GovernmentExecutive.com

A federal labor union has taken issue with some recommendations in a congressionally chartered organization's report on reshaping NASA's workforce to meet a new mission.

In a May 21 letter to National Academy of Public Administration Fellow John G. Stewart, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers highlighted a suggestion that lawmakers give NASA emergency authority to ask older employees to retire.

"It is the premise that openly discriminating against NASA's older employees is a necessary prerequisite for NASA building its future workforce that IFPTE finds both false and repugnant," wrote Lee Stone, legislative representative for the NASA council of IFPTE locals, in the letter.

The recommendation was contained in a NAPA report to Congress earlier this year that identified challenges that NASA could face in moving 18,000 civil servants and 40,000 contractors to the Bush administration's new Vision for Space Exploration program.

The organization suggested that lawmakers provide NASA with a new package of flexibilities that -- in addition to limited authority to modify retirement regulations in emergencies -- would include new reduction-in-force rules and blanket employee buyout authority with a high dollar-value incentive.

The panel focused in part on retirement-eligible employees because "it is not as much of a hardship for someone who is fully eligible for their annuity to retire from their job," the report stated.

But IFPTE has argued that NASA primarily is facing a budget crisis. Until the agency gets the funding it needs, its missions and workforce will remain at risk, according to the union.

In testimony earlier this month, IFPTE recommended that Congress fund NASA as close to its authorized level as possible and provide stability for employees by rejecting any reduction in force. The union also recommended that the agency enhance its voluntary buyout authority.

Stone said Thursday that NASA puts a $25,000 cap on buyouts for employees. But raising the cap to the level of an employee's annual salary and offering benefits for 18 months would make the offers more appealing, he said.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin sent legislation to Congress last month that would enhance the buyout authority by offering employees the additional 18 months of benefits Stone is pushing. The proposal also would offer certain permanent employees an incentive, calculated as a percentage of their basic rate of pay, for moving to temporary appointments.

But IFPTE opposes the temporary appointments, arguing they leave room for the agency to replace civil servants with contractors. The board charged with investigating the 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster determined that an increase in the number of NASA's contractors relative to federal employees contributed to the disaster.

Stone argued that the most critical element of workforce reform is ensuring the recruitment and retention of quality employees and maintaining the agency's standing as a popular place to work. NASA came in fourth among large agencies in the latest rankings of the best places to work in government issued by the Partnership for Public Service and American University's Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation.

Moving forward with many of NAPA's proposals and Griffin's temporary appointment proposal would hinder the agency's ability to attract a well-qualified workforce, Stone said.

"Employees like to think about their jobs and not worry about whether they're going to be laid off tomorrow," Stone said. IFPTE also has recommended that NASA begin an aggressive recruitment campaign while the current staff is still on board to transfer knowledge.

Stone said lawmakers plan to hold a hearing in late summer to discuss NASA's workforce issues in more depth and to consider the provisions included in Griffin's proposal.

NAPA did not return calls seeking comment.

COMMENTS

• The present budget situation is probably one of the worse that I have witnessed in my 30 years of service with NASA. If we ask for any kind of upgrade or replacement for aging equipment and supplies, the answer is almost always, 'we don't have funds for that'. Yet, we are expected to do more with the limited resources that we do have. I don't think that upper management really realizes just what demoralizing effect this has on employees. When I first started working for NASA back in the late 70's, we felt like we were working for an elite organization. I have to say that isn't the feeling now and the budget crisis is a big part of the problem. Also, the majority of technicians and engineers were civil service then. We were treated like important career employees. Now we're treated like temporary workers. Yes, I still enjoy working for NASA. But, the employee moral issue has to be fixed in order for us to continue to do our job with pride. When a person is proud of their job, they will give 150% or more. When the pride is lacking, 50% at best. PC Posted August 17, 2007 11:42 PM
• NASA is working backwards....paying off the older employees will only increase the ever growing vast gap in middle management across the government...lets jus go ahead a remove everyone over 55....and replace them with 28 year old who have no idea how to do those jobs...really makes sense Ryan Posted June 7, 2007 8:56 AM
• Yeap. Let's just hang the "old" out to dry. Whoever wrote this article stating that older people would more likely be able to take a buy out and retire must be about 30, and male. Life works in reverse. I'm now taking care of my mother and brother. I'm the primary money maker and pay the majority of bills. I do make a good salary, but taking on two dependents was not in my happily ever after story. PD Posted May 29, 2007 12:44 PM