There Is a request rron a Congressman who in wotHcing on getting eone
benefits for Temporary Employees. Please make this message available
to your temporary or ex-tompoi*ary BisplOycoa no Ll«at tlwy can decide
If they want to provide Infomatlon.
PpevlouB comments:
From: Dob RobblnsrROlTO'lDO'lA
Date: Jun 01,93 6:12 AM
Previous ccwimenta:
Prom: DEBRA R. PERRY:
Date: May 28.93 ^:00 PM
Please read Phils note regarding temps. Wlint is wentod hero are
personal written testimonies from toniporni\v (»mpl«)yeeH. Teraps can
send them to Claire Renner- Hasset at UWK Nntionnl or Lo McCloskeys
office. I would appreciate a copy of Uiumm (f tnnpM don't mind
sending them on. 8280 Sunnyslde Road. SniiiJiinlnt. W 6386'J. Dy
Horix^r stories, we mean describing things ttiut hove happened due to
temp status, such as situations due to no health Insurance, family
situations, what happened if your Job was contracted out or you wero
not brought back on, this kind of thing. Any story that helps a
person relate to the tmie hardship In any area of a temps life due to
work status. As usual, we are talking short notice here folks!
Theso need to be In by the end of nexi. wixik , lli«Mi-tng will be In
Washington DC, and NFPE National will Ihi citiMtiNiHil I tig us on the
Issue.
Message:
From: Philip H. Ruff :R01FO'»D01A
Date: May 27,93 2:35 PM
HAD A CALL FROM CLAIRE. HC CLOSKEY'S OFI-'JCK U^HV.i 'ITiS'rjMONY ON TEMP
IS9LE, HEARING SCHEDULED 2ND WEEK OP JUNK. I'AiniCULARILY WANTS
HORROR STORIES (HARDSHIPS) BECAUSE OF LACK 01' UUNlil'ITS, PHIL
78
ear Sirs: June 3. 1993
I aa writing to yoa as long term tenporary eaployee of the U.S. Forest
«rvic«. I am currently working as a GS-7 NTE Wildlife Biologist on the
enatchee National Fci-est in eastern Washington. I have been in this position
or two full years with no layoff. I have no health insurance, no pay raises,
lid no ability to apply for peroanenc Jobs unless they are advertised as
peciftl Demonstration jobs. There are many people in the Poreat Service,
erforming valuable work who are in the same position. I have one woman friend
n a similar position, who has been with the F.S, fo^20 seasons with a total
f lli full years of work, no insurance, no benefits, ana^no possibility of job
ecurity. This is wrong. The very bacldsone of the P.S., those who are doing
ost of the work, are being treated as a disposable labor force.
These issues have been raised repeatedly by the tenqjorary work force of the
.S. Forest Service. The time is right to correct these problems. A high
>ercentage of our tefl«>orary employees have 4 year college degrees, families and
bildren. We are isolated and separated from our colleagues and co-workers by
he fact of their higher pay. regular increases and health and retireaent
enefits. They are embarrassed to be performing equal work with us for unequal
OBpensation. Vte face the distinct possibility of losing many of our best
eople due to discouragefflent and th« desire to provide stability for their
ami Lies.
Raising children with no health insurance, knowing that you could be paid
he same wage for the rest of your career, and having no possibility of
etirement is terribly discouraging. We feel like second class citizens within
ur own country and government. Now is the time to change all this. Please
is ten to all the testimony and letters you receive. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joe Kelly
Box 252
Ardenvolr, Wa. 98311
509-78^-2852
79
I'VE BEEN A TEMPORARY EKPLOYEE FDR THE FOREST SERVICE SINCE 197S! I worked a
year as a crewperaon and eventually a crewleader of a Y.A.C.C crew (Yo\zngr Adult
Conservation Corps.) I spent 5 seasons on a fire crew and eventually became
Assistant Forenan. The next 3 seasons were spent woricing for the timber dept.
where I marked timber, surveyed property boundaries, inspected contracts,
clinbed trees to collect cones, worked with Y.C.C and C.C.C. crews planting
trees. I took 2 years off from the forest service, but returned in 1989 to work
for the Silviculture dept. as a contract inspector and to gather stand exaa
data. This work was year-round until last fall when ny position was unfunded
due to Isick of money. Ajiother temporary aiployee in that dept. was replaced by
THREE peroanent employees froo aooCher district! I'n now a I80 day temporary
eaployee in the Botany dept.
Teoporaz? enployees don't get step increases with tlae, as do permanent
employees. There's no retirenent, no oedical. My family does have private
oedlcal insurance. For about $200. per month, we get $500 deductable coverage.
That's about 20J» of ay take-home paycheck, for what is basically catastrophic
insurance .
I've seen ocher tea^s. in t^tj sane situation, hanging in there, year after
year with the promise that they're job will turn permanent "maybe next year".
There was one employee hece that was a temporary for 19 years before he finally
went to work in the private sector. In some commu ni ties . the Forest Service is
Che only employer ai^aund. so there really isn't any choice.
Temporary employees do the same work as permanents. There is no reason at all
that a person who works year after year should be considered "teaporary".
80
DBbia R, Perry i;ave iCnslc.n
8280 Sunny side Road 451 o«t>ociit: \vc-,
Sandpoint, ID 83864 (Ugfork, MT 59911
406-037-4339
FS Temporary Testimonies \2-2\-'i7
Rep. Paul Kdiijoratci 6-5-93
Chairman - Conunin r,oe On Post Office & Civil Service
- Subcomraittoe On Human Resiources
■J. 5. rlouse Of Representatives
603 Hous(3 Office rtaildiny Annex 1
Wasninytou, U.O. 20515-6249
Rep, Pat Williaois
District Office
c/o Mike Brown
302 V^est Broadway
Missoula, MT 5<9B02-4113
Dear Rep. Kanjocsk:! and Rep. Williams:
TUanJt you for conducting the Hearing on temporary federal
employment in Missoula last July! I think you are on tVie right
track about wfiat are problems for the temporary workforce and
Viow to fix them.
I write because T sat through the hearing but found no
opportunity to speak. First I must apologize for beinq so late
with this response but 1 had to wait until I was layed off to
have time to put this together. -5 ~,
I wanted to tell you the following at tlie hearing: <^. ~^
My name is Dave Knsign, 1 have worked 23_sj>a3o na (16->- years
full tiiao) for the USl-S Flathead N> on the Swan T.aka HD S. Condon
RD in thu nreas of Firo, Tiottber MgmL . , and Silviculture. ( work
(am limited to) 180 days each year and then spend the rest of the
the year (about 4 months) working at odd jobs and on unomployment .
I work nov; as a contract inspector for the qovernment in-
specting thinning •atid planting contractors. T do all the field
work from layout to contract closure working wii-.h the contractors
to ensure government assets. In 1092 greater than 700 acres were
thinned and greater than 1100 acres were planted by 5 different
coi tractors with 42 employees on our di.stclct, aiout 200,000 in
paynn^nts. T also do inventory and fire work as re^Aiirod.
1993 promises to be even busier with more acerage in both programs.
1 started working for the USFS in 1970 aa a lookout (Mission
LO) and worked as a sawyer or power tool operator, smokechaser,
firefighter, small and large timber sale cruiser, inventory forester,
fit inspector. I have been on over 200 wildfire.s and have the follow-
ing fit^-d Card ratings: Crew Boss, Typo II Falier, Crew Rep., Strike
'ream Leader - Crow fii Kngine, Task Force Leader, and Small Incident
Commander .
I am university educated with 2 undergraduate degrees. I havo
a BA in Biology University of Montana 1968 & a BS in Forest Science
University of Montana 1980.
81
I have attempbed to got permanent employment for all of my 23
yearu. T have beun qualified on the OPK rrofossional Vorester
Tostur since iqflO and tKc Wildlife Biolociist Roster since 1989.
Of course sincu the professional positions <ire tiiLed through
the Coop Ed. Program I have never had an opportunity through
the Roster. This Program tones co:i«c^c ^c^<^•JO; .,t .-s and after 3
summers and 2 year of axperience arc promoted to GS-9 profeiision -
al administrators with Full Time Cotopetitive Statoi;. This Program
is also why there is a low quality of leadership within the Agency,
•."••■e problems for seaaonals :
{'.) The main problem for seasonals is statu-s; this was not
brought up at the hearing. All seasionals have noncompetitive
status. This is why in all ray 23 years T haven't gotten to be
a full time employee with a career ladder. 1 am nob nor ever have
been able to compete for jobs ( most of which require a person to
have Career Conditional or Full Time Permanent Status to be con-
sidered for the job). This leads to the present caste system.
Sii=>asonals va Permanents
no in.<ourance insurance
few/no training opportunities many training opportunities
no career ladder ample career ladders
no step increases step increases
no retirement retirement
In all my years there was only one time any .•.■<;ou«3J^^ls vecQ com-
petitively converted to status employees on the Flathead HP, it
was about 1988. I wasn't converted at the time becoiu:;c ray self
rated application disqualified me over a minor lioint and my SF-171
was thrown out. One seasonal who got the appointment at that time
will be my supervisor part of the year. This was her experience:
No training or degree
Year around Career Conditional Appointment GS-5
Work and training opportunities as wildlife forest technician
Converts to Prcfessiona; Wildlife Biologist GS-7 460 series
More training and educational opportunities
Becomes Silvicaltural Forester GS-9
199:j-Takes over district thinning program {with no background)
and a job which 1 really am in line for.
(2) This brings up the second problem which is the laclc of
field experience in management. I think the present quandary/ the
static confused 'jondition, that the FS finds itself in is due to
poor leadership. Poor leadership resulting from a failure to bring
seasonals/ techni "i-ins/ people who have workeci in operations, who
havu worked in the woods, who have sweated under a hardhat, and who
have been first line supervisors up a caref»r ladder into adminis-
tration and management, .leadership failures load to the inequities
and poor circumstancrcs that seasonals find thcmsalves.
82
Top level managers and specialists GS-y and up arc brought right
out of college or ^t the most have .3 summftrs rind 2 yeara as KS-7f;
(aa in the case of Coop. Kd . students) and then are put over people
who are experienced. Many tiroes these new iiianagers oiu.st be trained
by the very people they are put over! T fully believe that had our
present leadership come from more humble beginnings possessing
university degrees and experience gained from lonq years on the
ground ve could have avoided the confrontation S. ixnpafiSt; that has
arisen between industry and environmentalists and people- 1 blame
present leadership for lotting the management issues even go to
the courts for solution.
I will admit that some of the Internal probltiffls cotae from to much
politics and not enought science and much planning aiid little doing.
There are those v'.a would see the USPS managing land.*; for so many
ascs that nothing can bo accompli sited or manacjiuq land-s as pceai»cvcs
doing nothing as a management option.
Most problems can be solved by moro capable leadurship and a step
this way would be to open doors for seasonals. This can only be done
by concerned Congressmen like yourselves to mandate changes like
step increases and insurance and especially competitive status for
seasonal employees.
As for myself (layed off) it's just another winter to struggle
through trying to ma ice ends meet and feed a family. The above
mentioned changes will help others but it is too late for me. I have
thrown avay my youth, enthusiasm, ajid energy on a career that
couldn't develope and an employer that wouldn't let me contribute
and paid me poorly to boot. I am sorry that I ever vorkod for the
USPS because it has made life hard for ma and for my family.
I would lik-e to vi.sit with you to further discuss thitj aubject.
Thank you for listening'
Respectfully,
Dave Ensign
83
Stanldy B. Zyskowafcx
P.O. Box 560
Sedro floolley, Vh 982B4-0560
JMne 7, 1993
Representaiiive Frank HcClosksy
House of Reproaanfcatlves
Washington, DC 205 IS
Representative McClosksy,
I am writing in response to the DG message dated Jane i, 1993
concerning tenqporary federal esaployees. i believe i a« a classic
case (and certainly not the only one) of hov taomorary O. s.
Forest Service eaployees are "used" by certain personnel within
the system. I am once again fighting for my job as ay dspartaant
head and Supervisors office personnel Officials try to fit a
pemansnt into it (in this case it is like trying to fit a roozxS
peg In a sguare hole... as I ax a highly veQoed aitd sicilled
Biological Technician in Fisheries ) . I will give you a qaick
chronology of oiy years with tbe Service etoA aamo events along the
way and a nore coo^lste history of recent events.
«]^~:«<^areer' with tlte Forest Service started back in the spring of
1974 when I was hired by a neighbor to be am engineering sorvey
aid (6S-2). I considered it a wonderfnl channa and approached
the job with enthusiasm. I li—mili itely picked up tbe survey
■ethoda and ended up training persons wbo ware GS-5 seasonal/ but
do to my lack of education and experience I remained a GS-2. I
spent tbs next 2 seasons (for the record all ary seasons were
long, lasting 7 to 12 months) working for recreation as a
technician at tbe GS-4 level at tbe Ht. Baker Banger District
(then tiMi Baker River Ranger District) latere z still work today.
The following season I started oat working for Silviculture as a
Tree Planting Foreman (ifli-2) and moved to fire as tbe summer
arrived. The foUcwing year i was promoted to GS-S and was made
a Fuels Technician, i received a maaimnr. allowed cash award for
developing the district Pre-Attack Plan.
Tbe following season I moved into silvicultore as a tacbniclan
and wrote/ laid cnt and inspected contracts for thinning, surveys
and tree planting. In 1984 X was ptMsed up for a permanent
position (was one of 2 considered) becaose the Silvicultnrist at
the time didn't think I would he around long as i am very active
in the stock Market and ha feared I would be retired by 40 (well
40 will be next year and I don't think I will make itti)
In 1987 I moved to timber as they were in need of a o s» one to help
layout tojober sales, i did this for a season and asked to be
promoted to the GS-6 level because £ was doing the same work as a
permanent GS-7 and training permanent GS-5 personnel. The ranger
did not support this move at the time so I told him I was going
to return to Silviculture. He adamantly opposed this move and
84
was not at all pleasant to ne. The following aeaaoo I was put op
tor another major cash award and this ranger denied It because I
had left timber (even though my supervisor and the staff
requested it nuneroos tijnes). The following season I started
back at timber because they had early worlc. Once again the GS-6
issue cans up and I was promoted within a week (the district
ranger was on detail somowhere and we had a temporary ranger at
the tine who strongly supported my position). The following
winter I was made an NTS (not to exceed 1 year) to work on the
TRI (Total Resource Inventory system) aa there was a crunch to
revamp the system. The following winter I was doing scina
contract preparation for Sllvlcnltare and 2 permanent einployees
were hired to do the job I was already doing. One was a veteran
and the other a minority wcasan.
Now we get down to the "Fisheries " portion of my career.
Fisheries is where I have wanted to be all along. The district
Fisheries Biologist would occasionally grab me to work on
projects for him as I had more local fisheries knowledge than any
other person on the district. This knowledge was gained through
a lifetime of fishing and wandering the stream systems of the
northwest and recently the Ht. Baker District. This laade me
sc^DBWhat of an ideal person for a Fisheries Technician position.
Again we had to fight the ranger for he did not want me to leave
timber... but l could see the writing on the wall aa I had spent
the previous summer detailed to wildlife to survey spotted owls.
After a long drawn-out battle the ranger finally threw up his
hands and told the staff to work it out... the following week (May
1990) I began my present job as a fisheries technician.
I was put in charge of our district stream survey program. I
also started assisting the district Watershed Specialist in the
layout and design of Instream structures. The folowlng spring I
«ra8 also made supervisor of the district Fish Crew (wage grade
structure placement crew) . I continued to layout and design
structures and run the stream survey program as well aa respond
to other fisheries Issues, in the spring of 1991 (as the program
continued to expand) I was promoted to the GS~7 level irtiere i am
today. The crews expanded until in 1992 Z had a five person fish
crew and 2 streiun survey crews working under me. We had the
lions share of the Forests Fish and Watershed funding for that
year and in Fisheries alone we had a budget of nearly 1 million
dollars (of which l directed most of the spending). I received
another major cash award for this work on the district. In the
fall of 1992 I also received the highest individual award for the
Ragijon for 1992 (accompanied by another major cash award).
Also In the summer of 1992 our District Fisheries Biologist Left
for the Peace Core, with this action came additional
responsibilities. I began to represent the district at
interagency Fisheries related committees (I was the only
technician on these committees and by far the lowest paid). I
also became onich more involved with other departments as
fisheries issues continued to work their way to the forefront. I
85
consulted with other departnents and agencies regarding small
hydro projects, drainage passage recomaendations , leave strips
etc. The job hecarae considerably more complex but as always r
rose to and accepted the challenge. In the fall ot 1992 we hired
cmother district Fisheries Biologist who has turned oat to be
very ioezperienced . For this reason and due to the additional
duties I have requested that I be promoted to the 9 level
(December 1992) when ny last NTE was up for renewal.
Instead of an upgrade or a renewal it turned out that personnel
extended toy VSE for 2 noaths (an unheard of move without any
explanation or warning). This issue was exacerbated by the
downsizing going on throughout the region and by personnel's
belief that all technicians are interchangeable without any
regard for conplexity of the position. This set up a major
]3attle in which personnel proceeded to try to put a permanent
Hotshot Crew Foreman into my position (as it was Identified that
his crew did not respect him and there were numerous complaints
about the way he did business), well the Supervisors Office
Fisheries staff and our distrct ranger bc^ired their baclcs and
fought this. It tamed out that this was the only district on
our Forest where a displaced permnent technlcicin was not moved
into a Fisheries or Hydrology technician position. This supports
my skill level and the identified need for those skills on the
Kt. Baker District.
The saga did not end at this point, in fact it has grown
considerably more coH^lex since then. I have continued to expand
my roles as our present fish biologists tries to get up to speed
on a vary large and coa^lex district. Without the years of on
the ground experience and familiarity it is virtually impossible
to be effective especially when dealing with other agencies who
have people who have been in a position for years and are local
experts, i recently attended a training Regional Structure
Design and Construction training session in which I was requested
to give a presentation because my Forest's Supervisors Stciff
Fisheries Biologist was unable to do his scheduled presentation.
So with little to no preparation 1 gave a one hour presentation
on the project that I received the Regional Fisheries award for
the previous year.
Upon returning frcas this session my status was changed from STB
to 180 day seasonal. I again requested the upgrade to the 9
level (at least on a temporary basis), i had strong support by
my staff and the District Ranger (who iimaediately got on the
phone to personnel vti&re he would start the process). Again
personnel was very unsupportive of this action and again started
talking about replacing me with a displaced permanent or at least
removing the 9 related duties (for which there is no one on the
District who can perform those duties at the present time). Hy
staff basically gave op on nty position so I once again approached
the District Ranger and came up with a few more angles and be
agreed to give it another try. Well that is **ere we stand
today, I have received no response from him or personnel as to
86
what: will happen. As can be anticipated I aa very fruBtratod. I
have spent: entirely to moch time in the last year justifying ny
position, and this process never seems to stop, "me
Fisheries /watershed section of this Forest is on line for and
requesting massive anounts of restoration dollars while
personnel continues to dismantle the staffs of these departmsnts
(the Forest has lost 3 GS-ll Fisheries Biologist, a GS-ll
Hydzologist and a GS-11 soil scientist in the past year and a
half). I believe these losses were Drought about because of
related pressure froa personnel. This is totally unacceptable in
light of the changes that are coming down the pipe relating to
watershed and fisheries restoration efforts.
I could go on and on, but hopefully you have gotten the message
that I am trying to relay. I am a highly skilled temporary in a
somewhat unique position. I feel often that I am taJcen advantage
of and used. I have had to maintain aiy own health insurance and
retir^nnt investments throughout the 19 years tUiat I have been a
temporary with the Forest Service (had to finance a major
operation to the tune of $3,000 out of pocket). I believe the
federal government should provide health insurance for us
especially in the light that they are trying to require
businesses to do the same. I also believe there is a major
problem in our Supervisors Personnel Section regarding the use
and abuse of tes^poraries . I would liice to see this whole issue
investigated and brought to light. I would like to talk to you
and fill yon in on all the details that were not included in this
letter. Please contact me at our District office (206) 856-5700
ext. 229 or at hone at (206) 856-2249. I look forward to further
involveswnt in these proceeding. Thanks you for your time and
for provided a place to turn.
Sincerely
itanle^ E.^skbwski
Fisheries Technician, MBBD
$\
87
MORALE OP SEVERAL TEMPORARIES I AW IN CONTACT WITH. INCUIDINa MYSELF,
IS VERY LDH. REASONS FOR THIS INCLUDE 1) NOT BEING REGARDED AS A
"TRUE" FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEE DUB TO TOE TEMP STATUS 2) NOT HAVING
THE OPPORUNITY OF MEDICAL BENEFITS EVEN AFTHl BEINO A OOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE FOR CONSECUTIVE YEARS 3) BEING USED AS "FILL-INS" UNTIL A
PERMANEOT EMPLOYEE IS HIRED. . FOR MS #3 IS THE BIGGY. 1 WAS HIRED AS
A GS7 TEMPORARY FISHERIES BIOLOGIST TO DO THE DISTRICT FISHERIES
BIOLOGIST JOB. THERE IS CURREtfTLY NO PERMANENT FISHERIES BIOLOGIST,
THEREFORE I AM EXPECTED TO PHIFORM DUTIES BQUIVALEOT TO A PERMANENT
EMPLOYEE WHO WOULD BE OCCUPPYING THIS POSITION. NO ATTEMPTS TO HIRE
A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE YEAR I'VE BEEN HERE
BECAUSE OP THE "POOR BLTM2ET SITUATION"; HOWEVE R. A PLANNING AND
IMPLEMENTATION OFFICER ARE MY SUPERVISCMIS . SO THEY ARE PARTIALLY
FUNDED PROM FISHERIES DOLLARS. TOB AMOUNT OP TIME THEY SPEND DEALING
WITH FISHERIES IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT GETS
ALLOCATED TO THEIR SALARIES. THESE STAFF 0FPICT3G ARE OVERLOADED
WITH WORK AND SINCE THEY HAVE A FISHERIES BIOLOGIST HSffi, ME, THAT'S
WHO DEALS WITH FISHERIES. CONVENISJTt f TO TOP IT OFF. I AM NOW
BEING TOLD THAT THE D.RGR WANTS TO FLY THE PERM POSITION AS
A GSIL WHICH I WOULDN'T EVEN QUALIFY POHJ WHY AN 11?A 7 OR 9 CAN DO IT
I've been a "full time teap" for 7 years on ta#o Districts of the
Shafita-Tcinity Forests and liave recleved numerous awards.
I an a GS-7 wlch no chance for raises or benefits. I have been a 7
for 3 years*. I an raising one teenager vith ay husband, who also
works full time in the private sector. Without the benefits or step
increases, I can't save anything for lay retirenent. Every aonth it
is the saae. What an I to do when I get older? Maybe I could become
a ba^ lady but the covpetition Is pretty high in small rural towns!
I can ' t even participate in the saving prograas offered to permanent
personnel. Recently ny daughter went Into the hospital. She l3 fine
but we will be paying oedical bills for a long time (only ^0% of the
total bills after my private covez>age} . There's no way we can afford
this kind cf problem. I figure we'll be paying for three years if
not longer. Because we have to buy private (group) insurance for
myself and my daugter, my family lives on the edge- We have no money
for extras; "cool" teenager clothes (she works too!), vacations and
family visits, other basic necessities we do without. It's an
endless doaino effect. I have "trained" several bosses and filled in
as staff during "transistions". I deserve the same benefits as any
permanent employee! Temporaries are people too!
^3
I HAD BEEN A SEASONAL EMPLOYEE FOR 11 YEARS WHEN I GOT MY "BIG BREAK"
I WAS OFFERED A NTE JOB HEADING UP THE INVENTORY EFFORT ON MY PCHEST.
I WAS LEAD TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPOIWIWaJT WOULD LAST FOR k YEARS.
AND THEN BE MADE INTO A PERMANENT POSITICHi. MY WIFE AND I DECIDED TO
PURCHASE A HOME IN THE ARRA SINCE MY OlfTLOOK LOOKED ROSY. IMAQINE MY
SURPRISE WHEN SHORTLY THERE AFTER I LEARNED THAT XY NTE WAS SEINQ
TERMINATED. I AM STILL DOING THE SAME JOB, BUT I AM NOW ON A l80 DAY
APPOINTMENT. THIS WINTER WE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE ON WHETHHt TO HEAT
THE HOUSE CR PAY THE MORTGAGE.
88
Curtis Pfeiffer
Post Office Box 1023
Dolores, Colorado 81323
National Federation of Federal Ennployees
1016 16th Street Northwest
Washington, DC. 20026
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been a tennporary ennployee of the U.S.D.A. Forest Sen/ice for twelve years, and I feel the
ability to participate in an affordable health care program is an important issue. On April 10.
1982 I was involved in an auto accident which resulted in serious intemal injuries and a
shattered right femur. I required a two-week hospital stay, and my medical bills accumulated
to $15,000.00. I am currently paying off my medical debt at a rate of S30.00 per month.
If there had been affordable health care insurance in 1982, 1 would not be burdened with this
debt My current income on the G.S.-5 Level (180-day appointment) is usually less than
$10,000.00 annually. The cost of health care is prohibitive with my current salary.
Please consider my testimonial when this issue comes before you this week I am positive
that I am not alone with regards to this matter.
Sincerely,
Curtis Pfeiffer '
89
June 7, 1993
To Whom it May Concern:
I just received the DG message regarding letters from temps, and
sincerely hope this letter is not too late to be taken into
consideration. I am 31 years old, have a B.S. degree in Wildlife
and Fisheries Science, and have been a temporary government
employee for 10 years. It has gotten very, very old. When I was
attending college from 1980-1987 we used to hear how if we worked
for 3 or 4 seasons with the government then we would have enough
experience to get a permanent job. This is not the case anymore.
I have more than enough education and experience to compete for
many types of jobs within the government (particularly the U.S.
Forest Service) but because I am not already a permanent employee
of the government I can not even apply for 90% of government jobs.
This has hurt me both financially and emotionally. Being laid off
every year combined with the moving expenses of travelling to
temporary jobs (to gain job experience) has left me deep in debt
and with a poor attitude about work due to the fact that I can
not be considered for permanent work. Also, in cases where a job
lasts under 6 months we do not even qualify for unemployment.
WHERE DOES AN AGENCY BENEFIT FROM KNOCKING HIGHLY QUALIFIED
PEOPLE (PEOPLE WITH ALL THE RIGHT EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE)
RIGHT OUT OF THE JOB MARKET!?
It makes absoloutely no sense! I am no better off than I was
before I started college, and I owe that to years of temporary
employment. I have no health insurance, still work 2 jobs whenever
possible just to break even, can not buy a home, and am forced to
seek employment outside of the government. This creates yet
another set of problems. No one wants to hire a person who has
had as many jobs as I have (add 10 temporary jobs to the winter
jobs I have taken and the jobs I worked nights and weekends in
addition to these) or someone with a background in natural resources.
It just doesn't impress most employers outside of resource agencies.
So in fact I have funneled myself into resource-related jobs and
have next to no hope of gaining permanent work with the biggest
employers in these fields (the government).
Since there are hundreds of people in the same situation I am in
(thousands over the past 3 years or so) I do not believe that I
simply can't cut it, but that there is a major problem in the hiring
system of the U.S. government. Jobs need to be open to anyone who
is qualified, and we need to stop eliminating competent and dedicated
people from the federal government's job market. When this happens,
everyone stands to win.
Sincerely,
Kl^ Jordan
621 E. 7th Ave.
Durango, CO 81301
90
June 3, 1993
National Federation of Federal Employees
1016 16th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Attn: Claire Hassett
Dear Ms. Hassett:
A request for infomation on temporaries employees came across my screen
today. It will be very hard for our temporaries to attempt writing to
you since 95% of the time they do not get to see anything like this since
they have no access to a computer. We make copies but sometimes they do not
come in the office to check the mail.
I am taking it upon myself to skeak for our seasonanl (temp) . We have some
that have been here over 15 seasons and are still GS-4 and no sign of ever
being converted to PFT . They are locals but are finding it very hard to
make ends meet and when they get sick they try getting well on their own
because they know how high medical attention can be. My grip is we have
converted others with less time why can't we do it for the ones that are
good workers and faithful enough to return every season.
My biggest concern is that they are constantly bsing told that they are temps
and have no rights, they are afraid to say anything for fear that the next
season they will not have a job. I feel they should be able to be heard
they are good enogh to work for the forest service. lam the Hispanic Program
Manager for our district. I have worked for over 23 years and I am hispanic
and I can tell you the hardship I have been through many hardships but I came
as a PFT and braved it and have managed to stay regardless of all the prejudice.
We need to do something for the temps. We need to get them health benefits and
to covert them. The two 15 year temps are both hispanics who are so afraid
to say much for fear of not having a job next season. They also know it will
get them no where because it is their supervisors that have kept them where
they are. One of this temp was a GS-5 for five seasons this year they gave a
GS-4 because they could not finance him and yet they gave a GS-5 to a patrol
that has been there 5 seasons. Where is justice. Also her husband has a
full time job at the same district. This two individuals that I refer to are
both hispanics the only two left of several that started at the time they did.
In our new workd of Mission, Vision, and Guiding Priciples we need to make
a difference in our multicultural world of diversity. We should make a
difference. Incidently I am also a GS-4 after 23 years of service and I will
go out as a GS-4. When I thought I had a chance to better myself some one else
took it.
If there is anything you can do for our temps, please do, somebody needs to
help them.
'Z::>Ccfd-cyt. .K Tci^^^^
91
^^«?5a:S&&:>j .^cz?^<Pi^^H52: .^!*^2::^^ /il^'S^^^ ^^bi^^ <^<i^ASZ- ■
_e»*-i_ zS:^ C/^s^a^^ii^o^^ y^^as^^AiOC^ ><i2j^<iii9;^
^1^
,^,atai^^6^
x!*a!'Si^
92
.;^ ^ ^^ar^ .
/;^^2«««^
„£^J-!«*«^ --^f^
^^ .<i^«e^«='*s^
^^22:.^V,^^^^
n
93
P.O. Box 56J^ Date: 6/2/93
Bly, Or. 97622
To WhoB It May Concern,
The Foreat Service Is the major employer, in our small timber
comnunlty. of MOO persons. Many fanlliea are dual cjireer Forest
Service employees. I have been a tei^xirary eoployee since 198^*
and my wife is a seasonal also. I have applied for PSB and full
time employment on several occasions but have not been selected
although I am highly qualified. Many job announcements prohibit
tanporlefi from applying which I feel is a form of discrimination.
I do not wish to move from this area but I %K>uld be forced to if
the Forest Service were to contract out the woric I am now doing.
r do not currently have any health insurance due to my eoployi«nt
status. The rates offered are nudi to hl^ for a GS-5 salary. I
have been diagnosed as having a double hernia but am unable to
pay for the surgery to correct this problem.
I would appreciate any help that NFPB can provide to the tea«>orary
workforce .
Sincerely,
^^.^^i^..
Leland G. Hunter
70-660 0-94-4
94
NBSSAGB DISPLAY FOR SMITH. DEANNA
To Claire Renner-Hasset/NPFE National
Rejected by Post office
Claire Reimer-Basset/NFfS National
(CEO NSA) Invalid addressee ID provided.
Froa: SMITH, DEANNA
Postnark: Jun 03.93 9i27 AK Delivered: Jun 03.93 9:2? AM
Subject: TESTIMONY ON TEKP ISSUE - --_^
Message:
My husband started working for the U.S. Forest Service as a aeasonaJ.
ia 1966. iOiile layed off between seasons, he started having
congestive heart failure, due to Aeortlc Valve Insufficancy, which in
his caae was hereditary. The only vay to correct the problea was
open heart surgery which cost $35,000.00,
The saae year of his health probleas our oldest daughter also
incurred $9,000.00 in aedlcal expenses.
He had no insurance of any kind to help us throuj^ this tlae. As a
result of no insurance and $44,000.00 in aedlcal bills we could not
pau we were forced to go bankrupt. With Insurance this could of been
prevented. Thanks for this oppurtunity.
Oeanna Smith
USDA Paisley R.D.
95
June 3, 1993 Oiane M. Green
8344 Rapid Liglttmng Road
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864-9770
To whom this may cxmcem.
This year will nerk n^^ fifteenth year to return as a tenfxirary ai¥>loyee with the O.3.P.S.
