GovernmentExecutive.com

A congressional subcommittee heard both praise and sharp criticism Thursday for the Homeland Security Department's new personnel regulations.

The new system, which was described in detail late last month, has drawn sharp criticism from unions and Democratic lawmakers. That criticism continued apace during a hearing Thursday of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia.

The new system should "be both fair and perceived as fair," said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, the subcommittee's ranking member. "I believe the Homeland Security regulations fall short of this goal."

When Congress established DHS in 2002, officials were given the power to build their own personnel system. Agency officials are planning to limit the scope of union bargaining, make it easier for managers to discipline poor performers and dismantle the General Schedule pay system.

At Thursday's hearing, federal officials depicted the new system as providing vital flexibility for a department with the mammoth task of defending the nation's borders.

"We believe that we have succeeded in striking a better balance between union and employee interests on one hand, and the department's mission imperatives on the other," said Ron Sanders, OPM's associate director for strategic human resources policy.

Union leaders and some lawmakers, however, said the new personnel system will damage employee morale and weaken the agency.

"The notion that collective bargaining rights somehow threaten homeland security, I find offensive," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "Beating people down ... is not going to create the DHS workforce with the morale we need."

Union officials were even more vocal with their displeasure. National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley said the personnel regulations violate the congressional statutes that authorized them in the first place. American Federation of Government Employees President John Gage said the system itself was unnecessary.

"This isn't flexible, this isn't modern, this isn't even credible," Gage told the subcommittee. He said the performance pay system could lead to a "zero-sum game" in which one security officer's gain is another's loss.

"This makes a mockery of the kind of teamwork that is essential for successful law enforcement," Gage said.

There was a spirit of consensus, however, running through the hearing. Almost all witnesses agreed that the system will not succeed without a comprehensive training program and effective communication with DHS employees.

"A key implementation step for DHS is to assure an effective ongoing two-way communication effort that creates shared expectations," the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Thursday.

Federal Managers Association Vice President Darryl Perkinson said that without training, "the system is doomed to failure from the start."

"As every federal employee knows, the first item to get cut when budgets get tight is training," he said.

Ronald James, the chief human capital officer at DHS, appealed to Subcommittee Chairman Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, to ensure that training funds are provided in future years. James said that "training and communication are at the very core of what we need to be about."

Voinovich emphasized his support for the new system, although he said he welcomed the union criticism.

COMMENTS

• It isn't hard to distinguish between management and the worker is it? VOINOVICH of Ohio has been behind the whole idea of tearing the government personnel system apart. It isn't only the Republican but also the Democrats that have been supporting this idea. This just didn't start when DHS was invented so to speak, this stuff has been in the works for years; where you people been? You want to remember that when the manager has a right to discipline a worker. that manager may well be disciplined or fired himself. As a federal employee (military and civilian) for 44 years, you can bet these managers will pay a price also. Charlie Posted February 11, 2005 8:50 PM
• Did not a single lawmaker speak out in support of the new pay system, or did your reporter simply overlook supporting congressional comments? If no Republican spoke in favor of this new system, shame on them (and that fact in itself is newsworthy.) If your newsletter refused to report it when they did, well, that's called telling only part of the truth. Outside the Beltway that reportorial technique is known as lying. GovExec.com reader Posted February 11, 2005 9:18 AM
• I read the new MaxHR system for DHS and was actually surprised how balenced it actually was- I don't expect the same balance to come out of the NSPS. Of course the unions are upset but I would just advise both Mr. Gage and Ms. Kelley to appreciate that you still have substantial bargaining rights at DHS. The poor cartographers at Defense Mapping can't say the same thing, and neither can the AUSAs. This President will not bat an eye in taking collective bargaining rights away from every "national security" employee at the Department of Homeland Security. And good luck convincing a court that "national security" is mere pretext in this case. For the sake of your bargaining units I suggest you work with DHS and retain as many rights as possible for the better days hopefully ahead. As my friends in uniform have told me-- it is really foolhardy to engage your entrenched opponent by frontally attacking uphill. There are much better ways to engage and to take the "Hill". HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted February 11, 2005 8:50 AM