GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Congress passes omnibus spending bill with 4.1 percent pay raise

• 143
  

  This letter is in reference to your article in today's edition of GovExec.com, specifically to that part of your article that discusses the inclusion of $500,000 in the omnibus bill for boosting federal telework efforts. The $500,000 will pay for creating a training program to teach managers about the benefits of telework. Council 252 of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the AFGE's Council that represents bargaining unit workers in the Department of Education applaud this legislation targeted to promote the benefits of teleworking to help federal employees juggle better their work and family obligations. This employee benefit is most critical to many Department of Education workers whose jobs are appropriate for a telework assignment. Many Department of Education workers are balancing delicate issues of work, family obligations of child-care, elder care, spousal care and disability issues for themselves and family members. Telework is a critical employee benefit for helping many workers do their jobs better, more efficiently and is a critical employee benefit that not only retains our workers but is a recruiting tool to attract new workers to the Department of Education.

  The Union's experience with telework issues is not an experience that shows the need to throw more money to train federal managers about the benefits of telework. Most federal managers are astute, intelligent and discerning to understand the benefits of telecommuting. What many federal managers fear is the threat to their own job positions if employees are successful in a telecommuting arrangement. Federal managers fear that senior management will begin to question the need of middle managers if our workers can telecommute successfully at an alternative work site. As a Union Leader I attempt to explain continuously to middle managers that their fear is not warranted. A middle manager position is needed to define administrative, management and operational priorities. A middle manager position is needed to give leadership, encouragement and to boost employee morale. A middle manager position is needed to articulate further the agency's strategic objectives, etc. A middle manager position is needed to assess overall progress in achieving agency goals and objectives. Monies going to train federal managers on the merits of telecommuting should be targeted not to the benefits of employees in a telecommuting assignment. Instead, monies should be targeted to explain to federal managers that "their" jobs are not vulnerable should employees work successfully in a telecommuting arrangement and to explain to federal managers how "they" function as supervisors in working with employees in a telecommuting arrangement.

  Jerry W. Doyle Posted March 3, 2003 3:43 PM
• 142
  

  It appears that the federal employees letters, telephone calls and our indication that we "vote" on elections, made Congress think twice about not to approve the 4.1 percent increase. Next on federal employees' agenda is to go against the privatization of federal jobs that the President is mandating to all agencies.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 3, 2003 3:41 PM
• 140
  

  I question the logic behind the increased pay raise given to federal employees. Representative Hoyer tries to justify the raise by stating that "Our country is at a critical juncture, facing difficult tests at home and abroad. Federal employees will play a key role in how successful we are in confronting these issues. It is important that we provide federal employees with fair pay adjustments if we are to retain quality employees and attract new ones."

  There are not enough employees who play a key role to justify an across the board increase. From my 20 years of experience as a federal worker, I know of many federal employees who spend most of their day surfing the internet for pleasure, chatting with friends, and attending to personal business while oblivious to the fate of their colleagues in private industry who face layoffs and real competition for jobs. Many others work in programs that are of little value and take resources away from important tasks such as defense and intelligence gathering.

  Spending more taxpayer money on the general workforce is not a fair way to attract and retain quality employees for essential services. Increasing the pay of essential sectors and employees is necessary, but should be accompanied by the removal of unproductive employees and useless programs. This requires changing the "job for life" status that most federal employees currently enjoy.

  Gary Ault Posted March 3, 2003 3:35 PM