DepartmeriK of Aqriculture. I an writing you with the hope that the inforaation attactMd aay
ioform you of my situation as a ten^orary, and possibly bring scoe sort of evaluation of the
criteria used with the continuous insult of this drcunstance for myself as well as other
tesfjoraries across the country.
I first began worlcing with the O.S.F.S. in 1976. For the first eleven years, I returned to
perform the same duties and job description as a Forest Technician. I am enclosing a porticD
of an application for Federal Employment with specific narration of what my duties envolved,
how aany personnel X tealned, education, training, awards etc. I^k last position I applied
for, I was told that T rated out at one hundred and three, which is well above average.
Over the years, I have trained personnel to Ije my supervisor. In 1987, I trained ray super-
visor for 1988 in Sandpoint. Between 1982 and 1986, I trained and eupervlsad fifteen oo-
■Morkers, have never been paid nore for this respemsibility/ had any of it described in iny
job descripticsi and basiciy told that if "you don't like it, go find another job." I suppose
that It is necessary to remind a tenporary that this is the situaticai. I have perforsBd job
duties as a GS-7 , acting as a contracting officer, writing silvicultural prescriptions, even
evaiuattng "pemBuent" ntyiloyees on their ability to correlate what I had taught thea! I have
been told by several of my supervisors that they were worldng to get me a pernanent position
with tbe agaicy; that my work was of superior quality, that I was an asset to the organizatioi
and if I held on long enough, it would happen. I have received Bnployee Performance and
Develc^aent Aiards eight of the years with the O.S.F.S. I harve received serv&i Safety Awards,
seven Certificate of Merit Awards, ca^ awards. It is asruensatioo for not receiving the
benefits of insurance, retireaent or job security. I have ntjt been required to re-apply for
my position over the years while rpiipinlng at the same ranger district. A •ngn-ooBpetitive
re-hire" status has been the closest thing to a secure arployment.
In the spctng of 1989, I received an on the job injury that has pemanent physical limitations
Because of the nature of my einployment for the preWoos eleven years, these restrictions have
•ireatly changed the quiaity, efficiency, and productiveness of ii^- work and home life. Vx
education and worJc experience I have, qualify me to pursue my profession as a biological-
nursery technician in tree iiiq?rofvie«ent with the OSFS. Due to the pentanent restrictions noted
in the physicians report, and ray present physical liraitatians, I am not able to meet the
qyialificaticxi standards required to aApinistrate the duties described for this job description
nor am I able to continue perforaing the itib that 1 had been doing for the previous years. At
the tiae of tte injury, I had no health insoracce. I still have no health coverage. Mien the
Morlcera Coapensatlcn benefit ran out, I used 2^.1 of ay annual leave, then all of iny sick
leave, then leave without pay. Persanent employees are often offered a "leave rectpieafoptioi
for fellow et^loyees to donate 30«e time. iWs was never even considered. "Rie liaritatiaas
frcm this injury are of great endurarwe. I have gone frcra being a totally plysically active,
independent individual, to case who has restrictions s. liinitations and now dependent on others
for siaple tasks. Prior to this injury, I was able to work outfiida in rough, moutainous
country, walk for long distances ocmf ortably , J"rf endure the various duties held vitin ay job
description of being a aoontract inspector with the USPS. I now hold an office job, and no
longer receive over -tine from previous positions. I now hold no hope of ever getting the
pemanent position that I had always wanted. I am no longer physically able. Because this is
a spinal injury, and It is necessary for ne to state as such with any potential future
^^loyer, no tme will hire ae. My woric axparienoe is specific to the forest service.
96
nallty Is a way of life for any tsBpacary mnHasBliyltb. this agency Who- haa raturned year
after yaar. I always tolleved that if I wortead l?art a«xigh, that I would jet that perronent
pQsiticjn, the baaf its of the yaars of earvioe would be applied towards qr retirement. Now»
I have given up. At the and of each season in the past, I was always told; "You wiU always
have a job here! Hte need good people Uloa you!- Now I am told, well, lie don't know. Ibis is
a continued fnistration- Mostly heraoae I hav* loved what I usod to do. I aa told that I
should canaiaer nysalf "fortiaiate" to have a job at all with the agmcy because I have ao lany
limltatlonB. I am Kit eligible foe any type of onmp fn n ation for the injury. The orthopedic
eurgoon states that with any "other" agency I would be re-tralaed for a different type of wortc.
As a federal a^iloyee, this is not the caee.
I believe this will be wf las* year with the POteet Service. I a» not sore of what else I
aa jiiyslcaily abble to do for a neans of a^jloyrent. Fifteen years as a tafiorary is too long.
I need to thlnK about retlr«Bent benefits, hralth ijisaranQe. I jiBt turned forty-one and at
present have no savings oa: long term a^doyment In sig^. Yee, r feel like as a temporary,
that I have beai abused. The pemanents, nny of thea, consider mf poeltion as "low-life",
even tho, for nany of tham, I have more experience and knowledge than they do!
I am toping that this teetlaony aixj the attached docoBBnts will offer scbb perspective of Just
«ie individual within the vast systen of tsi^xirary enployaeB who have had hardships due to the
status of j(* description. Fifteen years is an awfully long teoporary position!
If there are any further questions jou would like answered about this particular case, please
feel free to contact ne.
Sincerely,
Diane M. Gceen
97
Ef
D.S.D-A. Forest Service
Sandpoint Ranger District
Sandpolnt, Idaho 83864
tMKt IJtte ot y«i»r poSillOrt
Forest Terfmcian
Forestry
DaiM enwUfM I^M nwK* JIM ytin"
Ham 4-87 To 1989 .
Avcngt ngnstr M Mm Ml «lt>
40
SiBfy a( unuqs
9«qa<n*t }7.10 att bour
enang s7.54 oe, hour
_108 I 263-5111
1 Ufwcr Cni*iKi gi mUiUl/. Mrlct 9iad*orr«nli.in(]aat«o<
GS/462 - 5
8/1986
nw o n «ii« VI »«« (Caam ya* ntetv mnitt. rtttcmndikts im Kcamynnmtfn >• ant >» <
OrtT Sandpolnt
0-4 GS2-4 seasocaXs
Career advacoeieDt
* Designated inspactof for cxmtract tree planting S. thinning with responsDnlity
for: QifiCJcir^ contractors performance for coqplianoe with any portion of the
contract/ inducing issujinca of wtMlc orders, Sc ceintaining project diary of all
occurrences while on project. Collection of weather data to detemdne conditions
suitable to seecltcg survival. (30% of tiae)
• Establish reforestation aocoqpli^knent reports to determiDe cm ground costs of
planting ecntracts, planting stodt storage & handling, nunber & species of trees
in. units and scheduled reforestation exaos for certification status. Input this
data into ooqputer. (15¥ of time)
• Evaluate & prepare field pc^scripti<ais for initial reforestation activities &
treaUEnt in recently logged areas; deterttdne plantabillty, habitat type, species
to be planted & specifications for prescripticai details for contracts. Input
this data into cxanputer. (1594 of time)
* ttsobec of force account stand exam crew pesrfoimog t im b er stand exams , plantation
stocjcing surveys, regeneration esams & wauc thru evaluations. Vforlced indeportiy
collecting, recording & accessing natural resource data for Banagement evaluation.
IXities include: stand location, forest mensuration, insect & disease identifi-
cation, habitat type, plant identification. (19% of time)
♦ jait field data to determine regeneration status for certification. & treatment.
* Edit & evaluate forest invwitory stand axairs from previous activity records to
detemdne future ezas objectives & treatoent plans. (lOK of time)
• Tree iin)rova«ext inventory at the ttry Creek Seed Qrciiard to datamdna specific
growth probleiB, animal dauage, i. seedling mortality. (W of tine)
* Cone collection of White Pine & Western Larch. Supervised four GS-3 t«^porary
SBployees; ndntained work schedules & time reports while on project. (St of tine)
• Cone collection contract inspector; naintained work aSiedules & payment vouchers
for a four person cllnfclng crew. Responsible for oone tags & cme handling
aiec* list. (9* of time)
* District fire control duties as crew iBBBiber for broadcast Iwrning projects.
Actual dates of esployment:
4/1987 to 11/87
4/19S8 to 12/88
4/1989 to 11/89
ft* HBKi tat iiMf noti tict
I M«< m Qt0*Ot
98
m
(net tdi ct roui posicn
Forest Technician
BctcnWKW ot worn lagentr yauf i««ei«rc Mm. mpawiaMim jiw XMartHOTgm k soj (ofc/i
D.S.D-A. Forest Service
Avery Ranger District
Avery, Idaho 83802
Forestry
in** ot tmntoM sutmaST
Bill schoppa<*
lllMft
fniK 8-82
Ts
11-1986
SiUni or Hi*M9*
&»»«« s7.I0 aa tKiur
A<ta C«ac rcKmonc tiu«>e«
208 I 245-4517
40
[( f««fat jHM«e eniai g> nuiary: Mfics aitdeeiKu.iaogucgi
<«5t eranaun
GS/462-5
8/1^86
Dn Avery
Sum Idaho
c^ia"Ss2!n^sy5sts
rouriH&on tof <M>wq u teivt
career advancanent
Inspector for oontract tree planting. Duties: 1) C23Gc3d.i^ omtractor ' s
perfomance for csairiliance «th the technical specifications of the contract.
2) Issuing notices of noncnnpliar>oe to tlie contractor uben worK was not teing
done in accordance with contrzurt scc^s. 3) Reporting to the CCS? any refusal or
failure by the contractor to coBply with contract provisions. 4) Itelntaining a
project daily diary of all ooairrenoes or developnents vbidti occurred while oo
the project. {3C* of tine)
Field supervisor for two QS/4 and two GS/2 seasonal eo^loyees. Etequicenents of
job included training crew hov to aocurately collect, neasure, evaluate & record
data pertinent to the rwrmrmnmtation of Hhite Pine tree ixfocavsiBnt seed trees.
^&intained work sc^iedules & tine reports shile cm project. (25 % of time)
Evaluation 5. selection of superior seed trees for White Pine S. Douglas Fir tree
inproveoent program. This involved; observing pollen prodacticsa for future cone
production, all aispects of mensuration, saad productivity, defect & dainage,
naklng location maps & laying out {soduction areas for cone collection oontracte.
{19* of time)
Administer cone collection contract for Miite Pine & Douglas Fir tree inprov^nent
projects. Responsible for cone tag identification & cone handling check list;
Vfain train ori worK sc^iedules & payment vouctiers for climbing contractor. (10% tiioe)
Trained five aS/4 seasonal enployees to use equi(xent suc^ as: ccn^ass, nsaps,
aerial phot interpretation, relaskop, slincneter, and how to traverse unit
boundaries. (.5% aC tine)
Trained three GS/4 seasonal eo^ployees to do planting contract inspections. (5%)
Updated and revised data record for ranaouioentatioa of select Mhite Pine seed
trees. Re-grouped seed trees by location, township, range & sapped location.
Corrected initi2Ll records of prograsi at Mssoow researcSi station. (5% of tine)
Perform walX thru 5. standard esaoB to develop silvicultural prescriptions for
thinning & planting acres; delineate, lay-out and traverse unit boundaries
determined by plantability or thinning needs. (1(3^ of tine)
Collect S. evaluate data from seedling plantations for survival exase to determine
specific syaptoms etssociated with seedling nortality, danoge or reforestation
needs. (15% of tine)
District fire control duties as crew !»"*«"- for broadcast bumii:^ projects.
Actual dates of employment: 8/1982 to 11/82
5/1984 to 12/84
4/1985 to 10/85
4/1986 to 11/86
fQi tqtnct WU JSfcrf/ MMi. MC-i
> tlw M w rt fflm 171-A •, e
99
— n.S.D.A. Forest Sarvice
St. Maries Kanger Dietrict
St. Maries, Idaho 83861
Ottpiwion VI won iBamat y»m igtokc Mas. 'C»«in<Mw> i
Haa tide 01 ywi pa»im
Forest Technician
Harvey Foisco
ftirestry
oilM ca«loyca «9fM I
fruni 8 -76 ?
Sai«vor«
6-1960
iimit ouaMi (Jnatfi pir Ma
40
9e»(i<«»«s3.87 »e tour
CM** t6.18po hour
H ^«t*a( ie^^Mct. civ4ua Oi nwlar^ Hr«». gijotor r«M. rfn«4«ttt'
1 pfoflvaoA
GS/462-4
6-1978
» iccaupXMirifm »» mm jm.»
Sty St- tteriee
SUM Idabo
career Advanaeneat
Designated Inspector for contract tree planting & stand exsoB. Cuties as
inspector descriijed in pcewloos worJc expariance blocJca A S. B. (50X of tine)
Reforestation surveys for first, third and fifth year survival escaiis for field
evalioations and reforestation needs. (20 % of tiffla)
Reviewed & updated Tree I m arova uant BonuiieDtatian project for Western White Pine
co-operative with St. I'brles, Avery & Red Ives Districts. Evaluation of trees
for pollen and oone production, and cxxie collection project.
Meoter of force accsount stand exan crev perfoming tlntyr stand e^ams, plantaticn
stoOcLng surveys. Worked indepently collecting, recording & accessing natural
resouroa data for ismagsnent evaluation.
Actual dates of azcaloyaent:
a/1976 to 10/76
6/1978 to 9/78
6/1979 to 11/79
5/1980 to 7/80
\Hi WY»ci vat ii*i» Ban. <trj
r a i i*a«rt 9mm 1M.A or «
100
I worted with Diana Qreen in 1987 and 1938. and would like to deecribe the
physical nature of the Job in which she was eaployed prior to her injiiry. We
were both treeplanting contract ii^pectors for the U.S. Forest Service «md I
know firsthaiid the requireisents of the work.
Treeplanting inspectors trake iq> before It is light out. drive to woi:4c, and once
at work begin their day by loading boxes of trees Into their vehicles. The
boxes wel^ about 2.5-^ pounds (ny estlnate) . but are aoaewhat cumbersome to
lift because of their sh^>e. Normally, the vehicle is loaded when no more
boxes can be stuffed Inside. Loading consists of jumping in and out of the
truck, bending over to pick up the boxes, and carrylog them distances of up to
50 feet to the truck.
Once aJJL the trees are loaded the next part of the jc^ is to drive on out into
the woods. The trip one way can take an hour, aiMl peziiaps up to two hours when
accessing more remote areas. The roads are at best secondary highways, and
more usually bumpy, uneven, slow-to-drive forest system ct>ads. Soae roads are
gated to provide wildlife security. These gates are sometimes twisted or bent
(by forces unimown) and caa be CKtr^^ly difficult to lift and move when tidying
to open them.
Once at the planting site, the inspector mist climb back Mp into the truck,
bend over to pick each box up. and climh down to unload it. It is at this
point that the real work of a treeplanting Inspector begins.
The Inspector must traverse the hillsides looking over the contractor's work
for compliance with contract specifications. TRie terrain can be steep (up to
60)! Is not unusual) . There may also be brushy areas to climb through, and
rocky uneven ground. Many times there may be down logs to hoist oneself over,
OF to perhaps crawl under.
While looking everything over, the inspector must carry a hoedag (planting
tool) v^ii(di is a heavy and rather clumsy tool. When digging trees to inspect
underground coi^ditioo of the newly planted seedlings, this tool Is swung over
head and "thrown" into the ground to make a planting bole. An average of 3
trees per plot are inspected. Normally, around 10-12 plots per day are
inspected. Each plot is representative of 2 acres, so an inspector will
routinely cover 20 or more acres of hillside terrain in a day; mapy times
swinging the hoedag to find plantable ground.
Tills activity can go on for 2 or three weeks with only one or two days off
during that period.
Having worked side-by-slde with Diane Green 1 have firsthand knowledge of her
abilities to have performed this job. Being also a personal friend, 1 know
that her day didn't end aTter 10 or 11 hours of work in the field. She had many
nwHmfll* and chores at home, as well as a large garden that demanded her
attention, as well as more physical labor %(hen she got home from work at night.
This statement submitted by: \c/\^rZL uJl\jB'%JL.^
Risa Devore , ^
Date; IQ- ^^ -"=1 I
101
TO UUOM IT HAY CONCERN.
DIANE C^EER WORKED FOR OR WITH MB AS A CONTRACT TREE PLANTING INSPECTOR FOR
THREE PLAWnSO SEASONS. UP UNTIL HER ACCIDENT. THE DUTIES SHE PERFORMED DURING
THIS JOB INCLUDED:
-LOADING TRUCKS WITH BOXES OR BUCKETS OF TREES EACH DAY. I ESTIMATE THE
WEIGHT OF THE TREE BOXES TO BE 25 TO 40 POUNDS AND THE WEIGHT OF BUCKETS OF
TREES TO BE 20 TO 35 POUNDS EACH. EACH MORNING 10 TO 25 OF THESE
CONTAINERS WERE LOADED.
-DRIVIMG A PICKUP TRUCK TO AND FROM THE SITE ON HOUGH FOREST ROADS TtldH I
HOUR TO AN HOUR AND A HALF EACH WAV.
-OPEN AND CU)Sg STEEL GATES BY LIFTING. LIFTING SOME GATES IS EQUIVALENT
TO LIFTIMG 70 TO 80 POUNDS. IN MY EXPERIENCE.
-WAUCING ON USUAI1.Y STEEP AND ROUGH TERRAIN, THROUGH A PLANTING UNIT. ON
THE GROUND INSPECTION GENERALLY TAKES 6 TO 10 HOURS A DAY.
-SWINGING A PLANTING TOOL (HOEDAG) TO DETERMINE IP A SPOT IS PLANTABLE.
DURING THE INSPECTIOH PROCESS .
-DIGGING 12- LA INCH HOLES TO INSPECT ROOT PLACEMENT OF PLANTED TREES. THIS
REQDIBEO BENDING DOWN WHILE KNEELING TO SEE THE ROOTS IN THE HOLE .
-KNEELING ON THE GROUND TO CLOSELY INSPECT EACH TREE ON THE PLOT.
GENERALLY EACH PLOT CONTAINS 5 TO 13 TREES AND AN INSPECTOR DOES 8 TO 12
PLOTS PER DAY.
DIANE WAS FIT ENOUGH TO PERFORM ALL THESE DUTIES ON HER OWN. FOE TUB LENGTH OF
A PLANTING SEASON WHICH WAS GENERALLY 30 DAYS, TWICE A YEAR.
SINCERELY,
CONT&ACTING OFFICER'S REPRESENTATIVE
102
FRANK Jl CtPRIANa hLCk
tsar? supemoR
SANOPOMi; lOAHO 89664
TKL^MOMieaai aos-assr
Sepc 27. 1990
R«; Diane Green
DOA 5-18-90
Claim # AX4-2A375A
Fiztal Rating 9-18-90
Condition has stabilized and is essentially unchaDged since the
last visit on 12-20-89- She still has pains vich sitting, lifting
and bending activities. She is still modifying her activities
at work and at home.
Diaginosis- Discogenic lumbar strain, chronic
Using the Maniial for Othopedlc Surgeons In pemanant
physical iioapirment I would reconmend a 7% whole person
permanant inpairTiient rating.
Yau52_Truly I
Cipriano, K.D.
103
U.S. DEP&STMEHT OP LABOR
OFFICE OF liORKBRS' CQMPKMSATI(» PROGRAMS
In the matt:er of the claim for conpensation under
Title 5, U.S. Code 8101 et seq. of
DIANE MILLER GREEN
jeaployed by>
Claljpiant
CGMPEKSATIOH
CMEIDKR
RSJBCnCB
OF CLAIM
IB CASS
A14-243754
lUS DBPARTMEiaT OF AGRICULTURE
ICOEUR D ALENB, IDAHO
Such investigation under 5 OSC 8101 et seq. in respect to the
above^entitled claim having been made as ia considered necessary,
and after due consideration of such claim and reports of record,
the Office of Workers' Compeneation Prograns makes the following:
FINDIHGS OF FACT
The claimant named above is or was a civil en^loyee of the agency
named above; that the claimant filed timely notice of traumatic
injury and claim for compensation; that the attached Memorandum to
the Director contains the remainder of the essential findings of
fact in this claim and is made a part hereof by reference.
Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, it i s ORDRR ED that claim for
cosipensation be, and the same is hereby REJECTBD for the following
reason(8) :
Section 8107 of the Act does not provide for a Schedule Award for
the accepted condition.
Given \inder my hand at
Seattle, Washington
this 12th day of December, 1990
COLLBTTB BULLIS
Senior Claims Rrami ner
For the Director of the Office of
Workers' Coi]Q>ensation Programs
104
D. S. DepartnenC of Itobor ^piofMBt staoduvis «(>Bini«tr>tii3ii
Otttom at ■octaKB* Crm^ptnaatiat Progcaaa
lUl Sblxd Jam, Sulca <M
B»«ttl», I&. 98101-3211
- D oee mb gi*--irt, 199^ File Nuabari A14-2437S4
Data of Injury: OS/18/1989
Biq>loyee: DIAHE MIUiBR GRSEH
OIA»S KILLER GREEN
8344 RAPID LIGHTKIWG RD.
SAMDPOZlfT, ID. 83864
Dear Ms. Green -
Your claim £or compenaation baneflts haa been disallowad for tha
reason staffed in che enclosed copy of the coBpeoaation order. ThA
decision was based on all evidence of record and on the assonptloa
that all available evidence haa been aubed.tted. li you disagree
with the decision, you may follow any one of the courses of action
outlined on the attached appeal rights.
Under Office of Personnel Ifanageaent (0PM) regulations/ an employee
who recovers from a coaqpensable injury within one year is entitled
to mandatory job restoration and is expected to apply for work with
the employing Federal agency inaedlately upon recovery. Employees
who recover more than one year after the injury are entitled to
priority consideration, provided thay apply for reemployment within
30 days after compensation ceasea. You may obtain further
information concerning restoration rights froa your agency or any
CPM area office (if you are a postal employee, contact your local
personnel office). You sboold also contact your former employing
agency or 0PM for advice on ironr.fnninj any health insurance and/or
life insurance coverage.
Sincerely,
l^UMe^
rCOLLSTTB BOUilS
Senior Claims Examiner ica-io«2 r«v. %tM»\
Enclosures: Compensation Order w/appeal rights
Memorandum to the Director
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTORS
FOREST SERVICE
IDAHO PANDADLB NF
1201 IRONHOOD DRIVE
COEUR D ALENE, ID. 83814
105
Tftiited Stacas Forest Xdabo Panhandle 1201 Iroowood Drive
Depaxtnene of S«rvice Nacianal Foreeta Co«ur d'Alene, O 83814
Agriculture
Car:ii jT fg'' rVf^ 7.« n r1 and Serving Paoola ^ __^
Seply to: 6130 Dace: February 1, 1993
Subject: Coaur d'AIena Nursery Packing Shed Progxaa
DIANB GSSEH
8344 RAPID LIGRXBIIK? ROAD
SAHDPOIErr, ID 83864
I received the application you ouhmitted to the Coeur d'Alene Job Service
£or the position o£ Laborer, W3-3503-2< at tbe Coeur d'Aleooe Bursery on
the Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
tou were found not qualified for this positioo. if you wish to discuss
this, please contact me at 208-765-7430.
Tbank you for your Interest ia eaploynent with the Idaho panhandle
National Forests.
jACL^nr HOODS
Bi^loyiaant Officer
S^^^/^^Wk,
106
Juz-v. 10
-^ \/sjN^aVs jjt I^^yV, r r >>t-c r (V,
L.
^ ^ <- O^ ht^ -I
■ft---^ ^ > ^^"^ '«J-
_J,.
^^.TTi j-'»_ ._.V\i ■sp'»-c • (»'.'> s - SiS^f ^'^ <'>'tr'j It
T^ oiN~ •-' c. t^<~<L' '^-U y cx.ca >U.s<^ »j<-r K <v /<■<>': Ko.^ ir-*-
-V-
_V«N
^r»Na ic\,t.
:>-
U: k
c* .■^'
P\'t.^ wv ■> >J \ A<^ -^A.\ . __*L^X__iiL*-II iLlA
.- -- r -<-■>-
xC ts^.V
_^- S^ -: S'S. K
;-»--_<' -^ >-
_i s_t r ./>.'' • c c -^ g «. y
:::ji?-i
_T_W.
a. ^ v^ c 3 J ..
~ ' -^"^ -^ V- r, » , « , A c.jt-
xi>-.~-i<: ■" ^ "ac gr^i^r^a^-.j
-t:--
/"- »v'-
&«.»- <^ c '-
r^-
!>.'" v.! f •-:».. r-t'.f.-^r^-
•S-~l >A *,"i..' 0>Ni> ''o^ 't.isc^
£»^ }Vl? r h."' A.go <.~» 3 w *■ s '^af'>\^U^^Jc (,
s ufj\Jur
107
l^_ ^__- w ^^.^ g-v> __^ V^^ ,'\^* ' ~ fv i*^S<At:\.' - -^
\
eox^^ ^ ^p.
-_-._LW-fi )L^J^ io.
E^.c„ii_i_„„
>.-^^r CQ'NC-crr-
_[; . C A o ,
jL12_i
108
MESSAGE DISPLAY FOR JEFF M. TANASSE
To J. TANASSE :GWIR
From; Greg R . Arkle : R06F03DOitA
Postmark: Jun 07.93 5=06 PM Delivered: Jun 07.93 4:53 PM
Subject: TEMP. HORROR STORY
Message:
I HAD BEEN A SEASONAL EMPLOYEE FOR H YEARS WHEN T nnr mv "nT/> oor,.,,..
I WAS OFFEi^ED A NTE JOB HEWING UP iiE^JJI^ ^F^"^N mM^
I WAS LEAD TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPOINTMENT WOULD LAST TOR /i^rS^
TE«„IMTE». I AM STILL DOINO ™b SAME^JSTb™! Z Z Sf A^l^DAV
rsrs„ ^^^rz^"^ ""^ - »-- - ™^ ™ "-
109
Dear Sirs: June 3, 1993
I am writing to you as long term temporary employee of the U.S. Forest
Service. I am currently working as a GS-7 NTE Wildlife Biologist on the
Wenatchee National Forest in eastern Washington. I have been in this position
for two full years with no layoff. I have no health insurance, no pay raises,
and no ability to apply for permanent jobs unless they are advertised as
special Demonstration jobs. There are many people in the Forest Service
performing valuable work who are in the same position. I have one woman friend
in a similar position, who has been with the F.S. for 20 seasons with a total
of 14 full years of work, no insurance, no benefits, and no possibility of job
security. This is wrong. The very backbone of the F.S., those who are doing
most of the work, are being treated as a disposable labor force.
These issues have been raised repeatedly by the temporary work force of the
U.S. Forest Service. The time is right to correct these problems. A high
percentage of our temporary employees have 4 year college degrees, families and
children. We are isolated and separated from our colleagues and co-workers by
the fact of their higher pay, regular increases and health and retirement
benefits. They are embarrassed to be performing equal work with us for unequal
compensation. We face the distinct possibility of losing many of our best
people due to discouragement and the desire to provide stability for their
families .
Raising children with no health insurance, knowing that you could be paid
the same wage for the rest of your career, and having no possibility of
retirement is terribly discouraging. We feel like second class citizens within
our own country and government. Now is the time to change all this. Please
listen to all the testimony and letters you receive. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joe Kelly
Box 252
Ardenvoir, Wa. 988II
509-78'<-2852
no
MESSAGE DISPLAY FOR JEFF M. TANASSE
To J . TANASSE : R06F03D08A
From: MICHELLE M. GILROY:R05FmD52A
Postmark: Jun 07.93 9:26 AM Delivered: Jun 07.93 11:51 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE CONCERNS
Message:
MORALE OF SEVERAL TEMPORARIES I AM IN CONTACT WITH. INCLUDING MYSELF.
IS VERY LOW. REASONS FOR THIS INCLUDE 1) NOT BEING REGARDED AS A
"TRUE" FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEE DUE TO THE TEMP STATUS 2) NOT HAVING
THE OPPORUNITY OF MEDICAL BENEFITS EVEN AFTER BEING A GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE FOR CONSECUTIVE YEARS 3) BEING USED AS "FILL-INS" UNTIL A
PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IS HIRED.. FOR ME #3 IS THE BIGGY, I WAS HIRED AS
A GS7 TEMPORARY FISHERIES BIOLOGIST TO DO THE DISTRICT FISHERIES
BIOLOGIST JOB. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO PERMANENT FISHERIES BIOLOGIST.
THEREFORE I AM EXPECTED TO PERFORM DUTIES EQUIVALENT TO A PERMANENT
EMPLOYEE WHO WOULD BE OCCUPPYING THIS POSITION. NO ATTEMPTS TO HIRE
A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE YEAR I'VE BEEN HERE
BECAUSE OF THE "POOR BUDGET SITUATION"; HOWEVER, A PLANNING AND
IMPLEMENTATION OFFICER ARE MY SUPERVISORS. SO THEY ARE PARTIALLY
FUNDED FROM FISHERIES DOLLARS. THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY SPEND DEALING
WITH FISHERIES IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT GETS
ALLOCATED TO THEIR SALARIES. THESE STAFF OFFICERS ARE OVERLOADED
WITH WORK AND SINCE THEY HAVE A FISHERIES BIOLOGIST HERE. ME. THAT'S
WHO DEALS WITH FISHERIES. CONVENIENT!! TO TOP IT OFF. I AM NOW
BEING TOLD THAT THE D.RGR WANTS TO FLY THE PERM POSITION AS
A GSll WHICH I WOULDN'T EVEN QUALIFY FOR! WHY AN 11?A 7 OR 9 CAN DO IT
Ill
I'VE BEEN A TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE FOR THE FOREST SERVICE SINCE 1978! I worked a
year as a crewperson and eventually a crewleader of a Y.A.C.C crew (Young Adult
Conservation Corps.) I spent 5 seasons on a fire crew and eventually became
Assistant Foreman. The next 3 seasons were spent working for the timber dept.
where I marked timber, surveyed property boundaries, inspected contracts,
climbed trees to collect cones, worked with Y.C.C and C.C.C. crews planting
trees. I took 2 years off from the forest service, but returned in 1989 to work
for the Silviculture dept. as a contract inspector and to gather stand exam
data. This work was year-round until last fall when my position was unfunded
due to lack of money. Another temporary employee in that dept. was replaced by
THREE permanent employees from another district! I'm now a l80 day temporary
employee in the Botany dept.
Temporary employees don't get step increases with time, as do permanent
employees. There's no retirement, no medical. My family does have private
medical insurance. For about $200. per month, we get $500 deductable coverage.
That's about 20% of my take-home paycheck, for what is basically catastrophic
insurance.
I've seen other temps, in the same situation, hanging in there, year after
year with the promise that they're job will turn permanent "maybe next year".
There was one employee here that was a temporary for 19 years before he finally
went to work in the private sector. In some communities, the Forest Service is
the only employer around, so there really isn't any choice.
Temporary employees do the same work as permanents. There is no reason at all
that a person who works year after year should be considered "temporary".
112
MESSAGE DISPLAY FOR JEFF M. TANASSE
To J. TANASSE :R06F03D08A
From: LINDA MCCASLIN:R05Fl'lD5'tA
Postmark: Jun 07,93 n-'^9 AM Delivered: Jun 07,93 11:48 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: STORY FOR COMMITTEE/FS TEMP ISSUES
Message:
I've been a "full time temp" for 7 years on two Districts of the
Shasta-Trinity Forests and have recieved numerous awards.
I am a GS-7 with no chance for raises or benefits. I have been a 7
for 3 years*. I am raising one teenager with my husband, who also
works fulltime in the private sector. Without the benefits or step
increases, I can't save anything for my retirement. Every month it
is the same. What am I to do when I get older? Maybe I could become
a bag lady but the competition is pretty high in small rural towns!
I can't even participate in the saving programs offered to permanent
personnel. Recently my daughter went into the hospital. She is fine
but we will be paying medical bills for a long time (only 30% of the
total bills after my private coverage). There's no way we can afford
this kind of problem. I figure we'll be paying for three years if
not longer. Because we have to buy private (group) insurance for
myself and my daugter, my family lives on the edge. We have no money
for extras: "cool" teenager clothes (she works too!), vacations and
family visits, other basic necessities we do without. It's an
endless domino effect. I have "trained" several bosses and filled in
as staff during "transistions" . I deserve the same benefits as any
permanent employee! Temporaries are people too!
