GovernmentExecutive.com

New legislation that would protect severely disabled workers from losing their jobs in public-private competitions is sparking anger from proponents of competitive sourcing who say the bill's supporters are using disabled employees to prevent the government from outsourcing jobs.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., introduced the Disabled Federal Employees Protection Act (H.R. 5276) earlier this month after learning that about two dozen severely disabled scullery workers at Bethesda's National Naval Medical Center were poised to lose their jobs in a public-private competition. Immediately after visiting the center last year, Van Hollen wrote President Bush a letter and, as a result, those jobs were not opened up to competition, according to the congressman's office.

"It didn't happen, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen again somewhere else," said Phil Alperson, Van Hollen's legislative director. The bill, if passed, would prevent the heads of federal agencies from firing severely disabled workers when work is contracted out to the private sector.

Most of the bill's critics, and even some of its supporters, acknowledge that the bill would have an extremely limited impact, if any. "I don't think any of us want to see [disabled] people ... losing their jobs, but I think they're already adequately protected," said Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, which advocates for companies that bid on government contracts. Soloway said he endorsed the bill because he doesn't think it will have a negative impact, and it may help some workers feel that they are more protected.

"It's kind of silly because it's addressing a problem that I don't think exists," said Adrian Moore, vice president of the Reason Public Policy Institute, a think tank based in Los Angeles. Even if disabled workers did lose their jobs to competitive sourcing, he said it should be relatively easy for them to find another job within the federal government.

Preference has long been given to disabled workers in federal government hiring decisions. The 1973 Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies with 1,000 or more employees to set recruitment, employment and advancement goals for severely disabled individuals, and the 1971 Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act requires that the federal government give preference to nonprofit agencies that employ disabled workers when purchasing certain supplies and services.

Despite these efforts, the number of federal employees with severe disabilities, including paralysis, mental retardation and blindness, has fallen over the last decade, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In fiscal 2003, the government employed 25,551 severely disabled individuals, which was 1.05 percent of the total federal workforce. That number has fallen almost 7.5 percent since fiscal 1999. EEOC is exploring potential reasons for the decrease. Agency spokesman David Grinberg said possible reasons include tighter budgets, which lessen the amount of money for recruitment efforts, and increased competition for disabled workers from the private sector since the passage of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

The harshest critics of Van Hollen's bill say it is not designed to protect disabled workers, but rather that it is just a sneaky way to stop competitive sourcing. Carl DeMaio, president and founder of the Performance Institute, a think tank focused on government performance, called the bill shameful. He said the bill's supporters are using disabled workers to address the larger issue of competitive sourcing. "This is merely a backdoor prohibition on competition," he said.

Cathy Garman, senior vice president of public policy at the Contract Services Association, which represents government contractors, suggested the bill could backfire if it gets in the way of competitive sourcing efforts. "[An agency head] might move that disabled person out of a job they are performing capably," she said, in order to allow competitive sourcing.

Van Hollen's office is quick to point out that the bill is limited in its scope, and should only require agencies to exclude certain individuals from a jobs contest, but not stop it altogether. "This bill is not aimed at the contracting process generally, but only at the contracting that affects this very special community of severely disabled workers," said Van Hollen's legislative director Alperson.

Organizations in the disabled community generally have embraced the bill. "Honestly, I haven't heard it's a widespread problem, but it doesn't have to be widespread if you're the individual losing your job," said Tony Young, assistant vice president of government affairs and workforce development with NISH, a nonprofit formerly called the National Industries for the Severely Handicapped. "They've identified a gap in current protections, particularly for people with disabilities," he added. NISH lent its name in support of the bill.

Van Hollen's office said it will continue to actively pursue passing the bill, which was introduced with 45 co-sponsors and the backing of 20 organizations. Said Alperson: "We're ready to roll for the 109th Congress."

COMMENTS

• Having formerly worked for Mr. Carl DeMaio, I can answer the previous poster's question. No, he does not have a heart, soul, or any resemblance of any human qualities at all. GovExec.com reader Posted October 15, 2006 10:26 PM
• These guys are all out to strip disabled people of any job. They probably never served a day in the military, fat-catted a "home" in the government structure and made a career of screwing over vets anyway they can. As a military retire with service-connected disability, I can attest to the fact how government agencies will issue a "letter" to you telling you that "we don't have a position because your disability is not "conductive to our workplace" and "we don't anticipate "ever" having one". It doesn't take long for a disabled vet to find that his or her government has nothing but hate and disdain for vets with service-connected disabilities, and military retirees are hated in the government workforce even worse. These people have made a life of setting in a government office and screwing over military veterans. Charlie Posted March 12, 2005 1:40 PM
• Currently I'm a disabled worker for a major federal agency. I applauded Rep. Chris Van Hollen for introducing the Disabled Federal Employees Protection Act (H.R. 5276). Regardless of what will be the outcome, I found the comments by Carl DeMaio offensive. Can he explain to the public why he thinks that way? Explain to the public why we take care of new disabled veterans that come home from Iraqi or Afghanistian? He doesn't seem to care about the outcome of the disabled person's life. From my experience, if I get laid off, I may slip back into poverty because nobody wants to hire us, the disabled workers. Carl, is it my fault that I come into life with a disability? Maybe Carl wants to justify himself as a disabled person so he can be a part of disabilty group! GovExec.com reader Posted October 26, 2004 12:43 PM