TOPICS
TOPICS
Union asks court to block federal internship program
Agencies are using a federal internship program in a way that undermines competitive hiring procedures in the government, a large federal employee union charged in a lawsuit filed Wednesday.
The Office of Personnel Management has not placed enough limits on agencies' use of the Federal Career Intern Program, the National Treasury Employees Union alleged in the suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The union asked the court to declare OPM's regulations implementing the program illegal.
The program, established in 2000 and administered by OPM using rules finalized in 2005, allows agencies to hire interns for two years through excepted service appointments. After that period is up, agencies can appoint successful program participants to full-time civil service positions without competition.
In the lawsuit, NTEU argues that the program "gives the appearance of being a limited, special-focus hiring program" but is actually becoming "the hiring method of choice for many federal jobs" and is undercutting merit system principles.
The number of employees hired under the program ballooned to more than 11,000 by fiscal 2005, from about 400 in fiscal 2001, NTEU said. The number hired through competitive processes fell during that period, according to the union.
This hurts union members at agencies using the program, including the Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, by denying them the "opportunity to be competitively examined under the fair and open process prescribed by statute and regulations governing appointments to the competitive service," the complaint stated.
Federal law only allows agencies to stray from competitive hiring procedures when necessary for "conditions of good administration," the lawsuit said.
In a separate line of argument, NTEU claimed the program is detrimental even to participants, by giving them what is in effect a two-year probationary period, rather than the one-year trial term typical for entry-level competitive government positions.
OPM officials are reviewing the lawsuit, but cannot comment on ongoing litigation, said Michael Orenstein, an agency spokesman.
Proponents of the internship program have hailed it as an effective way to bring fresh talent into the government, allowing agencies to undertake more targeted recruitment. A Merit Systems Protection Board study in September said the program has "had an auspicious beginning" but noted several flaws, including a reliance on limited tools to recruit applicants.
COMMENTS
- There is an additional issue for federal employees hired under the Federal Career Intern Program. If you are a career or career conditional employee in the competitive service and want to take a position (say as a Border Patrol Agent or Immigration Enforcement Agent for which they are hiring exclusively under this program at entry level, which is where the NTEU's concern comes in), then you must give up your status as a competitive employee, and become ineligible under merit promotion announcements. This is something that is not made adequately clear to many of the people taking these positions. They are told that they are excepted service, but most of them do not understand the implications. In addition, unlike the VRA appointment that converts to career or career conditional, there is no guarantee that people will indeed be restored to their former status. This has all kinds of longer term, bigger picture implications in the realm of human capital and the ongoing chipping away at the civil service. They are not using this program in DHS to attract well-educated young people. They are using it to circumvent career and career conditional hiring. GovExec.com reader Posted February 1, 2007 10:53 AM
- It depends on where you work. In the agencies I worked at (in DOC and DOI) the intern program was barely used because it ate up valuable FTE slots. It was much, much easier to hire students and young people as contractors and save the FTE slots for post-doc or experienced PhD's. We didn't use the intern program as much as we could have because the student contractors could do the same (or a higher level) job for less money, less benefits, and we could still hang on to those valuable FTE slots. One more thing: GSA is right when he/she said "It is discriminatory to older experienced employees who lack a college degree(s) and who can't afford to attend college..." During the time when I was a contractor in my late 20s and early 30s this is exactly how I felt. I was doing GS-7 work and being paid at a GS-5 level with almost no benefits. I didn't have the financial resources to go back to college. And yet our student intern was a GS-5, was only part time (because he had to take classes, obviously), and I couldn't understand how he could score an FTE and I couldn't. It was very frustrating: I had experience but no FTE; he had no experience and had an FTE. Sometimes you just have to admit that life is unfair and move on, which is what I did. [Side note: remember what the purpose of the intern program is. A way to attract young people into federal service. Any organization needs to balance the needs of its current workforce while looking out for its future survival by snagging talented youth. The federal government does a good job of retaining older workers (as evidenced by the higher than average proportion of older workers). From what I've seen (which is admittedly a limited perspective), the government doesn't do so well at retaining the young and talented.] Janet Posted January 30, 2007 10:50 AM
- GSA uses intern positions to hire only younger college graduates from the outside for the entry level positions which experienced associates could apply for if they have a degree(s) and accepted a lower grade to do the same work they have already been doing. The positions go to a GS-12 in three years, then the now graduated interns leave to go to other agencies or private industry. Sadly, often there is no work performed by these interns and they run volunteer projects like collecting food for the needy twice a year. They have no government and in some cases, no work experience at all but attend meetings, expensive conferences, training and participate in employee-supervisor encounters to "learn" but ending up offending the other attendees. How beneficial are interns if all they can offer is youth? They don't stay long enough to have a "career". It is discriminatory to older experienced employees who lack a college degree(s) and who can't afford to attend college because of family commitments and available training funds are used for the "interns", then we are required to "train" and help them adjust to working for an agency. Sour grapes probably, but as a victim of this process, it happens all too often. I applaud the union in this case for wanting opportunities for all employees. The playing field should be equalized. GovExec.com reader Posted January 30, 2007 9:23 AM