113
Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Tobias.
Mr. Tobias. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Robert Tobias, president of the National Treasury Employ-
ees Union. I am pleased to be here and pleased certainly at your
leadership on this most important issue.
It seems to me when we think about temporary employees, it
was really once a good idea that has been corrupted by excesses.
It makes sense. It did make sense at one point in time that an
agency would come to OPM and say we have a workload distribu-
tion problem where we can bring in some temporary employees and
they will solve the workload distribution, we don't want them to be
permanent. But what has happened is that agencies have seriously
abused the existing regulations and OPM has done nothing to stop
it.
Now, you have heard testimony today about the excesses. We
represent folks in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
There are 7,600 of them who are temporary employees. The work
force is run not by permanent employees but by temporary employ-
ees, 6,600, 80 percent of them, many are up to 15 years in tem-
porary positions. That is not a system that is designed to alleviate
workload fluctuation; it is a system designed to abuse and take ad-
vantage of a work force.
We believe, Mr. Chairman, that has to stop. It is not a question
of — as some say — ^we are trying to save money and the Government
ought to save money by hiring temporary employees. I believe it
costs the Government money to employ this work force because, for
example, we ran a survey among this group of folks and asked
them whether or not they would report or had reported waste,
fraud-and abuse on the job; 727 responded, 727 said "no."
That is not surprising because if your employment depends on an
annual evaluation of whether you are going to continue in your em-
ployment and the supervisor has that total authority, you are not
going to report that supervisor. It will never ever happen.
So these folks, these temporary employees, we believe ought to
have the opportunity to challenge discharge actions after 2 years.
They ought to have health insurance when they begin their em-
ployment. They ought be able to participate in a retirement pro-
gram after a period of 2 years, and they ought be able to have life
insurance because the Government will get a lot more out of those
folks who feel connected to the Federal Grovemment rather than
from folks who feel constantly abused by the Federal Government
as an employer.
Mr. Chairman, we think that OPM has made some significant
progress in their response but we believe that they still have aways
to go to correct what I believe is not only a serious inequity but
I believe costs the taxpayers money in the end.
Thank you very much.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Tobias. We will have some dis-
cussion in 1 minute.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tobias follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Tobias, President, National Treasury
Employees Union
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 150,000 employees represented by NTEU, I'd like
to thank you for having this hearing and for affording me the opportunity to testify
114
on the important issue of the use of temporary employees by the federal govern-
ment. Today I will speak about the problems confronting temporary Federal employ-
ees generally and FDIC temporary employees specifically. I will also address OPM's
recommendations on the issue of temporary employees as set forth in their most re-
cent report, 'The Rights and Benefits of Temporary Employees In the Federal Gov-
ernment."
NTEU is particularly concerned about temporary employees, known as LG's or Uq-
uidation grade employees, whom it represents at the FDIC. As of July 10th, 1991,
the FDIC employed 7,664 of these temporary employees. Their duties include man-
aging and liquidating the assets of failed banks. Unlike some even less fortunate
temporary employees in the federal government, LG employees at the FDIC are af-
forded the opportunity to participate in FDIC's own health benefits plan from the
inception of their employment. They are not afforded the opportunity, however, of
choosing among any of the other Federal Employees Health Benefits Plans, as per-
manent employees of the Corporation are.
LG employees at the FDIC, however, have no job security. This is despite the fact
that nearly one thousand of these employees have served continuously for 5 years
or more and roughly 80 percent have served more than one year.
No matter how long they serve in continuous one year appointments, they cannot
appeal a non-renewal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. We represent employ-
ees who have served continuously for fifteen years and still have no job security.
We applaud this Committee for its concern over The Office of Special Counsel and
the need to have adequate protection for Whistleblowers. The problems of waste,
fraud and abuse are particularly widespread and well known at the FDIC. Unfortu-
nately, however, no matter how much reform we do to the Office of Special Counsel
or other statutes governing the rights of Whistleblowers, FDIC temporary employees
will remain vulnerable.
If an employee blows the whistle at the FDIC, the Agency can simply not renew
(his/her) appointment. Under current law the FDIC is not required to give any rea-
son for not renewing these employees' appointments. Of course, employees are well
aware of their vulnerability on this issue and choose to remain silent. In a survey
prepared by NTEU, 727 of the LG's who responded stated they would hesitate to
report incidents of waste, fraud or abuse for fear of non-renewal of their one year
contract.
FDIC has special authority from OPM (Section 213.3133, 55 Federal Register 185)
to hire LG employees under Schedule A, that is: without an examination, and on
a temporal^ basis. It is the temporary designation, however, that prevents these
employees from ever gaining due process rights in a dismissal.
Recently, we were successful in enacting legislation introduced by former Con-
gressman Gerry Sikorski (D-Minn.) known as the Civil Service Due Process Amend-
ments of 1990 that provides excepted service employees, including Schedule A em-
ployees, the right to appeal an adverse action to the Merit Systems Protection Board
once they have completed 2 years of continuous service.
This protection is limited, however, to those who have "completed 2 year(s) of cur-
rent continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year
or less". In our view this is a loophole that could easily be fixed by providing appeal
rights to excepted service employees after 2 years of continuous service, period. By
definition, jobs that continue for two years or more are not temporary and should
not be treated as such.
NTEU has been working to get job protection, pension benefits and permanent
status for LG employees in the courts and through legislative avenues. Members of
this Committee have been very helpful in that effort. In the last Congress former
Congresswoman Oakar and Congressman Moran were successftil in getting the
House Banking Committee to allow LG employees to appeal a non-renewal of a con-
tract after two years of service as part of H.R. 3435. That language was not included
in the Barnard substitute, however, which was finally passed by both houses of Con-
gress.
Congressman Wynn is hoping to introduce this same amendment on the floor to
the RTC funding bill. This amendment would give LG employees MSPB appeal
rights after two years of service, if the FDIC is not downsizing, when ^eir contracts
are not renewed. The Government Accountability Project supports this amendment
and we hope we can rely on this Committee for its continued support on this issue.
I appreciate this Committee's concern over the temporary hiring abuses in the
competitive service. I believe, however, that excepted service temporary employees
are in a far worse position. While I'm sure that abuses of temporary hiring authority
exist in the competitive service, at least there are some clear standards. For exam-
ple, section 316 of the Federal Personnel Manual states that temporary appoint-
ments are appropriate to: "meet a workload peak" (316 FPM 2-2b (1)); staff "con-
115
tinuing positions when future funding and workload levels are uncertain or when
it is anticipated that funding levels will be reduced or that the activity will be reor-
ganized" (316 FPM 2-2b (2)); fill "permanent positions on a temporary basis in order
to save them from eventual incumbency by permanent employees expected to be dis-
placed from other parts of the organization" (316 FPM 2-2b (3)); fill "vacancies
which occur in activities under study for possible contracting out" (316 FPM 2-2b
(4)); hire "temporary employees to perform recurring seasonal work which the
agency expects to last less than 6 months in a year." (316 FPM 2-2b (5)).
These guidelines for hiring temporary competitive service employees also set out
when it is inappropriate to use temporary employees, including: "hiring temporary
employees to avoid the costs of eniployee benefits or ceilings on permanent employee
levels'^ (316 FPM 2-2C (1)). The Federal Personnel Manual also states: "By defini-
tion, temporary emplo3rment is expected to last for a limited time, as contrasted
with permanent or career employment which has no such limitation." This chapter
permits agencies to extend a temporary employee's service for a total of up to 4
years from the date of initial appointment. "Continuous employment lasting longer
than this is outside the normal scope and intent of temporary employment. . . ."
(316 FPM 2-2d).
The use of temporary employees in the excepted service, on the other hand, is not
subject to such clear guidehnes. The only reference to the use of temporary employ-
ees in the excepted service in the Federal Personnel Manual stotes: "Time-limited
appointments in the expected service, as in the competitive service, may meet legiti-
mate organizational needs. For example agencies may use time-limited appoint-
ments to staff short-term projects or activities for which continued funding is uncer-
tain, or to ensure periodic rotation and infusion of fresh ideas in positions which
require current, first-hand field knowledge" (213 FPM A-2 e). Such vague guidelines
as these invite abuse of temporary positions, especially in the excepted service.
NTEU believes that LG employees at the FDIC have been inappropriately des-
ignated as temporary employees and that the primary reason is to avoid paying the
costs of benefits for these employees, which would clearly be a violation of the Fed-
eral Personnel Manual guidehnes if these employees were in the competitive service.
I would now like to comment on the report prepared by OPM on teniporary em-
ployees, specifically the provisions under the heading "Alternatives for Further Ac-
tion". First, let me state NTEU's position generally and then outline our specific re-
sponse to each option in the report. NTEU urges this Committee to:
(1) Amend the Civil Service Ehie Process Amendments of 1990 to allow temporary
employees who have served two years to appeal an adverse action or non-renewal
of a contract to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
(2) Require that agencies provide health, life and pension benefits to temporary
employees after they nave completed two years of continuous service.
WhUe I believe these actions would bring about the beginning of the end of the
widespread abuses now apparent in the federal government's use and abuse of tem-
porary employees, I recognize that the cost associated with the second concept
makes it difficult to achieve in the current climate. Therefore, I believe that some
of the proposals suggested by OPM would be appropriate as interim measures.
NTEU is very concerned about the employee who works continuously for many
years and is denied benefits. We endorse the recommendation in the OPM report
to Umit temporary appointments from four to two years and encourage the use of
term appointments for longer-lasting non-permanent work. We would also suggest
that the two year temporary employee limitation be applied to temporary excepted
service employees as well as competitive service employees. The OPM recommenda-
tion, in addition to being sorely needed, is fair and reasonable. Clearly, employees
continuously employed for over two years deserve and need the benefits associated
with permanent employment.
Siinilarly, we support a proposal to allow non-permanent employees the oppor-
tunity to qualify for permanent positions through agency merit promotions. These
employees are entitled to have their hard work recognized and appreciated through
promotions. Moreover, employees who have served continuously should be given the
opportunity to break out of the temporary emplojmient cycle. We beUeve, however,
that the benefit to compete for career appointments, shoiild be limited to those em-
ployees who have served continuously for two years. To allow employees who have
served for less time would be inequitable to permanent employees and invite abuse
on the part of the employing Agency.
NTEU believes strongly that every federal employee, despite his/her service dura-
tion, is entitled to health insurance. We do not believe that coverage should be lim-
ited to those employees who have served for one year. One year is simply too long
to wait to obtain health insurance. What do you say to the temporary federal em-
ployee who gets cancer dviring his six month appointment? NTEU beUeves that
116
health insurance should be offered for all employees, temporary or otherwise, to the
extent it is administratively feasible, i
The 0PM Report provides two options for Government payment of premiums for
health insurance for temporary employees. The first option is to provide a Govern-
ment contribution once a temporary employee is eligible to enroll for health benefits
(currently temporary employees with appointments of 1 year or less are only eligible
after serving a year and being reappointed.) The second option is to provide a Gov-
ernment contribution after an accumulation of five years of service. NTEU supports
a government contribution to health premiums as early as possible. At a minimum,
we believe that temporary employees who have served continuously for two years
are entitled to have the government pay a share of their premium.
We strongly endorse the concept of the government paying premiums after a tem-
porary employee has accumulated a given number of years of service. However, we
are concerned that five years of accumulated service, as recommended in the 0PM
report, may be too long. These dedicated employees deserve recognition through
compensation, prior to serving five years of accumulated service.
The 0PM report suggests that life insurance coverage parallel the options for
health benefits described above. While NTEU supports the notion of life insurance
for temporary employees, we believe that health insurance for temporary employees,
we believe that health insurance needs to be the first priority of this Committee.
We suggest life insurance be available to all employees, but government contribu-
tion be diverted, at the option of the employees, to health insurance. Otherwise, our
recommendations for health insurance are parallel to offering life insurance.
Finally, we would Uke to address the provisions relating to temporary federal em-
ployees and retirement. NTEU supports the notion of retirement benefits for federal
employees when it makes sense. In other words, NTEU would not favor a require-
ment that both the emplojdng agency and employee pay into a retirement system
if the employee was never entitled to annuity benefits.
We do support the concept of providing an option to temporary employees, after
a threshold of accumulated service has been reached, of retirement coverage. To ad-
dress the problem of prior excluded service, we believe that temporary employees
should be given the option to pay 3 percent of their basic pay to purchase past credit
for civilian service. Military personnel obtain credit for military service by pajdng
3 percent of their base pay into their retirement.
We oppose the notion of limiting credit for temporary service only if the employee
later receives a covered appointment and completes enough service to quaUty for an
annuity. Under such a concept, only after an employee became eligible for an annu-
ity, would he/she and his/her agency be permitted to contribute retroactively to the
retirement fund. This would put an unfair financial hardship on an employee who
would be required to pay, after five years of service, his/her contribution to the re-
tirement system. It would be especially difficult for lower graded employees.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity
to share our views with you on this important issue.
Mr. McCloskey. Mr, Harnage, good to see you today.
Mr. Harnage. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee,
my name is Bobby L. Harnage. I am the national secretary-treas-
urer of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
CIO. On behalf of over 700,000 public employees which AFGE rep-
resents, we are pleased to appear before you today to present our
views on Federal agencies' use of temporary employees.
AFGE is concerned about the number of temporary employees in
the Federal work force. The OPM report indicates that the number
of temporary employees has increased only slightly during the last
10 years.
We suspect that agencies are using temporary employees because
they can hire and fire them without meeting the due process re-
quirements accorded to permanent, career employees. Temporary
employees do not have adverse action appeal rights, are not enti-
tled to military leave, have limited rights to participate in the Fed-
iThe OPM report notes that a period shorter than 180 days, to offer health insurance, would
be problematic. NTEU recognizes these administrative concerns and is willing to consider such
proposals within these Hmitations.
117
eral Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), and are ineli-
gible to participate in the Federal life insurance and retirement
programs.
In order to focus on this issue, it is useful to examine the compo-
nents of the Federal work force. If one were to ask how many Fed-
eral employees there are, the answer most often given would be 2.2
million. But, if one were to phrase the question slightly differently
and ask how many people work directly for the Federal Grovem-
ment, the answer would be at least 2.5 million and probably closer
to 3 million or more. Why the difference?
The Federal, nonpostal work force is comprised of both full-time
and part-time, permanent employees. It also consists of temporary
and contract employees. Approximately 2.2 million employees have
permanent appointments. Those employees are considered career
employees and as such, are accorded the full range of Federal em-
ployees' rights and benefits. Another almost 200,000 are temporary
employees serving either under term appointments for periods of
more than 1 year but for not more than 4 years, or under tem-
porary limited appointments for a definite period of 1 year or less.
The remaining employees whose number cannot be ascertained
with any degree of certainty, are contract employees.
The use of temporary employees is expedient. As the 0PM report
shows, the majority of the temporary work force has at least 3
years of Federal service. That fact is a clear indication that so-
called temporary jobs are not expected to be of short duration.
In 1987, Congressman Gary Ackerman in addressing the Public
Administration Forum noted that the extension of the temporary
permanent appointment for periods up to 4 years could undermine
the entire civil service. Four years just happened to coincide with
Presidential terms.
In addition to the problem of potential politicization, the issue of
relative fair treatment, and the maintenance of employment stand-
ards is raised by the use of temporary employees.
Temporary employees, regardless of how long they serve the Gov-
ernment, are not paid the same compensation that permanent em-
ployees do in similar work. In some unique circumstances this pol-
icy makes sense such as for jobs for extremely limited duration or
where no permanent employee is capable or available to do the
work.
But these cases are extremely rare. There is simply no probable
justification to deny long-term temporary employees a compensa-
tion package equivalent in value to that of permanent Federal em-
ployees.
As mentioned above, temporary employees when eligible to par-
ticipate at all must pay the entire premium for coverage under the
Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.
They are excluded entirely from the employees' group life insur-
ance and the Federal employment retirement system. Temporary
employees also do not incur benefits from seniority such as step in-
creases or retention rights.
The value of the Grovemment's contribution to these emplo3rment
benefits for temporary Federal employees is over $10,000 or one-
third of total salary not including the value of seniority benefits.
118
Obviously, the fact that temporaries do not receive these benefits
and therefore are cheaper to the agency is a decided incentive for
agencies to abuse the temporary hiring authority. AFGE acknowl-
edges that utilization of temporary employees can be advantageous
for employees as well as the Grovemment.
For example, the Department of Agriculture frequently hires
temporary employees for crop reporting. Obviously, this is a func-
tion which only needs to be performed during certain short time pe-
riods. It is clearly a summer job, ideal for students who would not
be interested in year-round emplo3rment. Seasonal operations of
snowplows is another operation of a job properly classified as tem-
porary.
Unfortunately, however, the mutual advantage is often nonexist-
ent. Increasingly, individuals are appointed for limited terms to
perform ongoing full-time jobs. Some temporary employees are even
hired for the performance of core or key functions.
Two of our AFGE members have traveled to Washington today
to tell you about the Department of Veterans Affairs continual
abuse of the temporary hiring authority at the Brecksville, OH, fa-
cility. The temporary firefighters at the VA Brecksville, OH, facility
all want to become career employees but the VA will not appoint
them to permanent positions. The conclusion is unavoidable that
the VA is abusing its temporary appointing authority simply be-
cause it wants to spend less for its fire protection services.
The 0PM report sets forth certainly alternatives for consider-
ation. At the outset, we take issue with OPM's statement on pages
3 and 22 of the report where it indicates it would be premature to
take actions at this time. The 0PM report suggests that the plight
of long-term temporary employees should be left to some future at-
tention by the very branch of government which is the culprit in
the first place.
0PM would have us believe that its exploration of policy initia-
tives in the administration help the reform proposal and might
solve the problem. This is tantamount to saying that inequities
faced by temporary employees are not worthy of immediate atten-
tion by Congress.
This is nonsense and in and of itself reason for swift congres-
sional action.
The OPM report identifies several specific alternatives with re-
spect to temporary employees. First is to limit temporary appoint-
ments to 2 years and to encourage the use of term appointments
for longer lasting nonpermanent work. We contend that mere en-
couragement is not sufficient to curtail the abuse of temporary ap-
pointments by agencies. The hiring of temporary employees should
be authorized only when the agency can show that either the work
will increase after 1 or possibly 2 years or its attempt to recruit
permanent employees have failed.
We endorse OPM's suggestion that temporary employees should
be provided with employment opportunities and the right to move
to career positions. AFGE has consistently maintained that all em-
ployees must be afforded the opportunity to have access to health
care. For temporary employees, the eligibility for participation in
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program should be short-
ened and we contend once eligible, they should participate on the
119
same basis as all other employees. Not only is this equitable but
it will go a long way toward halting the abuse of temporary ap-
pointments.
The same is true of granting temporary employees the right to
participate in both the Federal life insurance program and the Fed-
eral retirement system. We note that 0PM does not mention any
alternative concerning salary step increases or adverse action
rights. Temporary employees who serve for more than 1 year are
not eligible for step increases for no apparent reason. This is an in-
credible and intolerable practice that must be stopped immediately.
Finally, we see no reason why an employee who occupies a posi-
tion for more than 1 or 2 years should not have the same adverse
action protection and the right to use a negotiated grievance proce-
dure as do all other employees.
Such an employee has completed a more than reasonable proba-
tionary period. Granting these rights would not cost the Grovem-
ment anything and it would help to ensure that employees are not
exploited.
Mr. Chairman, we endorse the legislation you introduced in the
last Congress and we hope that an even broader measure will move
forward in this Congress.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views. This con-
cludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions
you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harnage follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bobby Harnage, National Secretary-Treasurer,
American Federation of Government Employees
Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members: My name is Bobby Harnage and I am
the National Secretary-Treasurer of the American Federation of Government Em-
ployees, AFL-CIO. On behalf of the over 700,000 public employees which AFGE rep-
resents, we are pleased to appear before you today and present our views on federal
agencies' use of temporary employees and on OPM's April, 1993, report to Congress
entitled "The Rights and Benefits of Temporary Employees in the Federal Govern-
ment."
AFGE is concerned about the number of temporary employees in the federal
workforce. The 0PM report indicates that the number of temporary employees has
increased only slightly during the last ten years. But we contend that the use of
temporary employees by most agencies is not bona fide. We do not believe that the
number of tasks of short duration has increased, nor do we believe there is a short-
age of applicants for permanent positions. It is, therefore, clear to us that agencies
are using temporary employees simply because it is a way to save money. This con-
tention is further supported by a careful analysis of the 0PM Report.
We also suspect that agencies are using temporary employees because they can
hire and fire tiiem without meeting the due process requirements accorded to per-
manent, career employees. Temporary employees do not have adverse action appeal
rights, are not entitled to military leave, have Umited rights to participate in the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), and are ineligible to partici-
pate in the federal life insiu*ance and retirement programs.
In order to focus on this issue, it is useful to examine the components of the fed-
eral workforce. If one were to ask how many federal employees there are, the an-
swer most often given would be 2.2 million, but, if one were to phrase the question
slightly differently and ask how many people work directly for the federal govern-
ment, the answer would be at least 2.5 million and probably closer to 3 million or
more. Why the difference?
The federal, nonpostal workforce is comprised of both full-time and part-time, per-
manent employees. It also consists of temporary and contract employees. Approxi-
mately 2.2 million employees have permanent appointments. Those employees are
considered career employees, and as such, are accorded the fiiU range of federal em-
ployees' rights and benefits. Another almost 200,000 are temporary employees serv-
ing either under term appointments for periods of more than one year but for not
120
more than 4 years, or under temporary limited appointments for a definite period
of one year or less. The remaining employees whose number cannot be ascertained
with any degree of certainty, are contract employees.
The use of temporary employees is expedient and, in AFGE's view, agencies are
abusing this hiring authority. As the 0PM Report shows, the majority of the tem-
porary workforce has at least three years of Federal service. That fact, in and of
itself, is a clear indication that the so-called temporary jobs are not expected to be
of short duration. That is, unless a third of a decade, at a minimum, can be con-
strued as a short dvu-ation. Of course, by any reasonable interpretation, it is not.
In 1987, Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) addressed the Public Administra-
tion Forum. His remarks, entitled "Civil Servants Under Fire," identified an array
of problems and challenges facing federal civil servants:
'^Ve see the Reagan Administration expanding the use of temporary employees.
OPM's new rules permit longer appointments (up to 4 years, which just happens to
coincide with a presidential term) and at higher levels then before. The Post Office
and Civil Service Committee has commissioned the General Accounting Office
(GAO) to monitor this and the evidence so far is that the number of temporaries
is increasing rapidly. GAO also reports that such appointments now reach into high
levels of professional, administrative, and technical positions. Taken to an extreme,
these temporary appointments, could undermine the entire concept of a non-par-
tisan, career civil service." (Emphasis in original).
In addition to the problem of the potential for politicization of the federal civil
service that this practice opens up, is the issue of relative treatment and the main-
tenance of employment standards. Temporary employees, regardless of the length
of their tenure, are not accorded the same compensation provided to permanent em-
ployees doing similar work. In some unique circumstances, this policy makes sense:
jobs of extremely limited dvu-ation, where no permanent employee is capable or
available to do the work, and where the employee has full understanding and ac-
ceptance of these facts. But these cases are extremely rare, and do not even com-
prise the majority of cases of temporary federal employment today.
There is simply no reasonable justification to deny long-term "temporary" employ-
ees a compensation package equivalent in value to that of permanent federal em-
ployees. As mentioned above, temporary employees, when they are eUgible to par-
ticipate at all, must pay the entire premium for coverage under FEHBP. They are
excluded entirely from the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), and
the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Temporary employees also do
not accrue benefits from seniority.
The value of the government's contributions to these employment benefits for a
typical permanent federal employee is over $10,000, or one-third of total salary, not
including the value of seniority benefits. This is a substantial differential. Such
nvunbers make clear the government's incentive to have as many employees on tem-
porary status as possible. But there are far too many instances where a policy of
maximizing the use of temporary employees is indefensible on grounds of fairness.
AFGE acknowledges that utihzation of temporary employees can be advantageous
for employees as well as the government. For example, the Department of Agri-
cijture fi-equently hires temporary employees for crop reporting. Obviously, this is
a fiinction which only needs to be performed during certain, discreet time periods.
It is clearly a "summer job," ideal for students who would not be interested in year-
round employment. Seasonal operation of snowplows is another good example of a
job which is properly classified solely as temporary.
Unfortunately, however, the mutual advantage is ofl«n nonexistent. There are far
too many cases of agencies abusing the use of their temporary hiring authority. In-
creasingly, individuals are appointed for limited terms to perform ongoing, full-time
jobs. Some temporary appointments are even for the performance of core or key
functions.
I want to highlight this misuse of temporary employees by bringing to your atten-
tion one situation in AFGE's Sixth District. The DVA Medical Center in Brecksville,
Ohio, has grossly abused the use of temporary employees in its fire department. The
problem began in 1986 when that VAMC decided to explore the feasibility of con-
tracting for its fire prevention and protection services. It conducted an A-76 study
which showed that it was not cost effective to contract. But perhaps what is more
important is the fact that the City of Brecksville, was and still is not willing and
able to provide fire protection to the VAMC and it would not, in any event, provide
fire prevention services which the VAMC now enjoys.
The VA had hoped to save some money by contracting, and so, aft;er the results
of the A-76 study were known, it looked for another way to save money. It decided
to go to two- and three-person crews per shift;. Equipment could not be operated
safely with such skeletal crews and consequently, employees, patients, facilities and
121
eqviipment were all at risk. This staffing violates OSHA Standards and has led to
investigations and presstire to provide at least enough staff to meet the standards
set by the National Fire Prevention Association. The Brecksville VAMC then found
another way to spend less money for fire prevention and protection services: It de-
cided to hire temporary fire fighters for four-year appointments. At the end of the
four-year period, the temporary fire fighter would be fired and a new fire fighter
would be hired for another four-year period. At the present time, the Brecksville
VAMC fire department is staffed by five permanent fire fighters and ten temporary
fire fighters.
Now the VA is faced with another problem. It cannot find replacements for the
temporaries whose four-year appointments are expiring. So, it is extending their
four-year terms for one month at a time on an emergency basis.
Fire prevention and protection is not a temporary job. It is not a job of limited
or short duration. It is an ongoing, key function which must be performed at all
times, for as long as the Brecksville VAMC is in existence. There is no valid reason
to staff a fire department with temporary employees other than a situation where
there are no applicants for career, permanent positions. Our Union knows first hand
that this is not the case at the Brecksville VAMC fire department. The temporary
fire fighters all want to become career employees but the VA will not appoint them
to permanent positions. The conclusion is unavoidable that the VA is abusing its
temporary appointing authority simply because it wants to spend less for its fire
protection services. The temporary fire fighters are performing the same duties as
the permanent fire fighters and tney are serving for periods of at least four years.
Under such circumstances, it is patently unfair to deny them the same rights and
benefits accorded to permanent employees, and as clear a violation of the principle
of equal pay for equal work as exists anywhere. And, this practice has been going
on for over nine years — hardly a situation of short duration.
AFGE beUeves that there are some situations where the use of temporary ap-
pointments is appropriate. But because of evidence of widespread abuse of tem-
porary hiring authority, we believe that improved standards should be set forth
which define the types of jobs which may be classified as temporary. In addition,
we believe that it is fair that a distinction be made between jobs which are by defi-
nition strictly of a short duration (such as seasonal work), and those which are more
open-ended, ongoing jobs likely to last for more than a year. Such standards would
constitute an important protection of the compensation and rights of both temporary
and permanent employees, and would be consistent with the spirit of the merit prin-
ciples. The 0PM Report sets forth several alternatives for consideration and we
would like to comment on these:
At the outset, we take issue with OPM's statements on Pages 3 and 22 of the Re-
port. 0PM indicates it would be premature to take action at this time; first, because
it will be exploring poUcy initiatives which could bear on temporary employment
policies and, second, because this Administration will be developing overall health
care reform proposals. This is tantamount to sajdng, in our opinion, that the inequi-
ties faced by temporary employees are not worthy of immediate attention by Con-
gress. Rather, the 0PM Report suggests that the pUght of long-term, temporary em-
ployees should be left to some future attention by the very branch of Government
which is the culprit in the first place. This is nonsensical and in and of itself reason
for swift congressional action.
The 0PM Report identifies several specific alternatives with respect to temporary
employees. The first is to limit temporary appointments to two years and to encour-
age the use of term appointments for long-lasting nonpermanent work. We contend
that mere encouragement is not sufficient to curtail the abuse of temporary appoint-
ments by agencies. The hiring of temporary employees should be authorized only
when the agency can show either that the work will cease after one or possibly two
years or that its attempts to recruit permanent employees have failed. We endorse
OPM's suggestion that temporary employees should be provided with employment
opportunities and the right to move to career positions and would welcome the op-
portunity to work with the Committee in developing statutory rights to achieve this.
AFGE has consistently maintained that all employees must be afforded the oppor-
tunity to have access to health care. Not only do we agree with 0PM that the eugi-
biUty period for participation in the FEHBP should l^ shortened but we also con-
tend that after meeting the eligibility period, temporary employees should partici-
pate on the same basis as all other employees. Not only is this equitable but it
would go a long way toward curbing the abusive use of temporary appointments.
The same is also true of granting temporary employees the right to peuticipate in
both the federal Ufe insurance program and ^e federal retirement system.
We note that 0PM does not mention any alternatives concerning salary step-in-
creases or adverse action rights. While temporary employees can receive pay in-
122
creases and can benefit fi-om special pay rates, temporary employees who serve for
more than one year are not eligible for step increases, for no apparent reason. It
is an inequitable and intolerable practice and must be curbed.
Finally, we see no reason why an employee who occupies a position for longer
than one or two years should not have the same adverse action protections and the
right to use a negotiated grievance procedure as do all other employees. Such an
employee has completed a reasonable "probation" period. He is an asset to the gov-
ernment and needed badly or his appointment would not be continued. Why, then,
shouldn't he be accorded the same due process as other employees? And, finally,
granting these rights would not cost the Government anything.
Mr. Chairman, we were quite pleased to learn of your interest in this issue during
the last Congress and we endorsed the legislation you introduced. It is our hope that
an even broader measure will move forward in this Congress which will insure that
temporary employees are not exploited but are treated fairly and equitably as are
other career employees in the Civil Service.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views and we look forward to work-
ing with you and your staff as you continue to explore this issue and look for viable
solutions. This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, gentlemen.
Frankly, I am feeling very hopeful today. I think legislatively
and administratively it is going to be the case that this is the year
of radical reform and improvement as to the status of Federal em-
ployees.
I might say very much I am helped by Mr. King's attitude and
I think we can work with him. There are a couple of aspects that
have been brought up by this panel that are the subjects of written
questions particularly that I would be referring to Mr. McHugh and
OPM shortly, but one of those that I have written was brought up
by Mr. Tobias as to the status of all the FDIC employees.
Bob, can you elaborate on that a little bit, briefly? I think we do
get the image of temporary employees in many cases as the fun-
gible support groups, temporary and lower skilled and all that, but
I know from previous experience many of these people are in quite
significant administrative and technical positions, also. I wonder if
you could comment on that?
Mr. Tobias. These folks are temporary employees under the ac-
cepted service appointment authority. They don't even have the
limited regulatory protections that exist but are often ignored. If
you are an excepted service temporary appointment, you have
nothing.
These folks are in the FDIC, they are called LG employees and
they are assigned a task and have been assigned the task for years
and years and years in FDIC of liquidating the assets of banks that
are seized and closed. So they are dealing with multimillion-dollar
properties, solving — working as lawyers and accountants and as
people who are analyzing who owes what to whom to figure out
what price ought to be placed on these properties and at what time
the market might be able to absorb these properties at the highest
possible cost.
So these are very technical, highly skilled, valuable workers, all
of which are temporary. All of
Mr. McCloskey. What percentage of the FDIC work force are
the temporaries?
Mr. Tobias. I believe it is about 70 percent. I believe it is about
70 percent; don't hold me to that but
123
Mr. McCloskey. That is amazing in itself. Can you educate me
a little bit? How did that occur? Obviously, we are not looking at
a temporary function here.
Mr. Tobias. The FDIC has just used these people over time, over
the years they have been unrepresented by a union. In the last 2
years after what was a 5-year effort to organize this work force re-
sisted by the FDIC, they were the JP Stevens of the Federal sector,
without question, and the only agency that was sued to enforce an
order to bargain with the union.
It is only in the last 2 years that we have been able to bring this
matter to the attention of Congress and beyond, because the work
force was so frightened that they would not be renewed that they
didn't bring it up themselves.
So now that they have a collective voice, they are able to bring
this forward. As I say, there are many employees that have been
working as temporary employees for 15 years which I believe is an
outrageous, abysmal situation.
Mr. McCloskey. If I might comment on that, as I mentioned in
my previous comments, I am so concerned about these people who
have 14, 15, 18, I think the longest one we heard was 21 years of
service in my own district. I am hopeful out of all this, legislatively
and administratively we would be able to say at least to these peo-
ple at some critical point, if you have 10 years or more of tem-
porary service given you have, in essence, been exploited to that
degree, that you would have a right to a buy-in as to the Federal
pension regardless of whether you are a current or former em-
ployee.
Could I ask for reactions of all three of you to that? Would that
be a major step? It would, frankly, subjectively make me feel good,
quite frankly.
Mr. Tobias. We agree that people ought to have a buy-in. Our
suggestion is they be able to buy in at 3 percent as military folks
do after a period of 2 years, not 10 years.
Mr. McCloskey. Right.
Mr. Tobias. And that they also be converted to a permanent po-
sition to the extent that they are provided some discharge protec-
tions and that they have available health insurance.
That is the real — ^that is really the critical issue.
Mr. McCloskey. Yes, I understand.
But how about the most egregious case, 9, 10 years? Do you favor
a buy-in for those people given the fact, life and death, now is the
immediate thing for them?
Mr. Tobias. We certainly favor a buy-in procedure.
Mr. Keener. We certainly agree with that. I have 25 letters
here, again many of these, 18- to 20-year veterans, yes, we would
like to have them be able to buy in, and we agree with Brother
Tobias that the shortest possible period of time would be preferable
to us.
Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Hamage.
Mr. Harnage. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would certainly hope there
would be a buy-in offered.
One of our concerns is as I sat here and listened to Mr. King's
presentation this morning, and I am very impressed by him and
look forward to his first year in that position to see if his attitude
124
continues; but what we are talking about is something that has
been going on for 10, 20 years and all we are going to say is, oh,
OK, we are going to see it doesn't happen again, but all of those
that have been harmed, we are sorry, but we are not going to do
anything. That would be telling the agencies for the next 10 years
we got new rules and laws, you can violate them, too, there is no
penalty.
I would certainly hope we would make those employees whole
that have been wronged, and we send a strong message to the Fed-
eral agencies that we would not tolerate this abuse again.
Mr. McCloskey. How about Mrs. Mink's statement? She sug-
gested a year from the first day the temporary employee could pro-
vide all the costs of coverage, but going in the second year they
would have the legal status with other Federal employees. Does
that sound like a reasonable compromise to you or is that 1 year
a matter of real jeopardy that we ought to look at a little more
skeptically?
Mr. Tobias. I would urge you look at it more skeptically, Mr.
Chairman. I think that a year is not what occurs in the private sec-
tor. I think I would certainly urge that the existing administrative
regulations be at least looked at. There is a category of seasonal
employees, those eligible for health insurance when a supervisor
certifies that that person is reasonably expected to work for 6
months, and when that occurs, that employee is eligible for insur-
ance from day one.
So the Government has at least administratively in some kind of
seasonal positions
Mr. McCloskey. Administratively, they can do it now, in other
words.
Mr. Tobias. And I urge we do no less administratively.
Mr. McCloskey. Has AFGE given much thought to the differing
status of these substantially identical Federal firefighter units, Mr.
Hamage? This is where 95 percent are permanent but some few
units are temporaries? In essence, they do identical work. How
much is that equity raising itself through the system as to the tem-
porary situation?
Mr. Harnage. It is certainly an inequitable situation. This is in
the VA, but it is common in the Department of Defense where you
have imposed manpower ceilings or mission changes and they have
a reduction in force and bring people right back in a temporary sta-
tus doing the job of the previous employees and all they have done
is eliminated the benefits package. That goes on for years.
I suspect where a lot of these employees that you see today that
have 10, 15, and 18 years of service, it came about that way. If you
think back in time, that is about the time that the Government
first imposed manpower ceilings, was about 18 years ago, and a lot
of this temporary employment came about that way.
As far as the health benefit package, I would certainly support
the position of the first year. It is not going to cost anything and
it is certainly not going to hurt the health benefit program. We are
not talking about unhealthy employees. We are talking about peo-
ple that are screened healthwise the same way as permanent em-
ployees but not given the benefit package. The more healthy people
125
you add to the program, you are helping the program, not hurting
it. You are lowering the costs, not increasing the costs.
Mr. McCloskey. Well, I might say I think all three of you have
testified very well today, very comprehensively, and I appreciate
your contribution. I think you know from my previous statements
I share your concern.
Mr. McHugh is here and is for some adverse action rights. For
any system, people have to have a place to go when unfairly treat-
ed. That is not to say they have every right across-the-board of a
permanent employee, but this plantation mentality, if you will, has
to cease.
The first day I ran across this more than 7 years ago, I said this
is the plantation mentality and here is the Federal Government
trying to set themselves up in relation to the private sector man-
dating model employment standards. So if there is a year this can
change, gentlemen, I think this is it.
So I really appreciate it.
Unless any of you have a point to add that has not been covered
or any parting note, I just thank you very much.
Mr. Tobias. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCloskey. I might say we are pleased to accept a state-
ment from Mr. Kanjorski for the record.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Pennsylvania
Mr. Chairman, I thank and commend you for holding this hearing today on the
sue of temporary employees in the federal government.
Last Congress, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, I held a
number of hearing about the plight of temporary employees. We heard testimony
from people from all over the country who had worked for various federal agencies
as a "temporary" for up to 25 years.
These employees are required to pay the full cost of their health insurance, if they
can get it at all. They often are not eligible to participate in FERS, or even to get
credit for government service during years working as a temporary. Long-time fed-
eral employees like Roger Archibald, who I had the opportunity to hear testify at
a field hearing last year and who will testify before us today, have Uttle or no job
security and can lose their jobs for the vaguest of reasons. Temporary employees are
often not able to compete for either temporary or permanent employment in a posi-
tion they are already competently filling.
This Congress I introduced legislation which would help correct one aspect of the
treatment of federal employees. My bill, H.R. 606, would enable competent tem-
porary employees on the job for at least two years to obtain competitive status for
purposes of transfer or reassignment. It simply does not make sense to spend the
time and money training people for jobs when there are temporary employees ready,
able, and willing to fill the position.
It is my understanding that you are developing comprehensive legislation which
addresses this issue and many of the other obstacles temporary employees face, Mr.
Chairman. I commend you for your efforts in this area and look forward to working
with you toward this end.
Mr. McCloskey. Also, we will be including in the record state-
ments from various interested parties.
[The information referred to follows:]
70=660 0-94-5
126
Committ Member
Jffndy Lowenfiurb
In the spi'inf^ of 1900 when I first boRan work with the U.y»
Porer.t Service, Avery Ranger District, I waB working with tho
road maint«nance departmont aa a rock rake operator. About,
mid season I was called in by road maintenance acting super-
visor, Linda Vorie* she inquired if 1 would like to oj)orate
tlio road grader if nhe could get Hanger Dennis Hart to approve
tlie action. A few days later the rangor gave hi a approval.
However, from that day on I was not even allowed to ride on
tlip 'Tador, let alone learn to operate it. The grader oper-
ator, Art Schamel, stated thit they wore trying to retire him
and he would be darned if he would teach roe to "do his job
because of their actlone.
Latiir that sear.on I wan advised a permanant appointment pof.r..1-
tjon in maintenance was being offered and that I should apply.
1 nevor saw the announcement, however, I was advised thst whwn
tlje personnel at the f>.0» rewrote the announcement' they made
the appointment available for Vietnam Veterans only. The job
w.'iR nevur fillod.
ApjjroximateJy a year later, 19^1, 1 was advised by the then
road maintenance r.upervisor, Howard Okamoto, that there wasn't
enough money in the budget to work me more then 2 or 3 days per
wocrk. However, Terry Gtranahan tho Fire Management Officer
had a job for me if I was interested. The remainder of 1961
I v/orkcd for both roads and grounds maintenance. X was funnn
aj/proached to awply for a permanant appointment position covering
thtj job diacription I was presently doing* rfhen considerable
time had elapii^ and I had not seen a job announcement I asked
Torry 5'itranahan abDut it and wag adviued that he and Howard
Okamoto could not agree on how long T would work for each of
tht^m. Therefore, the announcement was nevor written.
I believe that the .same year, beginning of the now fiscal
yaftr in Oct. 198? and just prior to ray being layed off due
to lack of work, Terry Stranahan was put in charge of all
except raod maintenance. He advised me that I would be working
strictly for him and ho asked if that before calling mo b{*ck to
woi'k the next season would I take a wage reduction - from a
.Viip.e Orade e down to a Wage Grade 2. He stated ho wouldn't
have enough money in the budget to work me very long if 1 didn't.
I accepted his reque.-t and he promised to get my Wage Grade
position back as soon as possible. Still to this date Terry
fitrunahan denies having asked me to take a wage reduction.
127
'•".very yinr since, 7 have vvorked for Fire ManaRement, Officer
Terry ftranahan and ln<ii. stance havo had to .solicit charp.o crxlos
from othier departmont functions to pay my v/ai;Qs, evon when
only doin/: minor non-time connumlnp, jobs for the othnr ftanutionf
] worked with Larry Nelson who held a Wage Grade J> }'ermanant
A) pointment and upon his resif.nation, I believo in 19{53f 1 waR
required to perform the additional maintenance on approximately
^U biiildlnssi cir. wol 1 as vchirT'; fleet ,ind groundo ma^ntonnnce,
I'lvf^ntually 7 //as /^iven a mehpally deficient holper, Glenn
//rir;ht,, to do grounds maintenance and 7 was dirtoctedby Terry
fitranahan to r.uj'erviso him. I was to teach him and keep h.im
out of fjtranahan's hair, as Glenn is a littlo alow to loom.
G"lonn was later fii vpn an appointmont on a minority statuK.
Approximately the same time I was Riven Olann to supervise i 1
was requirHd by Terry Stranahan to obtain a Chaufor'a llcanso
to onable me to operate the large district fire ongineh as
this was to now bu part of my responsibtlitieg. Ever since
tlio hiring of GJonn, I have been repremanded by Stranahan
bficauijo Gienn would fio to hira with problens either by my
directions nr on )iis own. Since ytranahan is hi« bosR it was
the correct chain of command. The latest incidant I received
a repremand for occurred on May 10, 1993. whereupon, I advised
Stranahan it was about time he did his job and Buporviacd Glfjnn
since I rfas only a temporary part time wmployoe and Glenn had
a permanant appointment *
Whf;n Avery Ranger District and Rod Ives Ranger District con-
solidated NiMard '"Jrocket" Dumas became our nev/ District
Ranrer. I visited with him in his office and he askod as to
my b;jckf,round. I advir-ed him of my Law Enforcement background.
This turned out to be a big mistake as he scorned to take
offence at my onco having considerable authority. At a later
date I was asked my opini .on on proposed road cloRures. The
roads proposed had been open and maintained for years. 1
stated my views and the road closures went ahead. Yet, one
of the closed roads was re-opened because it was whore th«
ranr,er preferred to hunt. I was referred to and advised many
times by both Dumas and Stranahan that I wasn't ••part of thft
family" becausn I didn't go along blindly with uverythinc,
they did or said. 7 readily admit disagreeing with r;evornl
requests and decision.'; they made. 1 was advised raoro then once
by Stranahan that the decisions wore his and it was none of my
businenc - If I didn't like it T could quit.
128
Marion Ryun was transfcrrHd from Temijorary Laborer at Hed
I von to Avery to work with mc» at which time otranahan asked
mo to instruct Marion on the operation of tho fire onf;ln6s.
Marion Ryan and 5>tranahan became very cJ.ose frianda and any-
thing Ryan wanted, Ryan got. Ryan was sent to all fire
training iniiervicc nchools, welding schools, and oven inRervloo
trHining sesaione he had already attended and lied about it.
Kvan Whs allowed to do this even tho we had a conssidorabl e
tiuck-l.oc of work to be done, I approched Ctranahan rep.ardlnc
one r.uch incident and he just lau^hod about it, I told him
this was no laughinp; matter as there wan a lot of work that
required doing urrrentJy at Stranahans iasintance.
My work schedule war. Monday thru Thurr.day and Ryans -was Tuesday
thru Vriday. Ryan had a bad habit of coraminf; to work on
Tuesday mornings anywhere from 15 to 1 hour and 15 minutes
late. One morning Htranahan and 1 were standing in the shop,
ho was inquiring the whereabouts of Ryan, at which time I
advised htm that this was Tuesday and hard telling when Ryan
would show up to work. At that tjme Marion Ryan was au hour
late. Upon Ryans arrival at work, iltranahan asked where he
h.od been and stated that he was an hour late, Marlon camo
back with. " what difference does it make - 1 don't do any
woi'k for tho first hour anyway." This was a big laughing
matter and joke to Gtranahan.
Mail on Ryan very seldom completed a job he started, and nior«
than I care to mention I was required to finish or do thorn
over. But Ryan was a buddy and "part of the family^ f-o he
could do no wrong. On one occassion I was called into r>tran-
ahanfi*. " in the presence of John myree and asked when 1
wfis goxng to take my lay-off as I was working on Marion Ryans*
moaoyc, Strnnahan had discussed working conditions with Ryfin and
put him in charge of quarters and work center maintenance, Thoy
nad put Paul Anderson in charge of fleet maintenance, and
my.ulf now in charge of facility grounds raaintenunco and
purchasing and rcqunsi tions, as I had been requentod to obtain
a H.I'.A. authf.rity. This enabled him (Stranahan) to call mo
at home on my day;; off requesting that 1 make purchaseo
bciforo returning to work. Anyhow, the discusftion was; about
work season. It was decided that each of us would work equal
time - 9 months on and 3 months off — with Ryan and I over-
lapping work schedules during major or busy months, April thru
.September. One of ur. was to cover Paul Andersons work during
his time off. 1 was never called back to work on my duo date
hecmifie Marion Ryan had not yet decided to take his agreed to
lay-off. Or I would get a last minute call from 5)tranfthan
complaining about budget cuts and hi a not knowing whun he could
call mo back to work. Twice, as I recall, 5,0. had already
notified me in writing of my work report date, and Stranahan
WQ5 upset about this.
129
I really realiiied that I was in trouble about p^ettinp, a
permanant appointnic->nt when one day while Marlon Hyan and T
working we were approached by Ranrier Millard numaa. Dumas
jr.nored me - not even acknowlndglnR my presence- and rtflk
Ry«n if he had heard anythinr. about his appointment announce-
ment that Stranahan was supposed to have written up« When
Hyan answered Dumaa in the nepativo, Dumas stated "T p,ucsa
tU-rnnahan ncrowed this up just like evcrythinp; elae h6 has
aone,"
Jt was a conr.iderabJfi time later when the Maintenance Appoint-
ment Announcement came out and was only open Tor Horaething
like 3 days and applications had to be at the S.O. no later
then the end of the working day on Thursday after lunch hour.
At about • lUOO hours on the clofjinp, day of the announcnmoKt,
j;tranahan approached Marion Ryan and I and inquired if we
had applied. J advised hira that 1 had and Marion Hyan advi.sod
him that he wasn't interested. JJtranahan told Ryan he wanted
tc> sec him in his office richt away. Upon Ryans return, he
told several people about how he Rot hio ass chewed by both
Dumar, and Stranahan for not applying for the appointment
and that he bad it better nov/ then if ho ROt the job, lie
also stated that he didn't plan on worklnj; for the forn:-t
•.orvice much lonf.er. Clear up until November of that year
Ryan denied having applied for the appointment,
Durinp the next work aea^on or year, the aeloction was made to
fill the permanant maintenance-position and Marion Hyan was
pe'lected to everyoner, amazement. I wac called into Ranp.er
Dumas 's office by Stranahan, however Dumas was not proaoiit}
arid 1 wag told that I came in second and that I would never
p;et an appointment as lonf!; as Dumas was ranger becuuBC T
"did not belong to the family."
Thif. matter was discussed with N„F.F.E« union representative
I.inda Buck and President Dill Boxtruck. An investlRation was
suppose to have been instiRatod, and I was advised an appli-
cation for the job was on file with Marion RyanH siRnature on
it - matter closed. I was also advised that some of my co-
workers contacted the .S.O. and let their feeljnpn be known.
I was also advised that Ranger Dumas had made it known that h«
was Roing to see that throe employees were going to get perma-
nant appointments before he left Avery Ranger District,
f'aul Ander.'-.on and I wore at the S.O. in- Couer d'alene and we
asked to see our job description for Wage Grade Maintenance
position. We were denied because they stated it did not
apply to us even tho vyn were employed as Maintenance personnel
and had been for several years. I believe at this same time
I requei-ited to see my personnel file, as I had been adviued that
55trar»uhan kept a neperate personnel on me* I don't recall
evor seeinf, my personnel file and Stranahan denied keeping a
separate file on me.
130
The end of 1989» around November, «/e got a new ranger, Kent
Uuriston. It wasn't until the beginninp; of the 1990 season
that I held contact with Hanf^or Dunnton. One ruorninf?; Cindy
TliOL.paon, at that time, purchasing agent for Avery Ranr,er'
district, advised me ahe had an appointment to see ^auffir
Duncton and wanted me present. Hor complaint was on mainten-
ance and why maintenunce was not bein^ done in a timely
ruanner, not only on her residonse but all maintenance. Shu
strongly opposed the fact that Terry .'Jtranahan beinp, ijut.
in charge of maintenance. Ranger Dun.<>ton advised us ho had
had sfweraJ. complaints on how maintenance was beinR handled
tini} that he waa considering taking, the responsibility away
from r-'.tranahan and /!;iving it to Marion Ryan and me. Iln thf^n
ar.ked me if I could Kive him some answers to Cindy' jj
accucations, I advised him it was very difficult for one
man to do a two man job. Marion Ryan was at n Dwelling Fire
Training School, sent by Terry Stranahan for Marion Ryan's
personal benefit as he had purchased his own fire fdp-.htLnf;
equipment and was taking leave of absenso from Forest fJervico.
Howfivcr, he was going around tolling co-workers how Stranahan
and the Hanger had got him listed on the register at th«
IMi'trict Fire Office in Coeur d' A lone, and how he was going
to use his fire fighting equipment during fire saa.son and
then comming back to work during the off season and working
in maintenance.
1 told Ranger Dunston that I might just as well clear the air
and tell him the rest of the problems that I had had to con-
tend withi, most of wliich has been mentioned in thin rojiort.
Howovnr, I also told him about Stranahan's and Ryan's going
to Red Ives frequently and taking Alcoholic beverages, some
of v/hich did not belong to them. Marion, Paul and I a)iarti
thH same quarters and had brought alcoholic beverages for our
consumption after working hours. On this occaaslon Ryan and
Stranahan took the alcoholic beverages and went to Red Ives
Ranger .Station, (Terry Stranahan always.-, drove hia privato
vfihicle;, Marion usually drove a forest aervi.ce vehicle and
that being the malntence truck. Therefore, 1 would be left
without a vehicle for the day and in moat cases the right
tools or equii)ment toRerfcunmjnaintenancH dutdos around Lhu
Avury Ranger Station. T)jis time in particular, Ryan stated
in subntance that Stranahan and he had hunted hunted Klk on
t)v.'. following work day at Red Ives. They parked Stranahan' a
pick-up and hunted the hillside above the St. Joe Rivtsr for
a considerable dlst.Jiico. It was mi.«-,orable weather and rained
nil the time. Marion Ryan and 1 shared the Game cabinet
locker and kept our time sheets in the same foldor. So it wna
very «usy for mo to check and see how Ryan credited the day. In
question. I found that 10 houra work *tere claimed for tho day
he and Stranahan went hunting. They had also stayed in govorn-
quartors while at Red ]v«r..
131
Within the ri«xt day or two f^arion Ryan was called back to
Avery from the DwelJinp. Fire 5')Chool along with Terry JJtranahan.
Ranger Dunston had a mef;tinG with them along with John Myrea
Chunk Sllva the Law .enforcement Acent for Avery and St. Maries
Ranfjer Districts. 1 was not included in the meeting, however,
1 was advised an investigation was instigated and that Stranahan
wns no longer permitted to stay over night at Red Ives for the
duration of Dunr.tonn' rangership. Marion Ryan resigned shortly
thcroufter and his non-compeditlve rehire status revoked.
Upon Marion ryanj,; resignation, I finally got ray wage grade 3 '
tit]e back after 9 years of pi*omise.s. However there was no
mention of filJing the permanent appointment in maintunanue.
The maintenance position was filled by Tim Vore - temjiorary
employee. When Vore was told by Stranahan t>iat the permaneht
Maintonance Position wa?; not going to be filled, Vore trans-
ferred out of Stranahan' s department,
Turry Stranahan told me he was considering hiring a person to
help me, this man being a strong union man out on strike. iV'hcjn
I heard this T immediately went to Ranger Dunston and inquired
if ho knew about Stranahan* s hiring ulan. 1 found thzit he was
not aware of the porr.on being a striking union member. Ranger
Dunston agreed that the parson would not stay with a forest
service laborer job at low wages. As soon as the strike was
settled he would return to his high salary union job. 1 asked
Hangor Dunston why Larry Nelson had not been considered. The
rarjgfir was not aware of Nelson and his rehire status*
Stranahan adviued me within the next day or two that Larry
Nelson wan coming back to work.
For the next couple years I kept a low profile, as T. know
Stranahan knew why he war. unable to stay at Red Ives.
However, one day CJindy Thompson came to work and advisod that
she had to talk to me. She asked if I remember putting my arm
around her shoulder:^ while walking in the pai'king lot in front
of Jjtranahan's office window*/ 1 told her that I didn't, however
J wouldn't deny doing it, and that wo had an understanding
that if ever I did anything to offend her or any other person,
all they had to do was to let rac know and it would never happen
apain. It was nothing for her to walk up and alip her arm
•iround my waist whilo walking and discuRsing work» She tJmn
advised me that Htranahan had cornered her and ask her to sign
a sexual harracsmont complaint against me, and if she dldn*t
that he would. She further advised that aha refused signing a
complaint and would take care of tho matter in hor own wny.
Cindy went on to say that Stranahan was out to got me any way
he could find.
132
A few days after the talk wity Cindy Thompnon, I was calJed into
.''trannhan' s office and he domanded to know what 1 had dono to
Cindy bcioaurifi she had complaJned ti him about my actions toward
her. T told him that Cindy had a talk with rae and as -fur as T
war. concerned the matter was adttled. Stranahan would not
.••.Httlp for t^is and donianded to know what I had dono, That
Cindy's Supervisor and the- Jf'an^.er were alno involvod, that if
it ever occurrod again not only with Cindy but any other
woman, I would loose my lob. It was not lonp after this that
Cr-imiy Frai'.er, pay rolJ clerk, wanted to know what was p,oinf:\ on,
as T<?rry Stranahan saw me put my arm around her while ?he was
rroin;^ out to p.ot the mail. He approached her solicitinr, her
to Hlp-.ii a sexual hai-ra.ssment compJaint agairifit mo. Candy
advised Stranahan that she was not offended and if she was
nho would take care of it herself.
r,nme time after the above raentionod sexual hfirrasr.mont
snilcitinK by Str.-inahan I had an opportunity to jjive Cindy
T>iompson a ride from f)t. Maries to Avery. I then asked har if
sliu had went to her supervi;.;or (Gloria Parks) about me and
she stated that slie had not* However her supervinor )iad Hfjked
her if she wished to slfrn a complaint, i5hc further pt.uted that
Jitranahan muet h-.ve pone to superviaor as she definately had not,
and was not aware of the rangers involvement. She ap;ain warned
me that Gtranahan was out to get mo.
The Avery Flanger Office had moved to temporary quarters and one
Hvenine Kllen Anderson and I were talking about archery and my
helping her son since ho was new to the sport. Mhe snid that
she /i>ss very interested for herself also but was afraid of
liitting herr.elf as she was heavuly endowed. At thin time
Carol .Itrnnahan came in the office. I advised Kllon that >iftr
bnliir. hnavcily endowed was no problem as I could show hor how
to Htand to avoid hitting herself or p,et her a protective vest.
We laughed .ibout it and I left, leaving Kllen and Carol Stranahan
topetlier.
The next morning., Ellon asked rae what was goinp, on between me
and the Tjtranahana. yhe further stated that Carol asked her
if my talk had offended her and if it had that she (Carol)
wo\iJd ^;o to Terry Stranahan and have the matter takon cnro of.
KlJon told Carol that we (Bill & 1) were friends and that she
wa.'s alrso a friend of my wife. Our talk on archery and her
endowment problem ivao brought up by hor and that she had not
been offended. Ellen further stated that she was in hot water
with Carol because she told. Carol if she wished to talk about
Terry's drinkinp problem that her (Ellen's) ex-husband had
been an alcoholic.
133
Attachment 3
FPM LETTER 316-25
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZED USE OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS UNDER 5 CFR 316.401.
OCTOBER 23, 1992
1. OPM'S GovernmontwidG compLtance reviewB continue to IndLcate problsmn with
agency uae of the temporacy appointing authority, 5 CFR 316.401. RoauLt* of
the most recent of theae reviews indicate a substantial increase in the
frequency of erroneous toniporary appointments. This situation needs imnediate
attontion.
2. There wara significant errors in more than 20 percent of tho temporary
appointment cases reviewed in FY 91. These errors included unauthorised use o£
temporary appointments to fill permanent poaitions and to extend temporary
appointments beyond 4 years without OPM approval. Compliance reviews also
indicated that some agencies were improperly promoting temporary employees by
noncompatitively converting them to new temporary appointments at higher
grades.
3. The pattern evolving over the past several years is of great concern to
uo. It ia time for all agencies, not just those in which compliance reviews
were conducted, to make a concerted effort to assure that all appointing
offlcera are uaing temporary appointments ae authorised and that they are
procoaaing the appointments correctly. Agencies Should*
a. Give a copy of this FPM Letter to all managers and aupervisors who
employ temporary workers and call particular attention to paragraphs 4 and 5;
b. Includo coverage of temporary appointments in internal oversight
activities; and
c. Where problems persist, issue a directive on this subject and
follow it up with training for peraonnel staffs.
4. Temporary appointmanta are intended to meet legitimate nonpermanent
staffing needa. This meano temporary appointments are authorized qnly when the
need for the employee i a temporary . Therefors, agencies may noti
a. Hire temporary amployeaa to avoid tha costs of employee banefite
or because ceiling linitationa prevent the hiring of permanent employees.
b. Uas temporary employment as an unofficial probationary period
unleoB specifically authorised as in the case of severely disabled or mentally
restored employees.
c. Circumvent the compatitiva examining process by appointing an
individual on a temporary basis because he or She is not within reach for
permanent appointment or bacauaa a particular register is Closed.
134
k\. thfj end of vork .'-.eason 1992, Larry Nelson told me he only
],\HnnQd on comming back to work: naxt year part timet if he camci
back at all. Uccauae of problems writh his son he felt he
chould oe home more often to help his wife with the -dtuataon,
.Vluin I waa called uy Strana han on March 2!>, 1993 at my reni-
clcnco, regarding my coraming back to work, my wife Mary llowon wa.'
on the extontion. i'erry askod if I had thour,ht it ovor about
comiriiiip, oack to work r'^rt tiniH, bHcau:.e Larry NpIooo was only
comjiiinfr] back part time. Terry further stated thnt if I had
any problem with the: part time offer that I shouldn't coino
back to work.
•.Imor W. Bowon
HC 01 Uox 21 'j K
St Marios, Idaho 8386]
20ii~?.U^ 4788
135
Attachment 3
9. Proper doumontatlon Is enoenttal «o that amployesB und»r«tand the
conditions of temporary omployment, opecifically that Vhg »°""cv h*" "O
nennanent naed for the emplovao and that tha tMnoloven may b» 1;trminfttcd »t A QY
time unon noticea from the agency . Proper documantation also protaoto agencloo
from Bubooquent claims. In a racent ca»B, a Fodoral District Court judgo
leeuod a temporary rontralning ordor prohibiting th« aoparation of asveral
temporary employaos, in part bacauoa the agancy had not obtained the required
etatoment from tho omployoea that they understcMd the conditiona of temporary
employment. (See FPM Chapter 316, aaction 2-12, and eubohapter 10 ot FPH
Supplement 296-33 for information on documenting temporary appointments.) When
an agoncy givoa a new temporary appointment to an employee currently on the
rolls, the reappointment SP 50 must be prooeaaed in a timely manner to avoid
the automatic proceBBing of a arroneoua aeparation SF SO and the report of that
action to OPM'B Central Peraonnel Data Pile (CPOF).
Douglae A* Brook
Acting Director
136
ID:
Fb^ (jOf^Cfc&^'^VjESSAGE DISPLAY \-tW (ll'JtAI.IIINIi UUSH
To recfolks
From: Jaime Schmidt
Poataark: Jun 01.93 12:10 PM Delivered: Jun 01.93 12:10 PM
SLatua: Previously read
Subject: Forwarded: THMPS
Comments:
From: Jaime Schmidt :R01FOl4D02A
Date: Jun 01.93 12:10 PM
Previous commonts:
From: Don Kole:n01F0'<D02A
Date: Jun 01.93 7:3'* AM
There is a request from a Congrossmon who 1h workJiiK on getting 80no
bonofits for Temporary Employees. Please maWo thin messago available
to your temporary or ex-temporary otnploycos so Uuit thoy can decide
if they want to provide Information.
Previous commonts:
From: Dob RobbinstROlFOUDOUA
Dato: Jun 01 .,93 6:12 AM
Previous commonts:
From: DEBRA R. PERRY:
Dato: May 28.93 '♦tOO PM
Please read Phils note regardingr temps. Wl>nt 1h wantod hero are
personal written testimonies from temriorjii-y (impInyooH. Tomps can
send them to Claire Renner-Hosset at Nl Tl''. Niitloniil oi.' to McCloflkoys
office. I would appreciate a copy of tImHn If timps don't mind
sending them on. 8280 Sunnyside Roud, SiiiHliiaint, II) 8386'l . By
Horror stories, we mean describing thingM Umt hiivo happened due to
temp status, such as situations due to no hoalth Insurance, fniBily
situations, what happened if your job was contracted out or you wore
not brought back on. this kind of tiling. Any story that helps a
person relate to the true hardship in any area of a temps life duo to
work status. As usual, we are talking short iu)Lit;« horo folks t
Those need to be in by tho end of nexl. wi»(ik . Ilmirlng will be in
Washington DC. and NFFE National will Imi nit'tuMniil Iiik us on the
issue.
Message:
From: Philip H. Ruff :R01F0^D01A
Date: May 27.93 2:35 PM
HAD A CALL FROM CLAIRE. MC CLOSKEY'S OFI-MCI': WANir, TIMTIMONY ON TEMP
ISSUE. HEARING SCHEDULED 2ND WEEK OF JUNI-:. I'AirnclJI.ARlLY WANTS
HORROR STORIES ( HARDSHIPS) BECAUSE OF LACK 01-' UliNIJPrfS. PHIL
137
Mr. Pat-i.i ; or to whom it may concern:
Oti ,iurie And, 1993 T rcceivftd a copy of ^VM letter 316-^"^).
r.ub jGct: Author! ;icci usr of temporary appointment :5 under
b C'-':{ ilS.UJl. T prerunted thia letter to our payroll cl<;rk
fihcri': upnn ■ha aclvined that :;he would talk to our Dojnity
District. Kan;7;t:r.
A ''ew d.iys latftr I a/'.ajn talked to the payroll clerk, Jjhc.-
adv2.':i;d t.hat '-.lie //f»s directed Uy tho Deputy ];istrict KaiiRor
to i:nmj)ile my employment records for the past 13 years,
\.a take or -^«nd it to ,'j.O. in Couer d'Alene, Idaho to find
out -vhy actions haa not buen taken on this directive.
On June 15th, I was advised that directive 5 CFll 316.401 did
not apply to :ne because of a special appointment I was on.
r^omcitniniL' about my beinp; a Veteran on wage ^rade statu;; i^rith a
'Not To lixceed" appointment. I roquestod to aee or have a copy
of this memorandum. On JunH 18th, 1993 I wao told that a. 15, Cj.
mi; r.ar.G Date April 3, 1989 .va3 the basis for the above. - -
D.d. Mf;sr.a(^e from Kathy Gordon, personnel Assist. S.O. Oouor -
d'Alene. If you hnve four people with "Special Appolntraentp"
Kinci of N.T.'i;. ipj'oi ntment . This iij a non-compeditive
GcncT.il Laborur not within commuting dintance of 35 mi Ins of
population niroa of :iU,000. There in no limit to number of
yi^ari; on this appointment. Also, that 30 dayo per year must
bi! taKcn off so that Government wi] J not have to provide benefitw,
Mr. I'at.ti , I recall this situation very clearly, bec:au:j© four
war.o I'.rade and sevoral Rc.neral sorvicos employees had been
riven .'i.T.'-:. appointmt;nto in 1988, The following season, 1989»
wft wi'.re advised that wo could loose our jobs after four years
if Wft were not given permanant appointments*
J have read F.i'.M. Letter 316-25, reRulution 5CFR 3l6.iiOi several
times. The bei-t I can dfttarmine in that after working i'or the
U.:'. Government for I'i Roinp; on 14 years, 1 am still a tempor-
ary employee unable to rocieve benefits.
Also for your inf orm-iti on, My working partner rocioved a
por-mant appointment in 1990 nnd wao upgraded to a Wage Grade 3«
Upon his resignation a few montha later, I was requestnd to
upj.r.ide my S.K. I'/l ao it could be sent to S.O. and I wouJd
he; uprradod to WaK.e Grade 3. However, there was no mention of
fill-, rjf^ the vacated purmanant jjo.sition appointment. 3t has not
uwoii filJed to thiM date.
T 'inccrely hope this information will help resolve mdino and '
oth<T temporary employees employment problems, and help us
receive our long over due benefits*
Th^nk You;
K, .vm LJo.ven
138
FMA
Federal Managers Association
STATEMENT
OF THE
FEDERAL MANAGERS ASSOQATION
ON THE USE OF
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
FOR THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 22, 1993
1000 t6lh Street NW Suite 701 Washington DC 20036
(202) 778-1500 FAX 1202) 778-1507
139
Mr Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
The Federal Managers Association is pleased to provide the Subcommittee with our
views concerning the Federal government's use of temporary employees. As you
know, the Federal Managers Association is the oldest and largest professional
association of managers and supervisors in the Federal government.
The use of temporary employees by the Federal government serves a vital and
important mission. Federal agencies hire temporary employees in order to fill
positions where the need for an employee is not intended to be permanent. For
example, temporary employees are used during the closure of DoD bases, during
DoD workload surges, and for summer or seasonal jobs.
In September of 1992 the Federal government employed 157,000 temporary
employees, 7.2% of its total workforce. The Office of Personnel Management
reports that this figure is representative of the average number of temporary
employees hired by the Federal government over the last ten years.
Under current law, temporary employees are not entitled to receive the same
benefits as full time employees. For example, temporary employee's are:
* Only offered health insurance after completing one year of service. At that
time temporary's are responsible for the full premium;
* Ineligible to receive life insurance; and,
* Excluded from participation in the Federal Employees Retirement System.
The restrictions on benefits received by temporary employees is understandable
when applied to those temporary's who are employed for one year or less.
140
However, when the temporary employee works for more than one year, this lack of
benefits, especially health insurance protection, is unfair.
FMA believes that whUe the goal of providing full benefits to temporary employees
is laudable, it is also cost prohibitive in this era of declining agency budgets. FMA
believes that the answer to this problem does not lie in simply providing temporary
employees with full benefits. A more comprehensive approach that would offer
temporary employees access to some benefits, while at the same time phasing out
the government's reliance on temporary employees is needed.
FMA recommends that the Federal government change current policy and offer
temporary employees the opportunity to enroll in the FEHBP program after six
months of employment. At that time, the temporary employee would still be
responsible for the full premium payment. According to General Accounting Office
and Department of Labor statistics this would follow private-sector practice. This
approach would provide temporary employees with access to quality health care and
at the same time be no extra cost to the government.
FMA also recommends that 0PM place a 1 year time limit on temporary
appointments, with a 1 year extension. This limitation would prevent the long-term
employment of an individual in a position where they receive little or no benefits.
FMA believes expanding the use of term appointments represents the best
approach to solving the problems created by the extensive use of temporary
employees. Term appointments are authorized for specified periods that exceed 1
year and that are no longer than 4 years. Term employees are eligible to receive
most of the benefits that full time employees receive including:
141
* Health and life insurance;
* Retirement coverage; and,
* Within grade pay increases.
By utilizing term appointments, the government would be able to fill long-term non-
permanent positions and at the same time provide benefits to its employees.
FMA recommends that term employees who serve for 2 to 3 years should be
allowed to qualify for permanent jobs through agency merit promotion programs.
This change would have the dual benefit of providing nonpermanent employees
greater access to permanent employment opportunities and would provide agencies
with an additional source of trained workers.
While using term employees instead of temporary employees would require
additional spending on the part of the government, 0PM reports that the cost of
using term employees as opposed to temporary employees would be partially offset
by a reduced cost in recruitment and training of new employees.
FMA believes that this approach represents the most cost effective way of
alleviating the problems associated with temporary employees. FMA also believes
that this approach would provide the Federal government with a more experienced
and effective civil service. By providing term employees with benefits and the
possibility of permanent employment, the government has also provided term
employees have a powerful incentive to strive for excellence in the workplace.
FMA thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present its views on this
issue.
142
THE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
A Report to Congress
by the U.S. OiBce of Personnel Management
April 1993
.-- \
143
RIGHTS AND BENEFITS OF TEMPORARY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Executive Siunmaiy 2
IL Purpose of this Report *
in. Cuirent Temporaiy Hiring Antborities and Their Appropriate Use S
rv. RighU and BeneGU Availabie to Temporaiy Federal Worken 8
V. RighU and BeneGtt Not Available to Temporaiy Federal Worken 9
VL Composition of the Tempomy Wockfoioe 16
VIL Alternatives for Further Actioa 22
Appendix A Nonpennanent Empkymeat and Attendant BeneGts (Chart)
Appendix B Selected Demographic and Job Chsrartrristicsof Personnel in the Temporaiy and
Total Federal Oviliaa Workforce, by Agency, as of Septembe r 1992
Appendix C Cost Projections fay Agency
Appendix D Sources of InfoimatiQa on Temporaiy Employment
Appendix E Memben of OPM Task Force on Temporaiy Empkiyment
144
RIGHTS AND BENEFITS OF TEMPORARY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
L EXECUnVE SUMMARY
Purpose and CoDUnt of lUport
Section 1078 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (P.L. 102-4S4. October Z3.
1992) requires the U.S. OfGce of Personnel Management to submit a report on the feasibility of providing
to temporary employees the same health, life, retirement, and other rights and beneGts generally available
to permanent employees.
Prior to enacting this report requirement. Congress had heard troubling testimony that some tenqwraiy
employees had actually worked continuously for the Federal Govenmieat for many years without rights
and beneGts. Questions emeijed about the equity of the situation, and legislation was drafted in the
House to increase the beneGts eligibility of temporary workers and to require that th^ be converted to
career appointments nonoompetitively after completing ^>eciGed amounts of temporaiy service.
This report provides dau on the tenqwraiy workforce, identiCes the ri^ts and benefits eligibility of
ten^wraiy and career employees, and djynssci alteniatives for benefit dianges.
Temporaiy EmplqymMit la Federal Ageadca
Temporary Federal employees serve under appointments limited to 1 year or less which can be extended
for a period of up to 4 years. This is oontrastiBd with permanent or career Federal eiiq>k>yment in wfaidi
employees serve without time limitation.
Federal agencies hire temporaries for jobs where the need for the employee is not expected to be
permanent. Temporaiy enq>loyees woik at militaiy bases that will soon dose, perform sptdil projects,
deal with workload surges, and serve at fiU-ins for permanent woricen. Ten^mraiy appointments are also
used to Gn summer positions and seasonal jobs in national paries and forests. Generally, agendes are not
experiencing difficulty in recruiting or retaining tenqwraiy workers at the present time.
As of September 1992, the Federal Government employed 7.2 percent of its workforce on a temporaiy
basis-lS7,000 temporaiy enq>k}yees out of a total of 2.2 million nonpostal executive branch workers. This
level is dose to the average during the past 10 years, 1982 to 1992. However, during the course of any 1
year, the number of temporaries on board varies significantly from month to month because of sraional
fluctuations. Summer employment program hires bring the temporaiy workforce to its peak during June,
July, and August each year.
RlghU and Bcneilto of Temporary Federal Employees
Although they receive some Federal benefits, by law and regulation temporaiy en^loyees are exduded
from many of the rights and benefits provided to permanent civil service workers.
• By law, tenqwraiy employees get health insurance coverage only after a year of service and with no
Federal contribution to premiums. There is no parallel provision for life insurance.
• They are covered by Social Security but are exduded from the Federal Employees Retirement System
(FERS). Also, temporaiy service performed after 1988 is not creditable under any circumstances towards
oompuUtion of or eligibility for retirement benefits under FERS.
145
• Although paid the same hourty rates as permaaeai employees, by law, temporaries paid under the
General Schedule do not earn periodic step increases.
• They are eligible for annual and sick leave and paid holidays when employed on a regularly schedu l e d
basis, but are excluded by law from eligibility for military leave.
• Because of the nature of their appoiatment, temporary empkiyeea are oot entitled to procedural
protections from adverse actions or redactions in force. As a condition of employment, they can be
separated from employment with minimal notice and with no appeal rights.
• Temporaries cannot be promoted, transferred or reassigned to other positioas and must compete with
outside candidates for conversion to career appointment.
General Accounting OOice (GAO) surveys of the private sector and Department of Labor sarvqs of
temporary help supply firms indicate that Government practices generally parallel the private sector. Faid
vacation and holidays are commonly available to private sector tenponrieaaad are offered by about
three-fourths of employers in the temporary help supply industry. By oootraA. health benefiu are offered
by slightly leas than one-fourth of temporary help supply agencies and a smaller percentage of other
private employers, almost all of which require the temporary employees to pay all or part of the
premiums. Private employers that offer insurance beneGu to temponiy woricers are generally lea
restrictive than the Federal Goverameat in granting access to those beacfits-offering the opportunity to
enroll in both health and life inr'T''* programs to workers employed tor at least 6 months.
AlUraathrM for Furtfaar Action
The report ^ i Viitt^ a variety of options for changing the benefits availabk to non-permanent empk>yees.
Since the Government is not experiencing significant difficulty in recruiting or retaining temporary workers
at the present time, the feasibility of extending righu and benefiU is almost entirely an issue of cost and
employee equity. Temporary empk>yment leveb vary signifjcantly from agency to agenqr and the potential
budget impaa of beoeOt increases is oonsiderabiy greater in some agencies than others.
The Office of Personnel Management believes that, beyond identifying a range of alternatives for beneGts
changes, it would be premature to forward spedfic recommendations and draft legislation until several
other situations are resoh^ed. In the neaa few months several actions wiO occur whidi will have a direct
bearing on potential legislation. OPM will be expk>ring policy initiatives that ooold result in sub s l an li a l
changes in temporary and other non-permaneat employment policies. The Gaal diape of these initiatives
will be determined in full consulution with Federal agencies, unions, and other interested parties.
At the same time, the Administration win be developing overall health care reform proposals. The specific
issue of extending health beneGts to temporary empk>yees will need to be linked to these proposals. Once
these issues are resoNed, OPM will be pleased to work with the Congress on the specifics of any
legislation that may be needed pertaining to temporary empkiyees.
146
n. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This report is submitted in fuUUlment of Section 1078 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993. P.L. 102-484. October 23. 1992.
Section 1078. STUDY AND REPORT REGARDING EQUFTY IN BENE-
FITS FOR TEMPORARY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) In GeneraL-The Office of Personnel Management shall conduct a study,
and not lour than April 1, 1993, report to Confess, in writing on the
feasibility of providing to temporary employees of the Government the same
health insurance, life insurance, and retiremera benefits , and other rigfus or
benefits, as are generally available to those employed by the Government on a
permane/u basis.
(b) Matters to be specifically addressed."The report under subsection (a) shall
spedficalfy address—
(1) the various types of temporary appointments currently allowable under dvU
service law or regulations, and the terms and conditions pertinent to each;
(2) the circumstances in which, or the purposes for which, each of the various
types of temporary appointments is appropriate;
(3) the rights arui benefits generally available to individuals employed by the
Government on a permanent basis—
(A) which are curreruly unavailable to some or all temporary employees; and
(B) of those ideruified under subparagraph (A) which mi^ appropriately be
made available to one or more classes of tempomry employees;
(4) alternative means by which some or all of the temporary employees
referred to in paragraph (3) (A) could be afforded one or more of the ri^m or
benefits identified under paragraph (3)(B); and whether any of the alternatives
identified under paragraph (4) could be implemented by the Office under
existing law, and, if so-
(A) when the Office intends to implemeru those measures ; or
(B) the reasons why the Office does not intend to implemeru those measures
or cannot provide a timetable for their implenuntation.
(c) Recommendations.
(1) In addition to the results of the suuiy, the Office's report shall include
recommendations for any legislation or administrative action which the Office
considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
(2) Arty recommendations which involves the amending of existing statutes
shall include draft legislation.
147
m. CURRENT TEMPORARY HIRING AUTHORinES AND THEIR APPROPSUTE USE
Scop* of Report
Temporuy Federal employees serve under appointinenU limited lo 1 year or less. In the competitive
service, tMnporaiy limltMl •mployns are appointed for periods of np to 1 year, and their aervice can be
extended for a maximum of 4 years. Temporary employees also serve in executive branch positions that
have been excepted from the competitive hiring requirements by Isw, regulation, or administrative
determination. In the excepted service, time limits for temporary employment vary and are genera]]^ tied
fo the duration of the specific situation for which the excepted appointing authority is authorized.
Temporary employees are contrasted with pwanwit Federal employees (called career in the competitive
service) who serve without time limitation.
Consistent with OPNTs authority, this rqxMt coven temporaiy workers employed by executive branch
agencies subject to the civil service bran in chapters 31 and 33 of title 5, United States Code. Among
organizations excluded from these iswi are die Postal Service and agencies in the legidative and judicial
branches as well as the State Depaftmeot wfaicli indndes onfy a portion of itt wofkfarae in OPKTs Central
Personnel DaU File. Also exduded from the npoit are private sector temporaries whose sesvioesaie
used under contract by Federal ageaciea. Federal agencies have the authoriQr to contract for the seivioes of
private sector temporaiy he^ Gnus; bat the private sector temporaries do not serve under Federal
appointments and are not considered Federal wotkeis for aagr puipose.
The dau in this rqwrt are from OPKTs Central Personnel DaU FOe (CPDF)-an automated inventory of
ttBti^i<-yl and demogn^>hic informatioo on the Federal workforce. Other aouioes used in the prqnration
of this report are listed in Appendix D.
Cnrrut Hiring AnthoritiM
Depending on the drcumstanoes, ageDdes nuj choose from among several major cat^ories of temporaiy
appointing authorities as su n iiii ariz ed beiarar.
Temponiy limited
•ppaiatmeal noc lo ciomd 1
yeu (oompelitivc tervioe)
IvhMMedfar
I ii ■« cipecMd to be
Uqr be olcaded op lo a lottl of 4 yean ia ihe
A podtioa najr M be GBed wilk a leaipafafy Car
onfc ihaa 4 yean oa a (
Sununer appoiatineal
(compeliliwe (ervice)
ior aigr leapvafy
UMfUaad
A naaer eoplajwe may be reUfcd Cor sitbaeqaeal
Time iimated appoiatmeal
(eioepied tervioe)
tjrttaMlearOPM
tarifedEc
aadAaripeciGe
l/t^fk of appoi la i rl ipeciC e d ia eacfc iadiwdBil
Appropriate Us«
Temporary limited appointmentt are ap prop ri ate for meeting a range of staCBng requiremenU when the
agency expecu there will be no permaneat need for the employee. Agencies have basic authority to make
this determination, but must d rxwmr a t the reason for each temporaiy appointment in the employee's
personnel file. The Federal Peraooael Manual, Chapter 316, Subchapter 2, gives the following examples of
appropriate use:
148
• temporarily increasing staff to meet a workload peak;
• staffing continuing positions when future funding and workload levels are uncertain or when it is
anticipated that funding levels will be reduced or that the activity will be reorganized;
• filling permanent positions on a temporary basis in order to save them for eventual incumbency by
permanent employees expected to be di s placed from other pans of the organization;
• filling vacancies which occur in aaivities under study for possible contracting out;
• hiring temporary employees to perform recurring seasonal work which the agency expects to last
less than 6 months in a year.
InappropriaU Um
Temporary appointmenU are intended to meet legitimate nonpermanent staffing needs, as detennined by
the agency, only when there is a reason to expect that there will be no permanent need for the employee.
The use of temporary limited appointments for other reasons is inappropriate and is not authorized. The
Federal Personnel Manual gives the following examples of inappropriate use:
• hiring temporary employees to avoid the costs of employee benefits or ceilings on permanent
employment levels;
• using temporary employment as a 'tryout' or trial period prior to permanent appointment (except
where spedflcally authorized for severely disabled or mentally restored employees):
• circumventing the competitive examining process by appointing an individual on a temporary basis
because that individual is not within reach for permanent appointment;
• refilling positions which, over the preceding 4 years, have been filled continuously on a temporary
basis.
By definition, temporary employment is expected to last for a limited time, as contrasted with permanent
or career employment which has no such limitation. Agencies are permitted to extend a temporary
empk>yee's service for a total of up to 4 years from the date of initial appointment. Continuous
employment lasting longer than this is outside the normal scope and intent of temporary employment,
except in rare and unusual cases.
Procedure* for Hiring Temporary Employees
Most temporary employees are hired through streamlined procedures that allow each agency to oondua
its own recruiting, ranldng, and referral This process is different than the normal OPM competitive hiring
system but still requires the application of qualifications standards and veterans' preference.
When filling temporary job* in the compctithre Mrvice, agencies send vacancy announcements to OPM and
State employment service offices. Agencies determine how long the announcements will remain open
based on factors such as the urgency of the hiring need, the number of vacancies, and the availability of
candidates in the labor nurket.
Candidates must meet the same basic qualiGcation requirements as candidates for permanent appointment,
i.e., they must have the experience and education required by OPM for the occupation and grade level
Agencies must apply veterans' preference in temporary hiring, but may use either formal numerical
149
ranking procedures or quality groups. The streamliiied prooedmcs are aot pmoinwl for while ooUar jobs
at grades GS-13 and above; temporary appointments to those jobs are made throogfa the OPM competitive
hiring system.
Temporary jobs in the axcapiMi ccnriea at all grades are GBed ooder p r oced ur es de vel oped by each agency.
These procedures differ from those used to make ooopetitivc appotalmeals in two ways. The agencies
determine where and how to publicize the openings. Tlie ageaciea also dewekip their own qualiJQcation
requirements, which need not be the same as those presoribed by OPM for competitive service jobs.
(These differences are not unique to temporary excepted service hiring bat are a feature of the excepted
service generally.)
Documentation Requlrcmants
Special documentation of temporary appointments in the ooopetitne sovioe it reqniied to inform
employees that the conditions of temporary emptoyaaeat are difEereot from the oooditioiu of permanent
employment. Current OPM guidance requires ngeacaes to prawide a aatcmcat deKribing the conditions of
temporary employment, have the employee sign it at the lime of iaitini appotatmeat, and retain it in the
employee's OOicial Personnel Folder.
When making a temporary appointment or extending the aerrioe of a temporary employee by
noncompetitive converaon to a new temporary ippoininieal. i g i T B ciri are required to dommrnt the
reasonfor the temporary appointment on the NotifkalioaoCPemaael Action. Sundard Form SO. The
reason indicates why the agency expects that there wiH be no permaaeat need for the employee.
In addition, agencies must include the following standard remark on the Standard Form 50 at the time of
initial temporary appointment and each time the empkiyee's teivioe is catleaded by ooaversion action:
Temporary employees serve under appointments limited to 1 year or less and are subject to
termination at any time without use of advene action or redaction in force procedures. A
temporary appointment does not confer eGgibiEtyio be prooaMed or reassigned to other
positions, or the ability to be nonoompctitiveiyooawetted to a career-coaditioaal appointment*
150
IV. RIGHTS AND BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO TEMPORARY FEDERAL WORKERS
Tempormiy employeei in the Federal Govenunent are eligible for many, but not all. the same entitlements
that are available to permanent employees. Following are the major benefits available to temporary
employees:
• Full salary based on the grade and step of the position;
• Annual pay adjustments;
• Entitlement to special pay schedule adjustments, sudi as special salary rates for positions for which it is
AimniU to reouit and retain qualified employees, interim geographic adjustments (IGA's), and special pay
adjustments for law enforcement officers, where applicable;
• Use of "higiiest previous rate' in pay-setting determinations;
• Advances in pay for new hires;
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) coverage, including miwiwinm wage and overtime pay entitlements;
• Eligibility for overtime and premium pay (e.g^ ni^t pay, Sunday pay, holiday premium pay,
compeosatoiy lime ofO:
• Eligibility for hazard pay, remote worksite allowances, uniform aUowaoces, student stipends, evacuation
payments, and supervisory difTerentials:
• Back pay, including interest and attorney fees, if applicable;
• Annual leave, side leave, excused absence (administrative leave), court leave, funeral leave, home leave,
and shore leave; and
• Paid holidays (for einpk>yees with regularly sdieduled tours of duty thai fall on holidays).
151
V. RIGHTS AND BENEFITS NOT AVAUABLE TO TEMPORARY FEDERAL WORKERS
In identifying rigbu *nd beaeGu not available to temporaiy workers, we have tried to be as complete as
possible and have included a aumber of areas, e.g^ performance management, where entitlement
differences between permanent and temporary employees are slight, or are at the discretion of the
employee.
HEALTH INSURANCE
(1) Federal Employaas Health Benclits Program. Permanent employees are entitled to enroll in the
Federal Employees Health BeneCu (FEHB) Program within 31 days of employment. The Government
pays a contribution toward the cost of the coverage; the average Government contribution is about 72
percent of premium. Approximately 85 percent of permanent employees arc enrolled in the FEHB
Program. Nonpeimanent employees whose appointments are initially made for more than 1 year, (Le.,
term employees) are eligible to participate in the FEHB Program on the same basis as permanent
employees.
Under current sutute, temporary employees (serving under an appointment limited to 1 year or less)
become elipble to enroll in the FEHB Program only after they have completed 1 year of current
continuous employment, excluding any break in service of 5 days or less. Therefore, in order to elect
health insurance coverage, they must either «*■"'-'"'«'* saooeasive appointments or their initial
appointment must be extended. These temporaiy employees do not receive a Government contribution
toward the cost of their coverage.
In comparison, very few private sector empkyyers offer temporaiy workers insurance beneOts. Private
employers who do offer insurance beneGts to temporaiy workers usually do so after 6 months of
empk>yment. A 1987 survey by the Bureau of Labor Sutistics (BLS) found that in the temporary he^
supply industiy, health benefits were offered by slightly less than one-fourth of the establishments, almost
all of which required the temporary employees to pay all or part of the premiums. (Only about 2 percent
of the surveyed establishments provided major medicaL hospitalization, and surgical coverage to temporary
empkjyees without requiring the employees to contribute, while 46 percent did so for permanent
employees.) These findings are similar to those in a Jime 1986 report by the General Accounting Office
which found that the prevailing practice in the private sector is not to offer health insurance to temporaiy
workers (Appendix D).
A recent survey of the six largest temporaiy help services fiims by Kelly Services showed little change in
the pattern. All six offered vacation and health beneGts to employees who worked a specified amount of
time in a year, although the empk>yees paid all or part of the health care premiums. Three offered
limited life insurance coverage, providing relatively small tnaTimnm payments and/or restricting payments
to death or disability incurred on the job.
Ciution: 5 U.S.C 8906a
152
RETIREMEI4T
(2) Rctirtmtnt Covtrage. The following discussion is limited to the new Fedenl Employees Retirement
System (FERS). Since the older Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) is essentially a closed syttem.
temporary employees who acquire retirement coverage for the first time would be covered by FERS, not
CSRS.
FERS is the second tier of a 3 tier retirement plan. The first tier is Sodal Security; the second tier is a
defined beneOl plan, FERS; and the third tier is a defined contribution plan, the Thrift Savinp Plan
(TSP). Social Security coverage is already almost universal for temporary employees, with only non-
resident aliens excluded from coverage. Individuals serving under appointments limited to 1 year or less
are generally excluded from retirement coverage under FERS, unless the temporary appointment directly
follows other service covered by FERS. By sutute, OPM is authorized to exclude from FERS an
employee or group of employees in or under an Executive agency, the United Sutes Postal Service, or the
Postal Rate Commission, whose employment is temporary. By regulation, OPM excluded from FERS
coverage employees serving under appointments limited to 1 year or lest.
Ciution: 5 U.S.C. 8402(c)(1); 5 CFR 842.105
(3) CrcditabU Servioa for Rtdrtneat. Civilian service covered by FERS differs from civilian service
creditable for FERS. When service is covered under FERS, retirement deductions (0.8 percent of base
pay for most employees) are taken from the employee's pay, and the employing agency contributes the
remainder of the cost (an additional 12.9 percent of basic pay for most employees) of providing the FERS
benefits. Unless the individual takes a refund of the employee retirement deductions following a
separation, covered service is creditable, without further payment, towards both eligibility for retirement
and the computation of benefits.
Some civilian service, although not covered under FERS at the time it was performed, can become
creditable towards eligibility for retirement and the computation of beneCts. This non-covered, but
creditable service is generally limited to civilian service performed prior to Januaiy I, 1989, and service
performed at any time while covered under the GvU Service Retirement System (CSRS) or creditable
under the Foreign Service Pension System (FSPS). Before non-covered but crediuble service may be
used, however, the employee must make a deposit to the Retirement Fund, including an amount based on
a percentage of basic pay received while in the non-covered service, plus interest Civilian service
perfonned after 1988 and not covered under FERS, CSRS, or FSPS is not creditable under FERS.
As a historical note, under CSRS, service under temporary appointments is also not covered. However,
under CSRS, temporary service perfonned prior to covered service becomes creditable upon payment of a
service credit deposit of 7 percent of basic pay plus interest. This has been viewed as an appropriate
balance betveen empkiyer and empk>yee needs.
Ciution: 5 U.S.C 8334 and 8411; 5 C.F.R. 831 J03 and 842 J04
(4) Thrift Savings Plan. The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is available to empkiyees covered under FERS.
Temporary employees are not covered under FERS but like other individuals who are not covered under a
retirement plan, they are generally permitted to make tax-deferred contributions to an Individual
Retirement Account.
Ciution: 5 U.S.C. 8432
153
LIFE INSURANCE
(5) Fadanl Emplo y i M Croup Lib Lm wm . Peiniaaeat employees automatically receive base covciage
under the Federal Employees Group Life lasoraaoe (FEGLI) Program unless they waive the coverage.
They also have the opportunity to elect sevetal types of optional coverage. The Government pay* one-
third of the cost of the basic coverage; there is no Goveniment contribution toward the cost of the
optional coverage. Nonpermaaent employees whose appointments are for more than 1 year are eligible to
participate in the FEGLI Program on the same basis as permanent employees. Temporary employees with
less than a 1 year appointment are erduded from FEGLI coverage under current regulations.
Cution: S CFR 870.202
PAY
(6) Wlthin-grada lacrMaM. A General Schedule employee paid at less than step 10 of a GS grade may
advance to the next higher step of that grade provided 1) work pefformanoe is at an aoceptaUe level of
competence; 2) the employee has completed the r eq uire d waiting period: and 3) the employee has not
received an equivalent increase in pay during the waiting period. (An equivalent inoease is an amount of
basic pay equivalent to the dollar value of a step increase.)
By sutute, elipbility for within-grade step advancement applies only to employees occupying a
'permanent* position within the scope of the General SchJedule. OPM regulations define a permanent
position as a position filled by an e mp toy ee whose appointment is not designated as tenaporary by law and
does not have a definite time limitation of 1 year or less. A 'permanent position* includes a position to
which an employee is promoted on a temporary or term basis for at least 1 year.
Note: As opposed to GS employees, wage (blue collar) employees may receive within-grade increases
regardless of their temporary sutus.
auiion: 5 U.S.C 5335(a); 5 CFR 531.402(a) and 5 CFR 531.403
(7) Physicians conparability allowaaea. An agency may pay an allowance not to exceed S 14,000 per year
(for crediuble service of 24 months or less) or S20,000 per year (for creditable service of more than
24 mooths) to Federal physicians in categories for which there are recruitment and retention problems.
Physicians receiving such allowances enter into service agreements with their agencies. An employee
appointed for less than 1 year is not eligible for a physidaiu comparability allowance because the sutute
requires each eligible employee to enter into a service agreement of at least 1 year.
CiUtion: 5 U.S.C 5948(d)
(8) Recruitment boaos. \a agency may pay a lump-sum bonus of up to 25 percent of basic pay to a
newly-appointed employee who enters into a service agreement of at least 1 year and who is recruited for
a position that would have been Hiffiailt to fill in the absence of the bonus.
By regulation, only employees newly appointed without time limitation or for a minimum period of 2 years
or more may receive a recruitment bonus. Newly appointed also refers to a permanent appointment
received within 1 year after termination of (1) employment in a cooperative work-study program under a
Schedule B appointment, (2) empk>yment under the Suy-in-School program. (3) employment as a law
clerk trainee, or (4) empk>yment while a student during school vacations under a short-term temporary
appointing authority.
CiUtion: 5 U.S.C 5753 and 5 CFR 575.103
154
(9) Rtloaitkw boooa. An agency may pay a lump-stun bonus of up to 25 percent of basic pay to an
employee who must relocate to accept a position in a different commuting area and who enters into a
service agreement. The position must have been difGcult to Gil in the a b s en ce of a boniu.
By regulation, only employees who are appointed without a break in service and without time limitation or
for a Tninimum period of at least 2 years may receive a relocation bonus.
auiion: 5 U.S.C 5753 and 5 CFR 575.203
(10) Rcteotioa allowaaca. An agency may pay an allowance of up to 25 percent of basic pay to an
employee on a permanent appointment or appointed for a minimum period of at least 2 years «^en 1) the
employee possesses unusually high or unique qualifications; or, 2) the agency has a special need for the
employee's services, and the en^loyee would otherwise leave the agenqr for nonFederal employment
By regulation, only employees who are 'serving under an appointment without time limitation or for a
tninitnnm period of at least 2 years* are eligible for retention allowances. In addition, a retention
allowance may be paid only if the employee has completed 1 year of continuous service and is not
completing a service agreement required for payment of a recruitment or relocation bonus.
aution: 5 U.S.C5754: 5 CFR 575 J03 and 575J04(a)
(11) Gndm and Pay Rataatioa. An employee who has served at least 52 consecutive weeks at a grade
level is entitled to retain his or her grade for a 2-yeai' period when placed ia a lower graded job as a resnk
of a redaction in force. In addition, grade retention applies whenever an employee's position is
reclassified to a k>wer grade (when the position was classiGed at the higher grade for at least I year
immediately before the redassification aaion). An employee whose rate of basic pay otherwise would be
reduced in certain other drcumsunces may be entitled to pay retention until his or her retained rate of
basic pay falls within the rale range for the lower graded position.
By statute, grade and pay retention apply only to employees whose employment is other than on a
tenroorarv or term basis.
Citation: 5 U.S.C. 5361(1)
(12) S«««ranct Pay. By sutute, severance pay of up to 1 year's pay is paid to an involuntarily-separated
employee who has been employed for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
Temporary employees are not eligible for severance pay unless the temporary appointment foUows an
appointment without a time limitation, and there was no break in service between appointments exceeding
3 calendar days.
Ciution: 5 U.S.C. 5595(a)(2)(ii): 5 CFR 550.703
LEAVE
(13) Family and Medical Lmv*. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 will become effective on
August 5, 1993. Title II of the Act, "Leave for Civil Service Employees," provides a total of up to 12
administrative workweeks of unpaid leave for certain purposes during any 12-inonth period and guarantees
restoration to a position with equivalent pay and beneGts. Temporary employees are spedGcally cad u dfd
from coverage under this new sututory entitlement.
Ciution: P.L. 103-3. February 5. 199J
155
(14) MUiUfy Ltm^m. Fifteen calendir days of militaiy leave per Gscal year are available to ReservisU and
National Guard members for active duty or active duty training. An additional 22 workdays of militaiy
leave are also available for ReservisU and National Guard members activated in emergencies to assist
civilian authorities. While on regular military leave (13 calendar days), employees receive the full pay for
their civilian positions as well as their military pay. For periods of military leave during emergencies to
assist civilian authorities (22 workdays), the dviliaa pay must be offset by the military pay received, unless
the employee chooses to be in an annual leave statos while on military duty.
By sutute, military leave is limited to Federal employees who have permanent and 'temporary indefinite'
appointments (Lc, appointments of more than 1 year). Full-time and part-time employees (16 to 32 hours
per week) with permanent, TAPER, or term appoiatmeats of 1 year or more are entitled to military leave,
if otherwise eligible. Federal employees with t em por a ry appointments of less than 1 year, with temporary
appointmenu not to exceed 1 year, or with intennitteat work schedules are not entitled to any military
leave.
CiUtion: S U.S.C 6323 (a) and (b): Comptroller Geaeral opinioa B-173997. June 19. 1972
ELIdBIUTY FOR MOVEMENT TO OTHER POSmONS
(15) Prooedoa and Coavuvion la Caiew Aypalatmint. Permanent employees in the competitive service
may be considered for other positions throogk agtacy intenial merit staffing procedures. These employees
do not have to compete with outside randirtatrs Pennaaeat employees in this excepted service may be
considered for other positions GUed under the naw excepted appointing authority. If the positions are
Oiled under a different excepted appointing aalbotitjr, the ageaqr may elect to oonader current and former
excepted employees ahead of outside canriiditfs
Temporary employees are not eligible for ooveaieat to other positions. They must be considered through
new appointment procedures, i.e., they must "'mp^* with outside candidates for movement to any other
position, or for conversion to career appointment.
CiUtion: 5 CFR 33S.102
PROTECTIONS IN ADVERSE ACTIONS. PERFORMANCE-BASED ACTIONS. AND REDUCTIONS IN
FORCE
(16) Adverse Actioas. An adverse actioa is a iqiafntion. reduction in pay or grade, suspension for more
than 14 days, or a furk>ugh for 30 days or less). Competitive service employees have different righu than
excepted service employees.
a. Competitive Service:
Permanent employees have protection for perforanace-based actions and adverse actions upon completion
of the 1-year probationary period required by S U.S.C 3321. Such protections include procedural due
process prior to any final agency dedsioa and the right to third-party review of the appropriateness of the
agency action.
Employees in the competitive service who hold temporary appointments limited to 1 year or less are
excluded speciGcally by law from performance-based action protections and adverse action protections.
aution: S U.S.C 4303(0(2) andS US.C7Sll(aKl)(A)
13
156
b. Excepted Service:
Preference eUcibles: Permanent employees in the excepted service have the same performance-based
action and adverse action protections as permanent employees in the competitive service after 1 year of
current continuous service if they are preference eligibles as defined in 5 U^Q 2108.
Temporary excepted service employees who are preference eligibles are covered under performance-based
actions protections and adverse action protections once they have completed 1 year of current continuous
service in the same or similar positions.
Citation: 5 U.S.C 4303(0(3) and 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(B)
Nonpreference elieibles: Permanent employees in the excepted service who are not preference eligibles
have the same performance-based actioa and adverse action protectiou as permanent employees in the
competitive service after 2 years of current continuous service in the sane or similar positions.
Nonpreference eligibles in the excepted service who are serving in temporary appointments limited to 2
years or less are excluded specifically by statute from performance-based action and adverse action
proteaions.
aution: 5 U.S.C 4303(e)(3) and 7511(a)(l)(Q(iO: 5 CFR 432.102(b)(14) and 5 CFR 752.401(b)(ll)
(17) Radnctioa In forea. Permanent employees are entitled to compete for retention based on theii: (1)
tenure group (group I for career and group II for career-conditional employees); (2) veterans' preference
status; (3) performance; and (4) length of service. Employees have assignment rights to positions in their
conipetitive area that are held by employees with lower retention standing. If readied for separatioo or
downgrading, they are entitled to 60-day advance notice of the proposed action and may appeal the action
to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Temporary employees in the competitive service are not competing employees in a reduction in force
(RIF)- They may be separated at any time (with no requirement for 60-day advance notice) and have no
assignment or appeal rights. Temporary employees in the excepted service are not competing employees
for RIF purposes during their first year of employment. After 1 year of continuous employment, they
become competing employees in tenure group III (the lowest group). Their assignment rights are
extremely liinited, however, because they compete for retention only with other employees within the
competitive area who are serving under the same excepted aptwintine authority .
CiUtion: 5 U.S.C. 3502; CFR 351.501
(18) Administrativ* gricvano* procadorts. Temporary employees are treated in the same way as other
employees covered by their agency's administrative grievance procedure, except they may not grieve their
separations on lh« dates speciGed as a condition of employment when their appointments were made and
may grieve separation at any other times only if their agencies have exercised their discretion under OPM
regulations to permit grievances over such matters.
Citation: 5 CFR Part 771
AODinONAL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
(19) Perfonnanc* Maaagamant For the most part, temporary employees are treated no differently than
permanent employees for perfomunce management and award purposes. However, the law allows
agencies to exempt from performance appraisal temporary employees with appointments of less than 1
14
V
157
year, with the emolovee's agreement . Implementiag regulations require that the agreement be in wnting
and that the employee be advised of the consequences of the decision. Note: Prior to the passage of P.L.
101-SlO on November S, 1990, the only administrative exclusion from the performance appraisal
requirements based on length of appointment was for employees in excepted positions where en^>loyment
was not reasonably expected to exceed 120 calendar days in a consecutive 12-month period. P.L. 101-SlO,
the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1991, amended title S of the U.S. Code by adding
4301(2)(H).
Ciution: 5 U.S.C 4301(2)(H): 5 CFR 430.202(b)(2)
(20) Qaality Step IncrMSM: Hiere is nothing in the regulations that addresses the use of quality step
increases (QSI) for temporary employees. However, while there is no statutory or regulatory prohibition,
FPM guidance in Supplement 990-2 advises against it. It cautions that the use of QSI's may not be
appropriate for temporary employees since quality step increases are to be based on an expectation of
future performance as well as being a reward for past performance. (The temporary sutus of an employee
would appear to be incompatible with such an expectation.) In most cases, it would be more appropriate
and beneficial to the agency and the employee to grant recognition in the form of lump-sum incentive
awards.
Citation: FPM Supplement 990-2
(21) CoUactiv* Bar^iaiBg AgrMinattts: Temporary enq>loyees may be included in the bargaining unit
under certain conditions, as determined fay the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The FLRA
has developed two tests, community of interest and reasonable expecution of continued employment
1. Commutiitv of interest: Do the temporaiy employees share the came general supervision, work
schedules, office conditions, etc, as other bargaining unit employees? Do they have regular/frequent
contact with bargaining unit employees? Would inclusion promote effective operation of the activity?
2. Reasonable expecUtion of oontinned employment : Is teoqmrary appointment clearly a prelude to
permanent appointment? Does agency past practice support this?
Althou^ collective bargaining agreements cannot give temporary employees rights they are denied by
sutute or regulation (e.g., ^>peal rights to MSPB or binding arbitration), some contracts do speak to
certain a^>ects of temporary employmenL Some examples:
To the extent allowed under Govemmentwide rules, temporary employees can enroll in FEHB.
Whenever possible, temporary employees wiU be given 2 weeks notice of intent to terminate;
enq>loyee may ask for a meeting with a higher-level official
The luion will be given copies of vacancy announcements so they can inform tenqwrary eiiq>loyees of
job opportunities.
(22) Paymant of Tnval and TMuportatioa ExpensM to First Pott of Dnty: Agencies may pay travel and
transportation expenses for appointees who are reporting to their first post of duty. Appointees whose
expenses are paid must enter into a service agreement of at least 1 year.
OPM advises agencies through the FPM that such payments are not to be made in connection with
temporaiy employment, because a 1-year service agreement is incompatible with an appointment not to
exceed 1 year, which may actually be terminated at any time.
aution: 5 U.S.C. 5723, 5 CFR Part 572; 41 CFR chapters 301-304
70-660 0-94-6
158
VL COMPOSmON OF THE TEMPORARY WORKFORCE BY AGENCY. DEMOGRAPHICS, AND
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
TsmponuyEmplagraaotTyrads 1982-1992
As of September 1992, the Federml
Govenuneat employed 12 percent of its
workforce on a temporary basis-156,781
temporary empioyees out of a total of
2,191,000 ooqxxtal executive branch
workers. Temporary employment in the
Federal Govenuneat has remained
relatively oonstaat dnring the past 10
years as shown in the gr^h at right
The number of temporaries on board varies from
month to month because of tfasonal Onctuationi;
mmiiwr employmeat program hires bring the
temporary workforce to its peak daring June, July,
and August, each year.
16
159
Tempormry v*. Permanent Employment
Temporary employment levels vary significantly among agencies as a percentage of their total workforce.
Because temporary needs are short term and subject to frequent change, the number of temporary
appointments made in a given year usually exceeds the volume of permanent hiring.
On-Board Tcmpormry Employnant and Hiring Activity By Major Agtudta**
Agency
Number o(
Temponiy
Appoinuaenu and
Conveniens
FY 91
Temponry
Coovcrsaons as
Percent of AU
Appoiotmenu
FY 91
Number of
Temporaries on
Board
As of
September 1992
OB-Boud
Peroeniof AU
Employee*
AU. AGENCIES
3M,0S2
t*%
136,781
7^%
A^riculiurc
44627
84%
33322
24.2%
Commeree
I80M
84%
3000
7.9%
DEI'IMSE TOTAL
117*477
65*
4M<X
&2%
Air Foree
22441
67«
7766
3J%
Amy
37428
709b
17352
5J%
Navy
21299
53%
9033
3.1%
Other Defense
16309
71%
13311
ia7%
Educaiioa
639
37%
241
4M 1
Enerar
1874
48%
388
2.8%
EPA
2787
61%
1313
7.1%
GSA
2280
34%
784
3J%
HHS
13333
60%
8034
6.2%
HUD
1923
38%
263
ixm
Interior
29693
84%
13363
17.9%
Jiulioe
7838
46%
3313
3.4%
Labor
1317
33%
368
2.1%
NASA
1663
42%
633
2J%
OPM
387
26%
129
1J%
Other Agenciea
29481
79%
13949
12J% f
Tramporutioo
3849
42%
1462
2.1%
Treasury
14417
37%
3637
2.2%
Veterans AHairi
43947
33%
20694
7J% 1
"Competitive and Eioepted Appninimrnli Note:
in this Chan differ very slightly (rom the September
Because of different programs used to praduee data, the
1992 data presented u Appendii B.
September 1992 fiffues
17
160
Characteristics of FadarsJ Tamponay Empto y sa s
A demognphic summaiy of the temporaiy workfofoe Govenuneatande aad ia each of 22 maior Federal
agencies is contained in Appendix B. As compared to the penttoeat aiorkforoe, leaporaiy espkiyees are
younger, lower graded, and have slightly lea cdncatioa. The amaji a^i for tenporaries is 37; for
nontemporaries, 43. AJmost 23 percent of temporaries had a bichilars ilitm ar Ushar as compared to
37 percent of nontemporaries.
The temporaiy workforce has a hl^er percentage of aiaarittae aad woaaa. OwenO. minorities comprise
33 percent and women 47 percent of the temporary wockfarae as u w iyai ed to 27 peroeat and 43 percent
of the nontemporaiy workforce. Blacks oompriae 18.5 peroet of the te mK i iaiy w mkfo i u e and 16JS
percent of the nontemporaiy workforce. Hiy a nir s are 7 pereeat of the tc aymaiy wockfoioe and
S.4 percent of the nontemporaiy. Aaan^Padfic Uaaden are 43 percent of the teaiparaiy workforce and
3.7 percent of nontemporaiy wmktm oe. Native Ameiicaas are 3.5 peroeat of t euyoiaiy workers and 1.8
percent of nontemporaiy.
The averaga grade is 4.8 for temporaries and 92 for nontemporaries.
Approximately 42 percent of ten^mraiy workers are in the eoapettttva sinrtra and 58 peroeat ia the
excepted sarvioa. The balance is reversed in the pennaaeat wockforoe «Hiere 83 percent are in the
competitive service and 16 percent in the catoepted seivice.
Less-than-fuU-time work scfaedalas are moie prevalent among temporaiy employees. Fifteen percent of
temporaries work part-time (16-32 hours per week) and 27 percent work intermitteatly (no Gxed work
schedule) as compared to 2.9 percent and 2.1 percent of n on t rn y oc ai y workers.
Temporaiy employees work in a wide variety of wUta collar as wel as Uaa collar jobs. Roag)ily78
percent of temporaries hold white collar jobs and 22 peroeat bold Uae ooBar jobs. Ia the noatemporaiy
woricforce, 84 percent are white collar and 16 peroeat bbie ooOar.
DIstribotioB ofWhUs Collar Tcoiponnry Oa-Board EmplofBMat by Gcada GrMipfaig
AsofSap«aaiber»W
Toul
While CoiUr
Peraeat
WUttCalhr
Gndel.4
While Cofar
Grade 54
WUkCoIv
Cfade*.12
Ttmm
WhteColw
Gfadel3-U
WMeCoOu
Grade
Uvpedfied
.23^,
40«
1&3%
6J%
22%
33:?*
Distributtaa of Bine Collar Temporary Oa-Bevd Emplojnaat
As of September 1992
Toul
Blue
CoUar
GeaenU
Servioetaod
Support
WweiMwiaf
Ttmaipanaiioa
Bq-P-e-
Operaliag
Food Prepuatioa
udSenioee
Geaeiai
Other
Blue
ColUr
33.S22
30J6%
UJ%
tLT%
«.9»
S.7»
32«
18
161
Hoir Long Do Ttnporuy Employ*** Work?
VJey to any difcuaion of the eligibility of temporaiy workers for fringe beneCU is the question of how k>ng
such empk>yeea actually work. Until fairly recently, no comprehensive information was available on
individual temporaiy empkiyees. However, beginning several years ago, OPM required agencies to code
each competitive service temporary appointment to show whether the employee was on the first, second,
third, or fourth year of continuous service at the time the action was taken. (A separate peraoimel action
is required each time a temporary employee's service is extended.)
Of the 338,052 temporaiy appointmenu and cartensions made during FY 1991, for which this dau was
available, 79 percent invohred empkiyees vrix> had less than 1 year of current continuous temporaiy
service; almost 13 percent were for employees who had completed 1 year but less than 2 years of
temporaiy service. Just over S percent were for employees with more than 2 but less than 3 years of
temporary service, and roughly 3 percent involved enqtkiyees who had served at least 3 years.
Table 4 presents this data on a cumulative basis by the percentage of actions involving en4>layees with
less than 1 year of temporary service, less than 2 years, etc
Distribution of Temporaiy Competitive Service Appointmenu Made During FY 91
By Length of Appointment
Peieentof
Percent of
Peieentof
Peieentof
Temporary
Temporaiy
Temporary
Temporaiy
Appointments
Appointmenu
AppoflBtments
Appointments
and Eitenaiaiis
and p^t»i««;fi«i«
and EstensMos
fisr Empkiyees
forEmplo]«e*
for Employees
Serving Lem
Serving Leas
Serving Lea
Serving
than 1 Year
than 2 Yean
than 4 Yean
4 or More Yean
All Agencies
79
92
97
100
19
162
How MtAjr Compatitlve Scrvic* Tcmpotwy EmpioyMs Wotfc tar Hot* tkaa 2 Yean CtMtiBaoasly?
Thu daU when broken out by agency shows significantly different pattens of use of temporaiy workers
who have served more than 2 years on their current temporaiy i^tpcMntment.
Agency
Number of FY 91 CoopetitiwB Service
Temporary Appointments of Individuab
Who Have Already Served at Least 2
Preceding Yeas
Temporary Appomtmentt of B
Individuals Who Already Served at
Least 2 Preceding Yean as a
Percentage of All Competitive
Service Temporary Appointmeots
AUA««ieiM
MM
nj*
Agriculture
600
7.1%
Commeroe
201
7.9%
DEFENSE TOTAL
s,«»
1U%
AirForee
Lfi37
14.7%
Amy
L60B
6.6%
Navy
U60
14.7%
Other Defense
L125
2a9%
Education
3
11%
Energy
8
U5%
EPA
21
3.8%
GSA
83
8.1%
HHS
150
3J%
HUD
33
2J%
Interior
uni
10.0%
Justice
288
11.0%
Ubor
U
10%
NASA
19
5.7%
OPM
Other Agencies
169
6.7%
Transportation
116
6.1%
Treasury
304
17%
Veterans A£faiis
936
4.5%
20
163
How Much Total Federal Service Have Temporaries Accumulated?
Central Personnel DaU File records were also searched to determine the extent to which temporaiy
employees had any prior Federal service beyond their present temporary appointment. Currently, the
Central Personnel Data File can provide a cumulative Ggure of all prior Federal service for each employee
which includes current and prvvions temporary appointmcnta, career appointments, and mllitaiy Mrvicc
On this basis, it was determined that temporary employees working in Federal agencies during September
1992, had an average of 3.1 years of Federal service. No further breakout was possible to determine how
much of this was military service but it was noted that agencies with higher average prior Federal service
in their temporary workforce generally had a higher percentage of military veterans among their temporary
employees.
1 Agency
Average Yean of Service (Indiidint Military) for Empioyeci
in Tenure Group (Competitive and Eioepicd Service)* ||
1 ALL AGENCIES
"\
A^iculuuc
"1
CoQuncfOB
2J
DEFENSE TOTAL
3J
Air Force
3^
Army
3.9
Nivy
4S
Other Defense
2.9
Energy
19
EPA
12
GSA
2£
HHS
3.4
HUD
4.4
Interior
2.9
Jutlioe
2.2
Ubor
3S
NASA
3.4
OPM
2S
Other Agendet
2J
Traiuporuiion
4J
Treasiuy
23
Veterans Aflain
"
'Includes service under current and former Federal appoini m enu and military service
21
164
Vn. ALTERNATIVES FOR FURTHER ACTION
The Government is not experiencing rignifirant dilDculty in recruiting or retaining temporary workers at
the present time. The feasibility of extending rights and beaeCts to temporaiy ^rorkers is thus almost
entirely an issue of cost and empkiyee equity.
OPM estimates that the additional cost of prawiding full beneCu to temponuy workers, except those
employed on a strictly short term basis, would range upwards of S800 million a year. This is based on an
average of 157,700 temporary enipk>yees on board in Federal agencies in ^'*inh*r of each year from
19S2 to 1992. Since temporary employiDeot levcb vary sigaificantfy from agency to agency, the potential
budget impact of beneCt increases is signifiranity greater in some agencies than others.
Outlined bek>w are a range of more limited optioos to effect changes and beneCts of temporary workers in
the most critical areas. These indude actions which can be taken under cxistiiig law as well as more
substantive changes which would require conynsinail action.
The OfGce of Personnel Management believes that, beyond identifying a range of alternatives, it would be
premature to forward specific recommendations and draft tegislatioa for r*imw,jjing benefits until several
other situatioiu are resolved. In the next few nooths several actions will occur which win have a direct
bearing on the need for idditionil legislatioa. OPM will be «« p*"**"! policy initiatives that could result ia
substantial changes in temporary and other noopeiBaaeat employmeat pottcie* devribed bdow. Hie final
shape of these initiatives will be determined in full ronsaltnion with Federal agencies, unions, and other
interested parties.
At the same time, the Administration will be dew tto p i ng overall health care reform proposals. Tlie spedfie
issue of extending health beneGu to temporary employees will need to be linked to these proposals. Onoe
these issues are resolved, OPM will be pleased lo wock with the Congress on the specifics of any
legislation that may be needed pertaining to temporary employees.
A. Possible Actioos that can be taken under existing law
I. Length of Tsmporary Appointments
Much of the concern expressed about temporary appointments has focused on situatioiu in which
empk>yees had served almost continuously for many years with no beneGts. Although OPM has taken
action recently to prohibit temporaiy positions from being refilled after they have been encumbered for
more than 4 years, additional concerns could be resolved by reducing the irMTiTtin* length of temporary
appointments.
Until 198S, f'mporary appointmenu in the ooopetitivc service were limited to 1 year, with a 1-year
extension. In 198S, OPM made several poliqr changes based on a determination that agencies needed
greater Qexibility to respond to the uncertainties created by changes in misaon requirements, budget and
staffing authorizations. Agencies were permitted to make temporary appointmenu to any position when
continued funding or ceiling was uncertain. Extensions were aUowed for up to 4 years.
The use of temporary empkiyees who serve for lengthy periods could be curtailed by reducing the
maximum permissible length of temporary appointmenu to 2 years and by encouraging the use of tern
appointmenu for longer-lasting nonpennaaeat work. Term appointments are currently authorized tor
spedOed periods exceeding 1 year and bsliag aot more thaa 4 years on a T^m^rr basis. As sfaowa ia
Appendix A, empfoyces under term appointoteatt are entitled to most beaeCtt iaduding health insurance,
FEJflS coverage, and within-grade increases, which are aoi cuneatly available to teaq>oraries. Rednciag
22
165
the """''"■""' pcnnissible length of temporafy appoinUnenu could be acoomplished in leveraJ phase*-to
cover both competitive service temporary empbyment and excepted service temporary employmenL
Estimated Cost: Approximately S34 million to make the changes for competitive service temporary
employment (Phase I) and an as yet undetermined amount to provide the same policies for the excepted
service (Phase II). This Ggure assumes agencies convert all competitive service temporary employees with
2 or more yean service to term appointments. Our estimate is based on approximately S.OOO employees
with an average grade of GS 4.8— a figure equivalent to the number of competitive service temporary
employees with more than 2 years of service who were on board in Septeinber 1992. The employees
converted from temporary to term appointments would cost agencies: S2,745 for FEHB, S7S for FEGLI, 3
percent of salary for within-grade pay increases, 12.9 percent of salary for FERS, and at least 1 percent of
salary for the Thrift Savings Plaa (TSP cost could be as high as S percent depending upon the level of the
employee's contribution). As shown in Appendix C, costs would vary across agencies depending upon the
percenuge of eadi agency's competitive service temporary employees who work noore than 2 years. Costs
would be partially offset, however, if use of term appointments reduced costs associated with turnover, i.e.,
costs for recruitment and training.
2. Eligibility for Movement to Other Positions
Nonpermaneot employees lack the mobility and access to other employment opportunities that are
available to career workers. Temporary employees cannot be promoted or reassigned to other pocitioni,
and both they and term employees are ineligible for direct movement to career appointments.
While we believe the mobiiity restrictioiu are appropriate for temporary workers, it may be desirable to
allow longer-serving term employees who have completed spedOed amounts of service in nonpermanent
positions, e.g., 2 to 3 years, to qualify for permanent jobs through agency merit promotion programs.
This would give nonpermanent empkiyees greater access to permanent employment opportunities and
would provide agencies with an additional source of trained workers.
Estimated Costa: None. The jobs for which term employees would be considered would be those that
agencies bad already decided to fill on a permanent basis. Additional beneGts would flow to term
employees only if they were actually selected for one of those permanent positions.
B. Options for change which require congressional action
INSURANCE AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS
1. Health BencGts
Background : Currently, temporary employees (those with appointments of 1 year or less) are not eligible
lo earoU in the health benefits program unless they are reappointed and serve at least 1 year of continuous
employment (excluding any breaks between appointments of 5 days or less). When temporary empk>yees
elect health benefits coverage, they pay the full premium; the Government does not contribute. The
options for expanding health insurance coverage for temporary employees are to reduce or eliminate the
"Nvaiting* period for attaining eUgibility and/or to provide Government contribution toward the premium
under specified conditions.
Option : Retain the current policy, but provide a Government contribution once a temporary empk>yee is
eligible to enroll for health benefits. This change has signiCcant impact on cost and related empk>yment
practices.
23
166
Coct: A self and tamily enroUment generates a biweekfy Goveniment oontribation of up to $139.60.
Thus, some agende* which rely on significant nnnriters of temporary employees would have to do with
fewer employees or seek augmented resources. The added cost could abo curtail the eicteasion of
temporary appointments generating additional training costs as agencies seek to avoid the cost of health
benefits.
Option; Shorten or eliminate the service period for health beneCts eligibility for temporary employees
whose appointment(s) exceed 180 days. A period shorter than that would provide coverage to individuals
whose tenure is so short as to make carrier receipt of the necessary paperwork problematic. There could
be two basic types of temporary appointments: not-to-«zceed 180 days and not-to-exceed 1 year.
Empkiyees under a not-to-ezceed 180-day appointment would be eligible to enroll only when they
complete 180 days of current continuous service. They would meet this service requirement only if they
werereappointedwithout a break in service of mote than S daya. By contrast, empk>yees under a not-to
exceed 1-year appointment would be eligible to eoioO within 31 days of emplcymenL There would be no
Government contribution for either type of temporary appointment.
Coat: None. Making health beneGts coverage available without a Government contribution has no impact
on the budget or agency costs.
Option: Provide a Government contributioo for some daas of temporaries. This option dearly has a cost
impact; therefore, — ♦■"■'■''■"c so appropriate criterioa is an issue. Since an aocurnulation of S yean of
temporary service is indicative of a significaat commitment to Government service and of successful
enough performance to warrant multiple appointments andAor extensions, this is a reasonable threshold for
providiiig a Government contribution should it be desirable to do so.
Coat The budget impact would be about $180 miDioa a year for 50,000 employees, and would have to be
absorbed in agency operating budgets to avoid a "paygo* issue.
We will monitor the direction of the President's Task Force on Health Care Reform and defer specific
recommendations for changes in FEHB rules until the Task Force makes its reoommendationa.
2. Life Insorano*
Background: Temporary employees (those with an appointment of 1 year or less) are exduded from the
life insurance program, even if they are reappointed and serve for more than 1 year.
Option : The options for provision of life insurance coverage basically parallel those for health beneGts
coverage. We would provide access fo coverage, and a Government contribution, on the same basis as is
adopted for health b^eCts.
3. Retirement
Background; As described in Section V, Righu and Benefiu Not Currently Available to Temporary
Federal Workers, under the Federal Emplayees Retirement ^em (FERS), OPM regulations exdude
temporary employees (those with appointments of 1 year or less) from coverage under FERS. In addition,
S U.S.C 8411 predudes emptoyees from obtaining service credit for service performed after 1988 that was
not covered by FERS deductions or creditable under the Foreign Service Pension System.
Option: Extend retirement coverage to all empkiyees serving under temporary appointmenu by repealing
the current regulatory ezdusion from FERS coverage. This would treat temporary employees like
permanent employees.
24
167
Coat: Wbea sefvice is covered under FERS, retirement deductions (0.8 percent of basic pay for most
employees) are taken from the employee's pay, and the employing agency contributes the remainder of the
cost (an additional 12.9 percent of basic pay for most employees). Also, depending on the employee's
level of Thrift Savings Plan participation, matching contributions are required, ranging from 1 to S percent
of pay. If short term employees were covered under FERS, both employees and agencies would be
required to make retirement contributions even though most short term employees would never be entitled
to annuity beneCts. The significant agen^ cost associated with this option could reduce employment
opportunities for temporary employees.
Option: Extend FERS coverage to temporary empkiyees after some threshold of acoimnlatrd service has
been reached (e.g., S years). This option, while providing prospective coverage, would itot address the
noncreditability of prior excluded service.
Cost: Once the threshold has been reached, the same cost oonsideratioiu and impact on hiring practices
presented in the preceding option would apply.
Option: Allow credit for ten^Mraty service if the employee later receives a covered q>pointmeat and
completes enough service, including the nonoovered service, to qualify for an annuity, as under the current
CSRS rules. As with CSRS nondednction service, the empk>yee would be required to pay an amount, plus
interest, toward the cost of the service. Since FERS empkiyees currently must pay 3 percent of mHitaiy
basic pay to obtain credit for militaiy service, the same 3 percent amount would be an appropriate diarge
to purchase credit for civilian service. The amount due under this option would be paid t^ means of an
actuarial reduction in the retiree's annuity. This method of *purdiasin^ credit reduces the administrative
burden and limits the availability of this credit to eiiq>loyees «iio actually retire under the system.
Cost: The cost of this option would be funded largely throu^ the actuarial redaction in annnities.
However, because the 3 percent^phis-intereft basis for that reduction does not cover the fuO cost of
crediting this service, this option would abo require a small increase in the amount-currently 12.9 percent
of basic pay-that agencies must pay for FERS-«overed etapUiyces. We fgtimate this would increase the
cost of FERS to agencies by approximately 0.15 to 0.2 percent of basic pqr- Increased budgetary outlays
will be negligible and will not occur for at least 10 years.
168
CQ
c
*o
<
Q.
c
o
Z
o S 8
§1
■.;-v» ...
E.8.
J
IF
B
Ill
IS
8w
-1^
-1^
I*
h
H
ft
II
II
p
lis
^£ a
ijl
18 8
iH
= B E
|i
lit
III
Hi
Iff
III
1^1
Hi
8 9<S
169
8
^ 1
u
41
^.2
. e
I!
si
e
Ilf
Sis
g-c 3
** = V CL
Is
51
,»■§
i.i
n
r«
c
e »
11
« I
.S ii
i5
8|2
fill
ili
III!
ill!
£.£..2 8
t. 8 B
-88
lis
Ills
e i rf s
if S b c
S.S.£ 8
■iil
lis
■la's
a ■ '3
6>S S 2
:h
5 £.3-
.il
if
.1.1
s e-
Q. V
5 8..|
if -a s.
170
1 I
-I §
55
£^2
8 S §
.0; S A
Is i
lis?
^IJ
5
a-
£9
31
I S
III
1 1 5
II
III
*• & 5 S
e £ ••
Il5
•a « S^
9 £ C ^
X 8-se
171
II
II
It
|l
l\
n
Us
&4
'hi
1 «i
g
i-ii
fil
III
«1S
2iil
172
g.
15
II ^
111
.1^
2e8.
S.S-S
|5
if I-
is • S
»!.:<
2 bo
'^ S C 3
O g 3 ■
rill
S-2
•s -
o a
S .2
o s
2.2
^1
its
I S-o
S e i
•I S.i
II S
- !l
■S - 5-
c B B
il5
■M=
e : i
» - B
S- =
S g-
8..S e
g-8.:
|ss
III
Hi
III
CSV
O 5 T>
Iff
" a ■"
•s I"?
:e|
Sua
u •> V
c J a •<
Ills-
5 — er c
ag "^s
e S £>?
- E 2 o
E§| 8
173
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(All Agencies Combined)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment
2.191.546
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
42.6
Average Service
13.1
Retirement -Eligible
(Under CSRS A FERS)
5.4
Education (Bachelors +)
35.9
Gender
Mat*
56.6
Famal*
43.4
Race & National Origin
Minorities
27.9
Btacks
16.7
Hispanics
5.5
Asians/PacHie Islanders
3.7
Native Americans
1.9
Handicapped
7.0
Veterans Preference
28.1
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$ 34.875
Average GS Equiv. Grade
9.0
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
77.4
Wage
16.1
Ottter Pay Systems**
6.5
Work Schedule
Full-Time
92.9
Part-Time
3.8
Intermittent
3.4
Occupation
White-Collar .
83.6
Professional
22.3
Administrative
25.3
Technical
19.0
2.034,469
43.0
13.9
5.8
36.9
56.6
43.2
27.4
16.5
5.4
3.7
1.8
7.2
29.0
$ 35,853
9.2
79.1
15.7
5.2
95.6
2.9
2.1
84.0
22.8
26.2
18.6
157.077
36.9
3.1
0.3
22.8
53.1
46.9
33.1
16.5
6.7
4.3
3.5
5.2
15.6
$22,047
4.8
55.6
21.1
23.3
57.7
15.1
27.2
78.5
15.6
13.4
23.6
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
''Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
174
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(All Agencies Combined)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
22.9
3.0
21.5
0.7
0.4
0.2
41.9
58.1
91.8
11.0
6.2
10.1
69.5
9.4
84.2
0.0
6.4
0.0
2.0
3.8
3.7
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
14.8
14.1
Others
2.3
2.3
Blue-Collar
16.4
16.0
Supervisory
Supervisors
10.5
11.2
Managers
2.1
2.2
Executives
0.4
0.4
Service
Competitive
80.3
83.3
Excepted
19.3
16.3
Geographies
USA only
96.0
96.3
O.C. Metro, only
14.8
15.1
FEHB
Covered
72.8
77.9
Waived
16.5
17.0
Not Eligible
6.8
1.9
Retirement
CSRS or FERS**
90.8
97.1
RCA
7.7
1.8
Foreign Service
0.6
0.6
No Retirement
.0.8
0.3
Other Retirement
0.2
0.2
FEGU
Waived
15.4
16.4
Basic
26.5
28.2
Basic -f other Optional
49.6
53.1
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
175
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Agriculture)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment**
138,765
105,239
33,526
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
41.8
43.0
38.1
Average Service
11.5
14.4
2.3
Retirement -Eligible
(Under CSRS & FERS)
4.6
6.1
0.0
Education (Bachelors+)
40.9
47.3
20.8
Gender
Male
59.6
59.3
60.5
Female
40.4
40.7
39.5
Race & National Origin
Minorities
18.4
16.5
24.1
Blacks
9.0
8.8
9.6
HIspanics
5.1
3.5
10.0
Asians/Pacific Islanders
1.8
1.9
1.7
Native Americans
2.4
2.3
2.9
Handicapped
6.7
7.4
4.6
Veterans Preference
17.6
20.6
8.1
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$29,291
$ 33.705
$15,470
Average GS Equiv. Grade
8.0
8.9
4.2
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
88.8
95.6
67.4
Wage
4.6
2.3
12.1
Other Pay Systems***
6.6
2.1
20.5
Work Schedule
Full-Time
83.6
94.0
51.0
Part-Time
3.2
2.2
6.3
Intermittent
13.2
3.8
42.7
Occupation
White -Collar
95.0
97.3
87.8
Professional
26.9
34.1
4,4
Administrative
17.1
16.2
19.9
Technical
38.8
33.9
54.3
'Most entries (except for "Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
•••Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants, Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the "Handicapped" percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
176
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Agriculture)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
11.3
12.2
8.5
Others
0.8
0.8
0.7
Blue-Collar
5.0
2.7
12.2
Supervisory
Supervisors
8.3
10.8
0.2
Managers
1.8
2.3
0.0
Executives
0.3
0.4
0.0
Service
Competitive
75.3
93.6
17.8
Excepted
24.4
6.1
82.2
Geographies
USA only
98.9
98.9
99.1
D.C. Metro, only
10.0
12.2
3.0
FEHB
Covered
63.5
83.5
0.7
Waived
9.4
12.2
0.7
Not Eligible
25.7
2.6
98.3
Retirement
CSRS or FERS**
74.0
97.4
0.6
HCA
20.4
1.5
79.7
Foreign Service
0.2
0.3
0.0
No Retirement
^.4
0.8
19.7
Other Retirement
0.0
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Waived
10.3
13.5
0.1
Basic
20.4
26.9
0.3
Basic -t- Other Optional
43.2
56.8
0.2
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPOF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for "Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
177
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Commerce)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment**
37,968
34,961
3.007
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
42.6
42.9
38.2
Average Service
13.0
13.9
2.3
Retirement- Eligible
(Under CSRS A FERS)
6.7
7.3
0.3
Education (Bachelors -t-)
49.3
51.2
27.7
Gender
Male
53.9
54.4
48.9
Female
46.1
45.6
51.1
Race & National Origin
Minorities
23.8
23.9
22.7
Blacks
17.4
17.6
14.7
Hispanlcs
2.6
2.4
4.3
Asians/Pacific Islanders
3.5
3.5
3.0
Native Americans
0.5
0.4
0.7
Handicapped
4.7
4.6
6.1
Veterans Preference
19.2
19.7
13.7
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$37,844
$39,397
$ 19,831
Average GS Equiv. Grade
9.2
9.6
4.6
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
87.2
87.3
85.9
Wage
3.5
3.1
8.2
Other Pay Systems***
9.3
9.6
5.9
IVorl^ Schedule
Full -Time
84.8
88.9
36.7
Part-Time
6.7
6.6
7.9
Intermittent
8.4
4.4
55.3
Occupation
White-Collar
96.5
96.9
91.8
Professional
34.3
36.1
12.4
Administrative
18.8
19.9
5.5
Technical
18.2
18.3
17.2
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total. Nontemporary. Temporary
**There were 4 employees not identified as either temporary or nontemporary
***Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids.
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped" percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
178
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Commerce)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
24.4
21.8
54.4
Others
0.9
0.8
2.3
Blue-Collar
3.5
3.1
6.2
Supervisory
Supervisors
10.9
11.7
1.1
Managers
2.5
2.7
0.3
Executives
1.2
1.3
0.2
Service
Competitive
81.6
85.6
36.9
Excepted
17.0
13.1
62.8
Geographies
USA only
99.2
99.2
99.9
D.C. Metro, only
54.6
57.4
21.3
FEHB
Covered
73.3
79.3
3.1
Waived
14.3
15.2
3.5
Not Eligible
10.5
3.5
92.8
Retirement
CSRS or FERS**
66.9
96.1
4.0
ncA
10.5
3.3
94.7
Foreign Service
0.5
0.5
0.0
No Retirement
0.1
0.0
1.3
Other Retirement
0.0
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Waived
18.9
20.4
1.1
Basic
30.0
32.5
1.8
Basic + Other Optional
40.1
43.5
1.1
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
•Most entries (except for "Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
179
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
In the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(DoD Total)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment** 960,317 910.835 49,482
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
43.5
43.8
36.4
Average Service
14.2
14.8
3.7
Retirement-Eligible
(Und0r CSRS A FERS)
5.9
6.3
0.3
Education (Bachelors +)
27.0
27.7
15.2
Gender
Mala
62.9
63.5
51.9
Famal*
37.1
36.5
48.1
Race & National Origin
Minorities
25.8
25.2
37.8
Blacks
14.5
14.0
23.8
Hispanics
5.6
5.5
7.2
Asians/Pacific Islanders
4.7
4.7
5.6
t4ativa Americans
0.9
0.9
1.2
Handicapped
6.5
6.6
6.1
Veterans Preference
6.2
6.4
4.5
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$33,271
$33,957
$20,469
Average GS Equiv. Grade
8.9
9.0
4.6
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
69.1
70.3
46.8
Wage
28.0
27.3
40.1
Ottier Pay Systems***
ZJd
2.3
13.2
Work Schedule
Fui-Tlme
96.8
98.6
64.7
Part-Time
1.9
1.1
16.9
Intermittent
1.2
0.2
18.4
Occupation
White -Collar
71.9
72.5
59.8
Protessional
18.2
18.5
12.3
Administrative
21.0
21.9
4.3
Technical
16.4
16.7
11.0
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of ttie
respective base populations: i.e., Total, Nontemporary. Temporary
***Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants, Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
180
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(DoD Total)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
28.7
3.6
40.2
0.8
0.1
0.0
66.3
33.6
79.0
6.6
3.1
20.7
36.5
5.8
90.9
0.0
3.2
0.0
1.2
2.1
2.6
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
14.1
13.3
others
2.2
2.1
Blue-Collar
28.1
27.5
Supervisory
Supervisors
1.8
1.8
Managers
1.5
1.6
Executives
0.2
0.2
Service
Competitive
87.2
88.4
Excepted
12.6
11.5
Geographies
USA only
94.6
95.4
D.C. Metro, only
9.0
9.1
FEHB
Covered
74.3
78.2
Waived
18.0
17.9
Not Eligible
2.0
0.1
Retirement
CSRS or FERS««
94.8
99.6
PICA
5.0
0.3
Foreign Service
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.2
0.1
Other Retirement
0.1
0.1
FEGU
Waived
13.2
13.8
Basic
25.8
27.1
Basic + Other Optional
55.7
58.6
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPOF) as of September 1992
•Most entries (except for "Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
181
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Air Force)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment*
204.082
196,312
7,770
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
43.7
44.0
36.5
Average Service
14.8
15.2
3.6
Retirement-Eligible
(Under CSRS A FERS)
5.9
6.1
0.3
Education (Bachelors +)
23.6
24.2
8.6
Gender
Mate
65.8
66.0
58.8
Female
34.2
34.0
41.2
Race & National Origin
Minorities
22.7
22.3
33.8
Blacks
9.8
9.5
17.8
HIspanics
9.2
9.2
10.4
Asians/Pacific Islanders
2.6
2.5
4.4
Native Americans
1.1
1.1
1.2
Handicapped
10.5
10.6
7.1
Veterans Preference
38.4
38.8
28.5
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$ 32,697
$33,142
$21,418
Average GS Equiv. Grade
8.8
8.9
4.7
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
65.4
66.0
50.5
Wage
33.8
33.4
42.6
other Pay Systems***
0.8
0.6
6.9
Work Schedule
Full -Time
98.6
99.3
79.0
Part-Time
0.9
0.4
13.1
Intermittent
0.4
0.1
7.8
Occupation
White-Collar
65.6
65.9
57.3
Professional
13.0
13.3
5.3
Administrative
21.2
21.9
4.6
Technical
15.9
15.9
14.7
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
•••Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants, Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
70-660 - 94 - 7
182
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary. and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Air Force)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
13.4
1^6
27.1
others
2.\
1.9
5.7
Blue-Collar
34.4
34.1
42.7
Supervisory
Supervisors
11.6
1^0
1.5
Managers
2.0
Z1
0.2
Executives
0.1
0.1
0.1
Service
Competitive
83.3
83.9
66.9
Excepted
16.7
16.0
33.1
Geographies
USA only
96.9
97.4
84.8
O.C. Metro, only
2.8
Z7
6.5
FEHB
Covered
75.8
78.6
3.1
Waived
18.5
18.4
21.8
Not Eligible
3.0
0.2
72.7
Retirement
CSRS or FERS**
96.2
99.7
7.0
PICA
3.7
0.2
91.6
Fofvign Sen/ice
0.0
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.1
0.0
1.3
Ottier Retirement
0.0
0.0
0.1
FEGU
Waived
1Z7
13.2
1.4
Basic
22.2
23.0
2.4
Basic -I- Other Optional
61.3
63.6
3.6
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPOF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations: i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
183
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Army)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary*
Total Employment
317,613
300.259
17.354
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
43.7
44.1
36.5
Average Service
14.1
14.7
3.9
Retirement- Eligible
(Under CSRS S FERS)
6.3
6.7
0.3
Education (Bachelors +)
27.2
28.0
13.8
Gender
Mate
60.6
60.9
54.3
Famale
39.4
39.1
45.7
Race & National Origin
Minorities
24.3
23.6
36.6
BlMks
14.9
14.3
25.7
Hispanics
5.3
5.2
6.3
Asians/Pacific Islandars
3.1
3.1
3.2
Nativtt Amaricaits
1.0
1.0
1.4
Handicapped
7.5
7.6
6.3
Veterans Preference
35.3
35.8
27.1
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$32,566
$33,245
$20,690
Average GS Equiv. Grade
8.6
8.8
5.0
Pay System
GS & EquivalMrt
76.2
77.4
55.7
Wag*
23.3
22.4
38.1
Othw Pay Syatanw**
0.5
0.2
6.2
Work Schedule
FuH-TifiM
97.5
98.7
76.1
Part- Tuna
1.7
1.1
13.7
Intermittant
0.8
0.3
10.1
Occupation
White -Collar
76.7
77.6
62.2
Professional
17.6
18.2
7.5
Administrathw
22.3
23.3
5.6
Technical
18.1
18.4
13.3
•Most entries (except for 'Average' figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids.
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped' percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
184
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Army)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
16.4
15.6
30.9
OtiMrs
2.Z
i1
4.8
Blue -Collar
23.3
2Z4
37.8
Supervisory
Supervisors
11.5
1Z2
0.8
Managers
1.5
1.5
0.1
Executives
0.1
0.1
0.0
Service
CofiHietiUve
84.4
85.4
67.0
Excepted
15.5
14.5
33.0
Geographies
USA only
93.8
94.2
86.0
D.C. Metro, only
8.3
8.5
5.2
FEHB
Covered
71.7
75.7
2.5
Waived
18.4
18.2
2Z3
Not Eligtole
0.4
0.1
6.2
Retirement
CSRS or FERS"
94.4
99.5
6.0
RCA
5.2
0.3
69.8
PofM^n S#fvic#
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
4.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
FEGU
Waived
13.4
14.1
1.6
Basic
25.0
26.3
2.1
Basic ■¥ Other Optional
55.9
59.0
2.3
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPOF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
**Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
185
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
1
(Navy)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary*
Total Employment**
294.909
285,875
9.034
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
43.3
43.4
37.7
Average Service
14.6
14.9
4.8
Retirement -Eligible
(Undf CSRS A FEBS)
S.6
5.8
0.4
Education (Bachelors^)
26.6
27.2
9.8
Gender
Mai*
69.4
69.2
75.0
FMTiale
30.6
30.8
25.0
Race & National Origin
Minorities
27.5
27.0
40.6
Btaefcs
14.3
14.1
23.2
His|Mnics
3.9
3.8
6.1
Asians/Pacific Islandars
8.5
8.5 "
10.0
Nativ* Amaricans
0.7
0.7
1.4
Handicapped
8.3
8.3
7.4
Veterans Preference
39.6
39.8
32.9
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$35,104
$35,439
$24,398
Average GS Equiv. Grade
9.4
9.4
5.3
Pay System
GS A Equivalant
64.5
65.6
31.6
Waga
32.5
31.4
64.8
Othar Pay Systams***
3.0
3.0
3.6
Work Schedule
FuU-Time
99.0
99.4
87.2
Part-rime
0.6
0.5
3.2
Intermittent
0.4
0.1
9.6
Occupation
White -Collar
67.5
68.5
35.2
Professional
19.4
19.8
4.6
Administrative
17.6
18.1
3.3
Technical
17.4
17.8
6.1
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total. Nontemporary. Temporary
••♦Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants, Schedule A student aids.
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
186
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Navy)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
17.4
3.8
64.8
0.6
0.1
0.0
91.7
8.3
94.7
6.4
6.6
25.1
62.5
8.5
87.3
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.9
3.0
4.6
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
10.2
10.0
Others
2.9
2.9
Blue-Collar
32.5
31.5
Supervisory
Supervisor*
11.2
11.5
Managers
1.3
1.4
Executives
0.1
0.2
Service
Competitive
95.0
95.1
Excepted
4.8
4.7
Geographies
USA only
97.2
97.2
D.C. Metro, only
11.9
1Z1
FEHB
Covered
79.7
82.0
Waived
16.0
15.8
Not Eligtoie
2.0
0.1
Retirement
CSRS or l=ERS«*
97.1
99.9
PICA
i7
0.0
Foreign Service
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.2
m
OtIwr Retirement
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Waived
13.7
14.1
Basic
28.4
29.2
Basic -t- Other Optional
55.0
56.6
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average' figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
187
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Other
Defense)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary*
Total Employment**
143.713
128.389
15.324
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
43.1
44.0
36.0
Average Service
1^8
14.0
2.9
Retirement- Eligible
(Und^ CSRS S FBiS)
5.9
6.6
0.1
Education (Bachelors+)
32.3
33.4
23.2
Gender
Mala
50.8
53.1
3Z0
Fmnal*
49.2
46.9
68.0
Race & National Origin
Minorities
30.1
28.9
39.5
Blacks
20.9
20.4
24.9
Hispanics
4.9
4.6
7.2
Asians/Pacific Islandars
3.5
3.1
6.5
Nativ* Amarieans
0.8
0.8
1.0
Handicapped
8.0
8.4
4.7
Veterans Preference
31.8
33.6
16.5
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$31,885
$33,569
$ 17.421
Average GS Equiv. Grade
8.7
9.2
3.5
Pay System
GS & Equivalant
68.2
71.2
43.6
Waga
20.9
20.2
26.6
Othar Pay Syalaina***
10.9
8.6
29.8
Work Schedule
FuO-rima
88.6
95.4
31.3
Part-Time
6.6
3.8
30.4
intannittent
4.7
0.7
38.3
Occupation
White -Collar
78.9
79.6
73.0
Professional
24.5
24.4
25.9
Administrativa
24.6
27.1
3.1
Technical
11.2
11.4
9.4
•Most entries (except tor 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
•••Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
188
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Other Defense)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
33.6
0.9
27.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
S0.3
49.6
58.9
6.3
1.6
15.6
37.1
3.5
94.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.7
1.4
1.3
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
17.7
15.9
Others
0.8
0.8
Blue-Collar
21.1
20.4
Supervisory
Supervisors
9.6
10.7
Managers
1.3
1.5
Executives
0.4
0.4
Service
Competitive
83.2
87.1
Excepted
16.5
12.5
Geographies
USA only
87.8
91.2
O.C. Metro, only
13.2
13.8
FEHB
Covered
66.9
0.2
Waived
20.5
21.0
Not Eligible
4.1
0.2
Retirement
CSRS or FERS**
88.7
98.8
ncA
10.9
1.0
Foreign Service
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.3
0.1
Other Retirement
0.1
0.2
FEGU
Waived
12.3
13.7
Basic
27.7
30.8
Basic -t- Other OptioruU
48.6
54.2
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
•Most entries (except for "Average" figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations: i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporauy
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
189
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Education)
Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment
Total*
5.272
5.027
245
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
43.6
44.2
30.7
Average Service
14.1
14.7
1.5
Retirement-Eligible
(Under CSRS A FERS)
6.6
7.0
0.0
Education (Bachelors -h)
50.0
52.4
2.0
Gender
Male
39.9
40.1
35.9
Female
60.1
59.9
64.1
Race & National Origin
Minorities
45.1
44.6
54,7
Blacks
38.1
37.8
43.7
Hispanics
3.6
3.6
4.9
Asians/Pacific Islanders
2.6
Z4
5.7
Native Americans
0.8
0.8
0.4
Handicapped
5.9
6.2
0.0
Veterans Preference
14.0
14.4
4.5
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$44,617
$45,268
$ 30,557
Average GS Equiv. Grade
10.7
10.9
4.6
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
92.1
9Z9
75.9
Wage
0.2
0.2
0.0
Other Pay Systems**
7.7
6.9
24.1
Work Schedule
Full -Time
94.3
95.7
66.9
Part-Time
1.9
0.9
23.7
Intermittent
3.7
3.4
9.4
Occupation
White -Collar
99.8
99.8
99.6
Professional
29.2
30.5
3.7
Administrative
47.4
47.7
40.8
Technical
7.9
8.2
1.2
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
♦•Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
190
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Education)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
15.1
13.4
51.4
Others
0.2
0.0
2.4
Blue-Collar
0.2
0.2
0.4
Supervisory
Supervisors
11.4
12.0
0.0
Managers
2.7
2.7
2.0
Executives
2.0
2.0
1.6
Service
Competitive
82.3
85.2
24.5
Excepted
16.0
13.1
73.9
Geographies
USA only
99.7
99.7
99.2
D.C. IMetro. only
70.3
70.1
74.3
FEHB
Covered
77.5
81.0
4.5
Waived
13.9
14.4
Z9
Not Eligible
7.7
3.0
104.1
Retirement
CSRS or FEBS««
92.1
96.4
4.1
FICA
7.8
3.5
95.1
Foreign Seiviee
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
No Retirement
0.1
0.1
Other Retirement
0.0
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Wtaived
21.5
22.6
0.4
Basic
32.4
33.9
2.9
Basic -t- Other Optional
38.1
40.0
0.8
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average' figures) are expressed as percentages of tfie res-
pective base populations: i.e., Total. Nontemporary, Temporary
♦•Personnel who separate witfi CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
191
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Energy)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment
20.925
20.332
593
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
4Z9
43.3
30.7
Average Service
14.5
14.5
2.9
Retirement-Eligible
(Under CSflS A FERS)
5.5
5.6
0.3
Education (Bachelors -h)
57.9
59.0
19.1
Gender
Mate
61.8
62.3
46.2
Femal«
38.2
37.7
53.8
Race & National Origin
Minorities
20.6
20.0
40.1
Blacks
11.6
11.2
26.5
Hispanics
4.7
4.6
7.4
Asians/Pacific Islandars
3.1
3.0
4.6
Nativa Amaricans
1.2
1.2
1.7
Handicapped
4.7
4.6
6.2
Veterans Preference
26.3
26.8
11.6
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$46,300
$ 46,923
$ 24,607
Average GS Equiv. Grade
10.9
11.1
4.1
Pay System
GS & Equivalaiit
88.3
88.7
7^5
Wag*
8.0
7.8
16.4
Oth«^ Pay Systam***
3.7
3.5
11.1
Work Schedule
Full-Time
95.9
97.2
49.1
Part-Time
3.8
2.6
44.9
Inteimittent
0.3
0.1
6.1
Occupation
White -Collar
92.0
92.2
83.6
Professional
38.4
39.3
6.2
Administrative
30.1
30.7
10.6
Technical
6.9
7.1
3.2
•Most entries (except for "Average" figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids.
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the "Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
192
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Energy)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Ctorical 13.2
OtlMfs 3.4
Blue -Collar 8.0
Supervisory
Supervisors 11.9
Managers 5.3
Executives 2.8
Service
Competitive 90.0
Excepted 7.4
Geographies
USA only 99.9
O.C. Metro, only 35.5
FEHB
Covered 82.8
Waived 12.7
Not Eligtele 2.5
Retirement
CSRS or FERS** 96.9
PICA 3.0
Foreign Service 0.0
No Retirentent 0.1
Other Retirement 0.0
FEGU
Waived 20.1
Basic 26.1
Basic •«- Other Optional 50.6
11.8
3.3
7.8
12.2
5.5
2.B
91.4
5.9
99.9
35.6
85.0
12.8
0.3
99.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.6
26.8
52.0
59.5
4.0
16.4
0.2
0.8
0.8
40.6
58.3
99.7
30.7
7.3
8.6
76.1
7.8
88.7
0.0
3.5
0.0
2.A
2.0
3.4
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPOF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
* 'Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
193
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary. and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(EPA)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment** 18.614 17.296 1.318
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
40.2
40.6
35.6
Average Service
11.4
12.2
1.2
Retirement -Eligible
(Undf CSRS A FERS)
3.8
4.0
0.0
Education (Bachelors-!-)
70.0
71.5
50.1
Gender
Mala
51.1
50.9
53.5
48.9
49.1
46.5
Race A National Origin
Minorities
26.S
25.1
45.6
Blacks
18.8
17.5
35.5
HIspanies
3.8
3.7
5.5
Asians/Pacific Islandars
3.6
3.5
4.1
Nativa Amaricans
0.3
0.3
0.5
Handicapped
3.8
3.9
2.7
Veterans Preference
11.7
12.5
1.8
>b Characteristics
Average Salary
$45,061
$ 45,724
$36,164
Average GS Equiv. Grade
10.9
11.2
4.3
Pay System
GS & Equivalant
94.9
97.8
57.4
Waga
0.3
0.3
0.3
Ottiar Pay Systams***
4.8
1.9
42.3
Work Schedule
Full-Tlma
90.3
95.4
23.6
Part-rima
6.9
4.6
37.0
Intarmittant
2.8
0.1
39.4
Occupation
White-Collar
99.7
99.7
99.2
Professional
47.4
48.0
39.1
Administrativa
31.5
33.2
10.2
Technical
5.7
5.9
4.0
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations: i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
***Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
194
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(EPA)
Total* Nontemporary*
Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
13.9
11.6
43.2
OUwrs
1.1
1.0
2.8
Blue-Collar
0.3
0.3
0.8
Supervisory
Supervisors
12.1
13.0
0.1
Managers
3.0
3.2
0.5
Executives
1.6
1.7
0.4
Service
Competitive
84.5
89.8
15.6
Excepted
13.9
8.6
83.5
Geographies
USA only
99.9
99.9
99.7
D.C. Metro, only
34.8
33.0
58.3
FEHB
Covered
78.1
83.9
2.3
Vltaived
14.3
15.1
3.7
Not Eligible
6.8
0.2
93.5
Retirement
CSRS or FERS«*
9^4
99.2
2.9
FICA
7.5
0.7
96.0
Foreign Service
0.0
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.1
0.0
1.1
Other Retirement
0.0
0.0
0.1
FEGU
Vltaived
25.1
27.0
0.9
Basic
32.0
34.3
1.4
Basic ••■ Other Optional
35.3
38.0
0.8
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPOF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average' figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
**Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
195
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(GSA)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment
Demographic Characteristics
20,632
19,847
785
Average Age
43.4
43.4
28.4
Average Service
14.7
14.7
Z8
Retirement-Eligible
(Undmr CSRS A FERS)
7.4
7.7
0.9
Education (Bachelors +)
28.4
29.3
5.6
Gender
Mais
57.8
58.5
39.7
Female
4Z2
41.5
60.3
Race & National Origin
Minorities
37.3
36.0
70.6
Blacks
28.9
28.1
49.8
Hispanics
4.6
4.3
12.5
Asians/Pacific Islandara
3.1
2.9
7.1
Nativ« Amaricans
0.8
0.8
1.1
Handicapped
6.8
6.8
5.7
Veterans Preference
34.4
35.3
11.6
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$35,558
$36,272
$17,222
Average GS Equiv. Grade
9.5
9.7
3.2
Pay System
75.4
75.9
62.2
Waga
23.4
23.4
24.6
Othar Pay Systama**
1.2
0.8
13.2
Work Schedule
Ful-Thna
96.0
98.5
32.6
Part-Tima
3.7
1.3
62.2
Intennittant
0.3
0.2
5.2
Occupation
White -Collar
76.6
76.6
75.4
Professional
14.6
15.1
0.8
Administrative
33.8
34.9
4.5
Technical
11.1
11.5
1.1
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of ttie
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
* 'Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants, Sctiedule A student aids,
overseais teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
196
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(GSA)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
56.2
12.9
24.6
0.5
0.3
0.1
33.1
66.9
98.7
20.3
3.4
25.9
61.4
2.8
95.7
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.4
0.6
2.2
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
12.5
10.8
Others
4.7
4.3
Blue-Collar
23.4
23.4
Supervisory
Supervisors
15.5
16.1
Managers
1.0
1.1
Executives
0.6
0.6
Service
Competitive
92.2
94.5
Excepted
7.3
4.9
Geographies
USA only
99.5
99.6
O.C. Metro, only
33.4
33.9
FEHB
Covered
79.3
82.3
Waived
16.1
15.7
Not Eligible
Z5
0.1
Retirement
CSRS or FERS««
96.1
99.8
HCA
3.8
0.2
Fofvign Service
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.1
0.0
Other Retirement
do
0.0
FEGU
Waived
13.2
13.7
Basic
30.0
31.2
Basic -f Ottter Optional
51.7
53.6
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPOF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
197
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Interior)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment**
86.050
70.684
15.366
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
41.8
43.2
35.4
Average Service
12.2
14.3
2.9
Retiremen t- Eligible
(Under CSRS A FERS)
4.7
5.7
0.1
Education (Bachelors +)
36.6
44.4
0.7
Gender
Male
6Z7
62.1
65.4
Female
37.3
37.9
34.6
Race & National Origin
Minorities
27.0
27.6
23.9
Blacks
5.4
5.6
4.2
Hispanlcs
4.0
4.2
3.3
Asians/Pacific Islanders
1.3
1.3
1.0
Native Americans
16.3
16.5
15.4
Handicapped
4.9
5.2
3.7
Veterans Preference
23.8
25.2
17.4
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$ 32,078
$34,765
$ 19.597
Average GS Equiv. Grade
8.5
9.2
4.7
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
79.2
81.6
68.2
Wage
14.8
12.5
25.0
Other Pay Systems***
6.0
5.9
6.9
Work Schedule
Full— Time
91.4
95.4
73.0
Part-Time
4.1
3.2
8.4
Intermittent
4.4
1.4
18.6
Occupation
White -Collar
84.8
87.1
73.8
Professional
26.0
29.7
8.8
Administrative
20.4
22.4
10.8
Technical
24.6
20.7
42.7
*Most entries (except for "Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
***Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the "Handicapped" percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
70-660 0-94-8
198
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(interior)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Confd.)
Clerical
11.4
11.5
10.8
Ottwra
2.4
28
0.7
Blue -Collar
15.2
12.9
26.2
Supervisory
SupcrvtsoTB
10.2
12.3
0.5
Managers
Z2
27
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
Service
Compatitiwa
80.8
88.2
46.9
Exeaptad
18.9
11.4
53.1
Geographies
USAonly
98.6
98.8
97.8
O.C. Matro. only
11.5
126
6.4
FEHB
Covarad
65.5
78.8
4.3
Waivad
16.3
18.6
6.0
Not EHgtola
17.0
1.4
88.6
Retirement
CSRS Of FERS**
81.7
98.1
6.4
RCA
17.6
1.3
92.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
No Roufwnwii
0.3
O."
0.9
Ottiar Ratifamant
0.4
0.5
0.0
Feou
Waivad
12.6
15.1
1.1
Baaie
23.0
27.5
2.1
Basic -fOdtar Optional
46.2
55.5
3.1
Data Source
Central Personnel Data RIe (CPOF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of ttie res-
pective base populations: i.e.. Total. Nontemporary, Temporary
^'Personnel wtio separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
199
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(HHS)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary
Total Employment**
129,497
121.495
8.061
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
4^9
43.4
36.2
Average Service
14.4
15.2
3.4
Retirement- Eligible
(Under CSRS A FERS)
5.8
6.1
0.2
Education (Bachelors +)
420
420
422
Gender
Mai*
34.9
34.3
44.2
Famal*
65.1
65.7
55.8
Race & National Origin
Minorities
38.3
37.5
49.9
Blacks
22.9
227
25.1
Hispanics
4.8
4.8
4.9
Asians/Pacific Islanders
2.8
26
5.5
Nativa Amaricans
7.9
7.5
14.5
Handicapped
5.4
5.5
3.9
Veterans Preference
124
13.0
4.0
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$ 35,974
$36,580
$26,798
Average GS Equiv. Grade
9.0
9.1
4.9
Pay System
GS & Eqwivalant
91.1
93.4
57.1
Wag*
3.0
28
5.6
OttMr Pay Systams***
5.9
3.8
37.4
Work Schedule
Fun-Tima
921
95.0
48.7
Part-Tima
4.9
4.2
16.6
Intarmittant
29
0.8
34.7
Occupation
White-Collar
97.0
97.2
94.4
Professional
20.5
19.4
36.0
Administrative
39.5
41.7
5.6
Technical
17.0
17.3
11.1
*Most entries (except for "Average" figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••There were 53 employees not identified as either temporary or nontemporary
•••Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the •Handicapped" percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
200
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(HHS)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
33.6
8.1
5.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
27.8
71.9
99.7
43.5
4.2
0.2
95.6
4.9
93.4
0.0
1.7
0.0
1.2
2.0
2.0
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
19.3
18.3
Otiwr*
0.8
0.3
Blue-Collar
3.0
2.8
Supervisory
Supcfvisors
12.1
12.9
Managers
3.3
3.5
Exacutivvs
0.5
0.5
Service
Compatttiv*
88.1
92.1
Excaptad
11.4
7.4
Geographies
USA only
99.4
99.4
O.C. Matre. only
24.6
23.3
FEHB
Covarad
73.2
77.8
Waivad
18.9
20.1
Not Eligibla
7.9
2.1
Retirement
CSRS or FERS"
9^0
97.8
PICA
7.3
1.6
Foraign Saivica
0.0
0.0
No Ratiramant
0.6
0.5
Othar Ratiramant
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Waivad
18.6
19.7
Basic
28.4
30.2
Basic -t- OttMT Optional
45.5
48.4
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
•Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
201
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Labor)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment**
17.573
17,205
368
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
43.9
44.2
32.0
Average Service
14.9
15.2
3.8
Retirement- Eligible
(Under CSRS & hkHS)
7.7
7.8
2.4
Education (Bachelors^)
53.9
54.4
33.7
Gender
Mate
52.5
52.8
41.6
Female
47.5
47.2
58.4
Race & National Origin
Minorities
31.9
31.5
53.0
Blacks
23.9
23.5
40.5
Hispanics
5.2
5.2
4.9
Asians/Pacific l»land«ra
2.2
Z1
7.1
Native Americans
0.6
0.6
0.5
Handicapped
5.8
5.8
5.4
Veterans Preference
24.9
25.3
6.5
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$ 4?,?93
$42,568
$24,599
. Average GS Equiv. Grade
10.3
10.4
5.2
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
97.8
98.2
81.0
Wage
0.3
0.3
2.2
other Pay Systems***
1.9
1.5
16.8
Work Schedule
Full-Time
95.7
96.4
61.1
Part-Time
4.1
3.6
28.3
Intermittent
0.2
0.0
10.6
Occupation
White-Collar
99.7
99.7
97.8
Professional
22.6
22.9
9.8
Administrative
44.7
45.2
21.7
Technical
17.1
17.4
4.3
*Most entries (except for 'Average' figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
***Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants, Scfiedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped' percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
202
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Labor)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
aerical
14.7
13.9
51.4
others
0.5
0.3
10.6
Blue-Collar
0.3
0.3
2.2
Supervisory
Supervisors
13.8
14.1
0.5
Managers
2.5
2.5
0.3
Executives
1.0
1.0
0.0
Service
Competitive
92.4
93.2
57.9
Excepted
6.6
5.9
42.1
Geographies
USA only
99.7
99.7
100.0
O.C. Metro, only
34.6
34.3
48.9
FEHB
Covered
83.1
84.7
7.6
Waived
13.4
13.2
25.8
Not Eligible
1.4
0.0
62.5
Retirement
CSRS or FERS"
98.0
99.9
10.1
PICA
1.8
0.1
8Z9
Foreign Service
0.0
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.2
0.0
7.1
Other Retirement
0.0
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Waived
19.0
19.4
2.7
Basic
27.4
28.0
Z2
Basic -1- other Optional
51.6
52.6
3.5
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
•Most entries (except for 'Average' figures) are expressed as percentages of tfie res-
pective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary. Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
203
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Justice)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment**
97,332
92,659
3,314
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
38.0
38.3
29.7
Average Service
10.8
11.2
2.2
Retirement -Eligible
(Under CSRS A FERS)
1.9
1.9
0.3
Education (Bachelors +)
45.0
45.6
27.6
Gender
Mate
59.7
60.2
45.3
Fmnal«
40.3
39.8
54.7
Race & National Origin
Minorities
29.5
29.1
42.2
Blacks
17.0
167
25.7
Hispanics
10.0
9.9
^Z7
Asians/Pacific Islandars
1.9
1.9
3.3
Nativa Amarieans
0.5
0.5
0.5
Handicapped
ar
2.7
i4
Veterans Preference
19.7
20.2
60
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$ 37,929
$38,483
$ 20.747
Average GS Equiv. Grade
9.4
9.5
4.9
Pay System
GS & Equivalant
90.2
90.5
82.6
Waga
4.1
4.2
1.5
Othar Pay Systams***
5.6
5.3
16.0
Work Schedule
FuU-Tima
96.6
98.1
53.3
Part-Tima
2.5
1.4
34.2
Intannittant
0.9
0.5
12.6
Occupation
White -Collar
85.5
85.1
95.7
Professional
12.3
12.5
62
Administrativa
40.8
41.5
20.8
Tachnical
13.6
14.0
4.0
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of tlie
respective base populations: i.e.. Total, Nontemporary. Temporary
***Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
/.
204
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Justice)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
14.0
1^7
50.0
Others
4.8
4.5
14.6
Blue-Collar
14.5
14.9
4.3
Supervisory
Supervisors
13.0
13.5
0.5
Managers
2.3
2.4
0.1
Executives
0.6
0.6
0.0
Service
Competitive
60.0
60.5
43.4
Excepted
39.5
38.9
56.5
Geographies
USA only
82.6
82.0
97.6
O.C. Metro, only
22.8
22.Q
29.8
FEHB
Covered
82.7
85.4
5.3
Waived
10.1
10.1
10.7
Not Eligible
3.5
0.7
81.1
Retirement
CSRS or FERS*«
96.4
99.6
6.3
FICA
3.3
0.4
84.4
Foreign Servic*
0.0
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.3
0.0
9.3
Other Retirement
0.0
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Waived
25.7
26.5
1.6
Basic
24.9
25.7
2.6
Basic -t- Other Optional
45.7
47.2
2.1
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
205
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(NASA)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment
25.731
25,076
655
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
42.6
42.6
39.2
Average Service
15.8
16.1
3.4
Retirement- Eligible
(Undw CSRS A FERS)
10.3
10.6
0.0
Education (Bachelors +)
68.1
68.6
48.4
Gender
Mate
68.4
66.7
57.7
Female
31.6
31.3
42.3
Race & National Origin
Minorities
17.7
17.1
38.9
Blacks
9.7
9.2
29.6
Hispanics
3.7
3.7
4.1
Asians/Pacific Islanders
3.8
3.7
5.0
Native Americans
0.5
0.5
0.2
Handicapped
4.9
5.0
3.5
Veterans Preference
20.3
20.7
7.9
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$48,962
$49,319
$ 24,147
Average GS Equiv. Grade
11.5
11.6
3.5
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
93.5
94.5
55.0
Wage
2.8
2.9
0.2
Other Pay Systems**
3.7
2.6
44.9
Work Schedule
FuU-Time
96.0
98.2
13.4
Part-Time
2.8
1.8
39.8
Interminent
1.2
0.0
46.7
Occupation
White-Collar
97.1
97.1
99.8
Professional
59.7
60.2
39.2
Administrative
15.1
15.3
9.9
Technical
10.4
10.6
1.7
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of tfie
respective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped' percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
206
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(NASA)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Cterical
10.1
9.1
47.9
Otiwfs
1.9
1.9
1.1
Blue-Collar
2.9
Z9
0.2
Supervisory
Sup«fvisors
10.9
11.2
0.0
Managers
3.8
3.9
0.2
Exacutiwas
2.2
2.3
0.0
SorWctf
CompatRiva
92.3
94.4
14.0
Excaplad
5.4
3.3
86.0
Geographies
USA only
100.0
100.0
100.0
O.C. Matro. only
23.6
23.0
55.6
FEHB
Cowarad
6^3
84.4
2.0
VfWvva
11.6
11.8
5.3
NotElgSila
Z4
0.1
90.5
RetirBmont
CSRSorFERS—
97.4
99.8
3.1
RCA
1.6
0.2
57.1
ForoiQn SmvI09
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
39.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
FEGU
WMwad
27.8
28.5
1.5
Basic
28.8
29.6
1.4
Basic -t-OthorOptienal
40.7
41.7
0.6
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPOF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations: •-•-. Total. Nontemporary, Temporary
''Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
207
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(OPM)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary*
Total Employment
6.975
6.846
129
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
42.4
42.6
31.8
Average Service
11.6
11.8
2.8
Retiremen t - Eligible
(Under CSRS A ^RS)
6.1
6.2
0.0
Education (Bachelors i-)
44.9
45.4
17.8
Gender
Mal«
37.9
38.1
31.8
Female
6Z1
61.9
68.2
Race & National Origin
Minorities
31.8
31.1
68.2
Blacks
26.2
25.6
59.7
Hispanics
3.7
3.6
5.4
Asians/Pacific Islanders
1.4
1.4
3.1
Native Americans
0.4
0.4
0.0
Handicapped
5.8
5.8
4.7
Veterans Preference
17.2
17.4
8.5
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$31,708
$31,971
$ 17,519
Average GS Equiv. Grade
9.4
8.1
3.2
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
97.6
97.9
85.3
Wage
0.9
0.9
1.6
Other Pay Systems**
1.4
1-2
13.2
Work Schedule
Full-Time
80.1
81.1
26.4
Part-Time
11.5
10.7
54.3
Intermittent
8.4
8.2
19.4
Occupation
White-Collar
99.1
99.1
98.4
Professional
3.9
4.0
0.0
Administrative
47.5
48.3
5.4
Technical
10.2
10.1
15.5
'Most entries (except for "Average" figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total. Nontemporary, Temporary
••Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the "Handicapped" percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
208
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(OPM)
Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
36.6
35.8
Others
0.8
0.8
Blue-Collar
0.9
0.9
Supervisory
Supervisors
8.4
8.5
Managers
3.2
3.3
Executives
0.9
0.9
Service
Competitive
82.6
83.8
Excepted
16.4
15.2
Geographies
USA only
99.6
99.6
O.C. Metro, only
41.1
41.1
FEHB
Covered
69.9
71.2
Waived
16.4
16.1
Not Eligible
8.2
7.2
Retirement
CSRS or FERS"
91.7
93.4
FICA
8.1
6.4
Foreign Service
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.2
0.2
Other Retirement
0.0
0.0
f=Eau
Waived
15.2
15.5
Basic
32.1
32.7
Basic ■«- Other Optional
42.8
43.6
76.0
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.6
81.4
99.2
38.0
0.8
31.8
63.6
1.6
96.1
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
•Most entries (except for "Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e.. Total. Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
209
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(SBA)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment** 5.915 4,482 1.433
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
43.6
45.1
39.1
Average Service
11.3
14.4
1.4
Retirement -Eligible
(Under CSfiS A FERS)
7.2
9.4
0.2
Education (Bachelors +)
41.1
4Z8
35.9
Gender
tA*f
49.9
48.6
54.2
Femal*
50.1
51.4
45.8
Race & National Origin
Minorities
35.3
33.4
41.2
Blacks
21.2
21.8
19.4
Hispanics
10.0
8.2
15.7
Asians/Pacific Islandsrs
3.4
2.7
5.4
Native Amaricans
0.6
0.6
0.7
Handicapped
5.5
S.6
5.1
Veterans Preference
22.0
25.2
11.9
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$36,711
$40,953
$ 23,521
Average GS Equiv. Grade
9.4
10.1
7.0
Pay System
GS & Equivatant
98.1
97.5
99.9
Waga
0.1
0.1
0.0
Othw Pay Systams***
1.8
2.A
0.1
Work Schedule
Fuil-rima
99.0
99.2
98.4
Part-Time
0.8
0.7
1.2
Intermittent
0.2
0.1
0.4
Occupation
White-Collar
99.9
99.9
100.0
Professional
11.2
13.5
4.3
Administrative
56.7
56.2
57.9
Technical
13.9
15.2
10.1
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total. Nontemporary. Temporary
'''Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants, Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
210
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(SBA)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
27.6
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
16.4
83.6
96.5
3.4
2.0
1.1
96.2
2.1
97.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.6
1.4
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
18.0
15.0
Others
0.0
0.0
Blue-Collar
0.1
0.1
Supervisory
Supervisors
10.5
13.8
Managers
3.6
4.7
Executives
1.0
1.4
Service
Competitive
69.9
87.0
Excepted
29.1
11.7
Geographies
USA only
97.8
98.3
O.C. Metro, only
17.7
22.3
FEHB
Covered
6Z6
82.0
Waived
10.3
13.2
Not Eligible
23.7
0.6
Retirement
CSRS or FERS"
75.8
99.4
RCA
24.0
0.5
Foreign Service
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.3
0.1
Other Retirement
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Waived
12.3
16.0
Basic
23.0
30.1
Basic -t- Other Optional
40.6
53.2
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
211
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
Total Employment
Demographic Characteristics
(State)
Total* Nontemporary*
16,948
Average Age
42.9
Average Service
13.8
Retiremen t - Eligible
(Undw CSRS A FERS)
2.3
Education (Bachelors +)
59.1
Gender
Mate
55.4
f=«nwla
44.6
Race & National Origin
Minorities
23.4
Blacks
15.8
Hispanics
4.2
Asians/Pacific Islandars
3.0
Nativa Amaricans
0.4
Handicapped
3.0
Veterans Preference
19.6
>b Characteristics
Average Salary
$ 46,624
Average GS Equiv. Grade
10.5
Pay System
GS & Equivalant
97.9
Wag*
0.6
OttMT Pay Systams**
1.5
Work Schedule
Fun-Tima
91.6
Part-Tima
3.9
l.itannittant
4.5
Occupation
White -Collar
99.2
Professional
30.7
Administrativa
36.6
Tachnical
11.0
14.921
42.5
14.3
2.S
63.0
57.0
43.0
23.9
16.8
3.9
Z8
0.4
2.9
19.4
$47,980
10.8
98.1
0.7
1.2
98.4
1.3
0.3
99.2
32.4
38.6
12.3
Temporary*
2027.0
45.3
10.0
0.3
30.5
43.4
56.6
19.6
8.6
6.0
4.5
0.5
3.1
21.2
$36,517
8.3
96.6
0.3
3.1
41.3
22.9
35.8
99.2
18.9
22.1
2.0
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e., Total. Nontemporary, Temporary
^'Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants, Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the "Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
212
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(State)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
56.1
0.1
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.5
44.5
55.0
52.2
51.5
1.9
1.6
96.5
2.7
95.4
0.2
1.7
0.0
0.4
1.2
1.0
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
20.8
16.0
Others
0.0
0.0
Blue-Collar
0.8
0.8
Supervisory
Supervisors
7.1
8.0
Managers
6.6
7.4
Executives
0.9
1.0
Service
Competitive
35.0
33.7
Excepted
64.2
65.4
Geographies
USA only
60.3
61.4
O.C. Metro, only
55.0
55.4
FEHB
Covered
77.0
87.2
Waived
11.0
12.3
Not Eligible
12.0
0.5
Retirement
CSRS or FERS**
34.6
38.9
PICA
11.9
0.6
Foreign Sen^ica
5Z7
59.8
No Retirement
0.2
0.0
Other Retirement
0.6
0.6
FEGU
Waived
16.3
18.5
Basic
31.8
36.0
Basic -t- Other Optional
39.6
44.9
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for "Average" figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
•♦Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
213
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Transportation)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment*
70,567
69,099
1,468
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
41.8
4^0
33.5
Average Service
15.1
15.3
4.5
Retirement-Eligible
(Under CSRS A hbHS)
6.8
6.9
1.2
Education (Bachelors +)
31.2
31.6
12.5
Gender
Male
72.9
73.4
49.4
Female
27.1
26.6
50.6
Race & National Origin
Minorities
19.3
18.8
40.8
Blacks
11.3
10.9
30.4
Hispanics
4.2
4.2
6.4
Asians/Pacific Islanders
2.4
2.4
2.7
Native Americans
1.4
1.4
1.3
Handicapped
5.4
5.4
5.0
Veterans Preference
38.4
38.8
19.4
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$45,486
$45,971
$22,434
Average GS Equiv. Grade
11.4
11.5
5.2
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
93.9
94.3
71.7
Wage
5.1
4.8
18.3
other Pay Systems***
1.0
0.9
10.0
Work Schedule
Full -Time
97.5
98.1
69.6
Part-Time
2.3
1.8
26.8
Intermittent
0.1
0.1
3.5
Occupation
White -Collar
94.8
95.0
81.7
Professional
12.5
12.7
4.1
Administrative
56.1
57.1
9.5
Technical
17.6
17.7
11.6
•Most entries (except for "Average" figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary. Temporary
•♦•Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the "Handicapped" percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
214
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Transportation)
Total*
Nontemporary*
Temporary*
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clerical
7.8
7.0
44.8
Others
0.8
0.6
11.9
Blue -Collar
5.2
5.0
18.3
Supervisory
Supervisors
13.8
14.1
0.5
Managers
1.8
1.8
0.4
Executives
0.6
0.6
0.4
Service
Competitive
94.9
95.5
63.4
Excepted
4.5
3.9
36.1
Geographies
USA only
99.1
99.1
99.3
O.C. Metro, only
15.0
14.9
21.9
FEHB
Covered
85.5
87.3
4.6
Waived
11.4
11.3
17.2
Not Eligible
1.6
0.1
71.0
Retirement
CSRS or FERS—
97.5
99.4
7.6
F1CA
2.3
0.5
86.9
Foreign Service
0.0
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
0.2
0,1
5.4
Other Retirement
0.0
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Waived
11.3
11.5
1.6
Basic
21.5
21.9
2.9
Basic -1- Other Optional
64.8
66.1
2.5
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for "Average" figures) are expressed as percentages of tfie res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
215
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Treasury)
nonTemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment**
Total*
163.671
160.031
3,640
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age
41.0
41.2
33.2
Average Service
12.2
12.2
2.3
Retirement-Eligible
(Under CSRS A ^RS)
4.3
4.4
0.1
Education (Bachelors +)
41.7
42.3
12.3
Gender
Male
45.0
45.1
37.7
F«inal«
55.0
54.9
62.3
Race & National Origin
Minorities
31.7
31.0
60.6
Blacks
21.4
20.9
43.2
Hispanics
6.»
6.8
11.5
Asians/Pacific Islanders
2.8
2.7
5.2
Native Americans
0.6
0.6
0.7
Handicapped
5.7
5.8
5.3
Veterans Preference
17.4
17.6
8.6
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$34,505
$ 34.874
$18,296
Average GS Equiv. Grade
11.4
8.9
3.6
Pay System
GS & Equivalent
92.2
92.6
76.3
Wage
2.0
1.7
13.3
Ottwf Pay Systems***
5.8
5.7
10.4
Work Schedule
Full-Time
95.0
96.0
49.6
Part-Time
3.0
2.7
17.3
Intermittent
ao
1.3
33.2
Occupation
White-Collar
97.3
97.6
83.5
Professional
14.2
14.6
0.7
Administrative
36.4
37.0
9.8
Technical
23.3
23.8
3.4
'Most entries (except for •Average" figures) are expressed as percentages of tfie
respective base populations: i.e., Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
***Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids.
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the "Handicapped" percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
216
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Treasury)
Total*
nonTemporary*
Temporary'
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Ctorical
22.0
21.0
66.3
Othars
1.4
1.3
3.3
Blue-Collar
2.7
2.4
16.5
Supervisory
Supervisors
9.2
9.4
0.6
Managers
2.0
2.1
0.1
Executives
0.4
0.4
0.1
Service
Competitive
92.0
92.3
79.0
Excepted
7.7
7.4
20.9
Geographies
USA only
99.1
99.1
99.3
D.C. IMetro. only
14.9
14.8
16.3
FEHB
Covered
75.3
76.9
3.9
Waived
18.5
18.7
8.7
Not Eligibla
3.6
1.9
77.8
Retirement
CSRS or FERS«*
95.6
97.6
5.8
ncA
2.8
0.7
93.4
Foffwgn Sennce
0.0
0.0
0.0
No Retirement
O.C
0.0
0.8
Otiier Retirement
1.6
1.6
0.1
FEGU
Waived
20.7
21.2
1.0
Basic
29.0
29.6
1.0
Basic -f Ottier Optional
46.1
47.1
0.9
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for "Average" figures) are expressed as percentages of the res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary. Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
217
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics off Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Veterans Affairs)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment**
Demographic Characteristics
264,763
244.068
20,695
Average Age
4Z8
4^8
36.9
Average Service
10.7
10.7
3.4
Retirement -Eligible
(Undf CSRS A FERS)
5.1
5.5
1.0
Education (Bachelors -t)
38.6
38.0
44.9
Gender
Mate
45.1
44.9
47.3
Fwnal*
54.9
55.1
5Z7
Race & National Origin
Minorities
33.7
33.5
36.8
Blacks
22.6
22.8
20.9
Hispanics
5.4
5.3
6.6
Asians/Pacifie lalandars
5.0
4.7
8.5
Nativa Amafiean*
0.7
0.7
0.9
Handicapped
8.3
8.5
6.7
Veterans Preference
26.2
27.1
15.5
Job Characteristics
Average Salary
$32,451
$32,611
$30,558
Average GS Equiv. Grade
7.4
7.4
5.7
Pay System
GS & Equivalant
70.4
73.8
31.4
Waga
14.4
14.2
16.7
OttMr Pay Systams***
15.2
1^0
51.9
Work Schedule
FuU-Tim«
81.5
83.6
57.0
Part-rima
11.1
9.9
26.0
Intarmittant
7.4
6.5
17.1
Occupation
White -Collar
85.5
85.7
83.2
Professional
39.3
38.6
47.5
Administrativa
6.9
7.4
1.7
Technical
24.1
24.6
18.3
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of tfie
respective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary. Temporary
'^'Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants, Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the 'Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
218
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristrcs of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Veterans Affairs)
Total* Nontemporary* Temporary*
11.6
4.2
16.8
1.4
0.4
0.0
64.4
41.1
99.2
1.9
28.2
12.6
56.1
41.1
56.3
0.0
2.6
0.0
as
18.4
15.7
■)b Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Cterical
13.8
14.0
OllMrs
1.4
1.1
Blue-Collar
14.5
14.3
Supervisory
Supervisors
7.5
8.0
Managers
2.3
2.5
Exacutives
0.1
0.1
Service
Compatitiv*
57.8
57.2
Excepted
42.1
42.2
Geographies
USA only
98.9
98.8
D.C. Metro, only
2.4
2.5
FEHB
68.1
71.5
Waived
20.0
20.7
Not Ellgtt>le
10.6
6.7
Retirement
GSRS or FERS—
88.2
92.2
PICA
9.9
5.9
Foreign Service
0.0
0.0
No Retlreinent
1.9
1.9
Other Retlrenient
0.0
0.0
FEGU
Waived
13.6
14.0
Basic
31.6
32.7
Basic -f Other Optional
44.0
46.4
Data Source
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 1992
*Most entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of tfie res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary. Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
219
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Other Agencies)
Total*
nonTemporary*
Temporary'
Job Characteristics (Cont'd.)
Clwical
15.4
14.9
19.7
OltMrs
1.4
1.4
0.9
Blue -Collar
5.3
5.7
1.8
Supervisory
Supervisors
11.0
12.1
1.9
Managers
4.6
4.8
3.0
ExaculivM
0.5
0.4
1.8
Service
CempatWM
58.5
63.8
13.9
Exeaptad
40.3
35.0
85.5
Geographies
USA only
96.4
96.5
95.9
O.C. Matra. only
47.3
50.0
24.2
FEHB
Covarad
56.3
64.7
4.3
VWaiwad
12.5
13.5
3.8
NolENgtola
17.6
9.8
84.3
Retirement
CSRS or FERS—
77.2
85.4
7.7
RCA
19.3
11.0
89.6
Focw0n S#fvio#
3.0
3.3
0.1
0.5
0.2
21
Othar RatiraNiant
0.1
0.1
0.0
FEQU
Waivad
23.3
25.6
3.3
Baaic
23.5
26.0
^3
Basic -i-OttMr Optional
33.0
36.7
2.Z
Data Source
Central Personnel Data RIe (CPOF) as of September 1992
*Mo8t entries (except for 'Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of t»»e res-
pective base populations; i.e., Total, Nontemporary. Temporary
••Personnel who separate with CSRS or FERS retirement coverage can return with the
same coverage as temporaries with breaks in service of 3 days or less
220
Selected Demographic and Job Characteristics of Personnel
in the Temporary, the nonTemporary, and the Total
Federal Civilian Workforces as of September 1992
(Other Agencies)
Total* nonTemporary* Temporary*
Total Employment** 104.031
Demographic Characteristics
Average Age 42.4
Average Service 1 1 -6
Retirement— Eligible
(Under CSRS A FEftS) 4.9
Education (Bachelors +) 50.7
Gender
Mai* 50.3
Famale 49.7
Race & National Origin
Minorities 32.7
Blacks 25.1
Hispanics 4.5
Asians/Pacific Islandars 2.5
Nativa Amarican* 0.5
Handicapped 5.3
Veterans Preference 17.9
Job Characteristics
Average Salary $ 42,302
Average GS Equiv. Grade 7.4
Pay System
GS & Equivalant 69.5
Waga 2.6
Othaf Pay Syatama*** 27.9
tVorHr Schedule
Futt-Tima 91.1
Part— Tima 2.2
Intannittant 6.7
Occupation
White-Collar 94.7
Professional 18.2
Administrative 47.7
Technical 12.1
80.793
42.8
14.0
5.4
52.6
50.5
49.5
33.3
26.1
4.1
2.5
0.5
5.4
18.8
$44,235
7.4
72.4
2.7
24.8
96.2
1.8
2.0
94.3
19.5
46.0
12.5
10.965
40.7
2.3
0.4
34.5
49.0
51.0
27.4
16.6
7.6
2.7
0.6
4.2
10.2
$ 30,573
7.4
44.4
1.6
54.0
47.9
5.8
46.3
98.2
7.2
61.4
9.0
•Most entries (except for "Average* figures) are expressed as percentages of the
respective base populations; i.e.. Total, Nontemporary, Temporary
•*There were 59 employees not identified as either temporary or nontemporary
•••Administratively paid personnel, experts & consultants. Schedule A student aids,
overseas teachers, etc.
Note: Base numbers used to calculate the "Handicapped* percentages include those
employees who do not wish to have their handicaps identified.
221
APPENDIX C
Ph«M I (CompcdtK* Scrrioe) Cort ProjMtiau By Af/tmef
Agenqr
Total Nnmber
of
Cuujpelitiw
Service
oo Board
1992
Ertmalrd
Pereeatafecf
Septftrthfr
1992
Tenpcnriee
with More
Tbaa2Yeaii
Oootimaai
Seivioe
Nunber of
September
1992
Tenporaries
with More
Than 2 Yean
Service
Averafe
Salaiyof
Tea^Mrariei
aiof
1992
CMtper
Employee
of
FERS.
TSP,
FEHB,
FEGU.
aadWGI
Oottof
FERS. TSP.
FEHB.
FECHJand
WOIfor
Oonpetitive
Service
Tenporanet
with More
Than
2 Yean
Oootiaoouf
Service
ALLAGB4CIES
«*JK$
•«
3,095
$22,047
$6,346
33,941,010
A(rien)tiue
Sfill
7*
41S
$13,470
$3,434
2071.412
Cemmera
uu
S«
•9
$19,831
$6,172
349008
DEFENSE TOTAL
32JBU
14%
4,436
$20^469
$6,312
28.126.627
Air Faroe
3.193
15«
779
$21.4U
$6,440
5j016,760
AiBqr
11423
7»
814
$20,690
$6,317
3.142J038
N««y
KM
1S«
U43
$24,39«
$6,943
8,630.149
Other Deteaie
7,713
21«
lj620
$17,421
$3,764
9037,680
EducatiaB
<0
2»
1
$30357
$7,984
70«4
Eoerfjr
241
2%
3
$24,607
$6^78
34090
EPA
203
4%
8
*36464
$8,932
71,436
GSA
260
8«
20
$17,222
$5,730
114.600
HHS
2042
4«
90
$26,798
r.349
661.410
HUD
234
2%
3
$23,U1
$6,737
33.685
Interior
7,202
10«
720
$19,397
$6,132
4.413.040
Justice
1,439
11«
138
$20747
$6326
999008
Labor
213
2%
4
$24,599
$6,977
27.908
NASA
92
6«
6
$24,147
$6,900
41.400
OPM
24
$17,519
$3,781
Other Agenciei
1,522
7»
106
$30,373
$7,986
846016
Truuportalioa
931
6%
36
$22,434
$6,611
370016
1 Treasury
2,877
3%
86
$18,296
$5.9U
508,432
1 Veterant Aflain
7.369
3*
368
$10,338
$7,983
2038.480
Cotu are bated oo: 13.9 pereeu of taUiy for FERS and TSP: 3 peroeM for witUa^ade tnoeasei; $2743 for FEHB; $73 for FEGU.
222
APPENDIX D
Sourvta of InfomMtkM oa Tcmporaiy EmpioymMt
We relied on iafonutioa from maoy sources in preparing this report and dcvetoping the options. Primary
sources for our diacnssion of Federal temporary workers were:
CAO Kapotts
Federal Workforce: Views on Need to Offer Health Insurance to Temporary Empk>yees, VS.
General Accounting Office (GAO). June 1986, GAO/GGD-86-78FS.
Federal Workforce: Use of Temporary Empkiyees at Three Puget Sound Naval Installations, U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO), April 1988, GAO/GGD-88-76.
Federal Workforce: Temporary Appointmeatt and Eztensions ia Selected Federal Ageadet, U.S.
General Acconnting OfDee (GAO). February 1989. GAO/GGD-89-15.
Federal Workforce: Selected Sites Cannot Show Fair and Open Competition for Temporary Joba,
US. General Accounting Office (GAO), September 1990, GAO/GGD-90-106.
BeaeGt Practices for Permanent and Temporary Federal Empkiyees: Report to the Honorable John
Mekfaer. United Sutes Senate, 198S.
Comparison of Federal and Private Sector Pay and Benefits: Report to Chairm a n . Subcommittee on
Civil Service, Post Office and General Services, Committee oa Governmental Affairs. United States
Senate, 198S.
Federal workforce: Information on Einpk)yee Benefits. 1987
Merit Systems ProtMtioa Board
Expaaded Authority for Temporary Appoiatmeats: A Look at Merit Issues, Merit Systems
Protectioa Board. December 1987.
Other
Hearing before House Subcommittee on Human Resources, December 13, 1991.
Temporary Empk>yment within Land Management Agencies of the Federal Government. OPM, July
1992.
PrivaU Sector Temporary Employment
Industry Wage Survey: Temporary Help Supply. Bureau of Labor Sutistics, U.S. Department of
Labor. September 1987
Working at the Margins: Part-Time and Temporary Workers in the United Sutes, 9 to 5. National
Assodaiion of Working Women, September 1986
ExcepU from The Temporary Worker's Haadbook. William Lewis aad Naaqr Sc h u m aa
How Loag is Temporary? Kirk Victor, National JoumaL July 1989
223
Employee Benefiu io a dungiiig Eoooomjr: A BLS Ouitbook. Buremu of Labor SuUsUcs,
September 1992
The Temping of America, TIME Magariae. March 29. 1993
The Contingeal Eoooony: The growth of the Te ayuiai y. Part-time and Subcontracted Workforce,
Richard Belous, National Planning Aaoriation. Wasfaingiaa, D.C. 1989.
Employee BeneCts for Part-Timen. Barbara Enaor and Diane S. Rothberg, Association of Part-time
Professionals. McLean. VA 198S
Employee BeneGts in Europe, An Intematiooal Study of State and Private Schemes in 16 Countries.
David CaUund, Gower Press Limiled. Essex, Great Britain. 197S
A Study of State Government Employee Benefits. Robert J. Prain. Assembly of Governmental
Employees. Washington. DC 1982
Study of Total Compensation in the Federal, State, and Local Secton. Hay/Hnggins Co. and Hay
Management Consultants. Presented to the ConoBttceoa Post OCBoe and Civil Service, VS. House
of RepresenUtives. CPO, Washingloo. DC 1984
Constructing an Employee Benefit Package Cor Put-ltaae Worfcen; A Rationale for Arriving at an
Equitable Benefit Package at No Extra Cost to Eovfafer. CATALYST. New York. NY. 197S
Working at the Margins: Part-time and Temporaiy Worfcen in the IJJS. 9 to S, National Asaodation
of Working Women. Cleveiand. OH. 1986
224
APPENDIX E
The following individuals served on the OPM task force which studied the rigbu and benefiu of
temporaiy employees and prepared this report
CarMT Entry Croap
Edward McHugh, Director, StafGng Policy Division
Tracy Spencer
Ellen Russell
Tina Gonzales
Nancy Karpowicz
lUtirMnent and Inswanc* Groap
Nancy Kidiak, Chief Actuary
Mary Sugar, DepuQr Assistant Director for Retirement and i-mnnr* Policy
Abby Blocks Chief l"«"""^ Policy Division
John Landers, Chief, Retirement Policy Division
Jim Quayle
Karen Leibach
Ted Newland
Mike Virga
Art Linnehan
Ptrsonnel Systams and 0««nlght Groop
Marge Marts, Chief, Famity Programs and Enq>k>yee Relations Division
Ken Bates, Chief, Empk>yee Relatioiu Branch
Jerry Mikowicz, Chief, Compensation Administration Division
William Anderson
Frank Derby
Pat Franklin
Cynthia Field
Don Jansen
Offic* of Congressional Relations
David Messing
225
Mr. McCloskey. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
O
70-660 (229)
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05982 788 9
ISBN 0-16-044017-3
780160"440175
90000
