LESA Bulletin 2003-003 “What Past?”
By Dr. William H. Jones
Just about every wit who has ever walked the planet has observed that those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Prepare yourselves for a journey to yesteryear.
The topic is not new. It is the same dumb personnel management “flexibility” idea the President’s Management Agenda has been pushing since the day Mr. Bush got into office – break the unions, scrap the Civil Service system, grab all the power for the Executive Branch, and use it for all the political gain it is worth. The simple features of this personnel plan give Executive Branch managers the unchecked power to hire, fire, promote, and demote, just as the private sector has always had. While the right to bargain collectively has, technically, not been removed, the final court of appeal has been changed to the ultimate manager of the agency in which the problem originates. That’s like having the UAW go to the CEO of GM for an impartial decision when they can’t reach a contract settlement with the lower level folks. Conveniently, the President’s plan leaves out the right to strike. Basically, the only option still left to labor in this new system will be holding one’s breath until one turns blue. All in all, a personnel management plan I’m certain every CEO in the country would kill for.
This plan is already in place at the Department of Homeland Security. The plan was so unpopular with the Congress that the President had to threaten a veto of the whole Department authorization bill (and slander the Congress by accusing them of not caring about the security of the nation) to get it – an interesting choice for the elected official charged with the defense and security of the nation. And the plan is already working well. The Transportation Security Agency (TSA, whose strictures are helping to kill the US airline industry, throwing thousands out of jobs) recently announced that it didn’t quite coordinate its own hiring of airport security screeners with its budget and, as a consequence, it must now let 6,000 of them go. The TSA hopes attrition will account for about half of this number, but the rest will suffer the effects of “flexibility”.
It is sometimes taught that the modern Civil Service system came about as a result of the assassination of President Garfield in 1880 – he was shot by a gentleman who thought that the President should have exercised his Presidential “flexibility” and appointed him Ambassador to France. A little research suggests that this basis of the Civil Service system is not the case, but supplants it with an even more appalling rationale. The founding of the Civil Service system is alleged to have been the response in 1877 of President Rutherford B. Hayes and the Congress to the revelations of corruption in New York City by “Boss” Tweed and Tammany Hall.
Apparently, what those elected officials saw going on in an entirely different unit of government so frightened them that they moved to prevent such a thing at the Federal level before it had ever really occurred. Think about it. A preemptive, pro-active act by the Congress and the President – the level of corruption must have been terrible indeed.
The corruption of New York City government by “Boss” Tweed and Tammany Hall was possible because the management system of the municipal government had “flexibility”. Once Tammany people were elected to office (a process itself far from being on the up and up), it was a simple matter to exercise the prerogatives available to achieve the desired (and profitable) results. Flexibility is, indeed, a two-edged sword and “Boss” Tweed definitely knew which edge he preferred.
We are told by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that this scrapping of protections, appeals to independent courts, and what-all will be a good thing for the vast majority of the workforce. Our supervisors, who are most familiar with our actual performance, will be able to compensate us with salaries, awards, and promotions that reflect our true performance and our value in the wider marketplace. Who wouldn’t be for that? Not me. The numbers I’ve seen and heard say that the Civil Service is a good 20 to 25% behind the private sector generally, and much more in particular skill areas. Bring that pay raise on! I’m ready. But the equation here doesn’t balance – if this is “good” for the “vast majority”, won’t Mr. Wolfowitz and the Department of Defense (and NASA, who is following along close in trail on this) be needing a big budget boost to pay all those flexibly increased salaries and benefits? Why aren’t they asking for that money at the same time?
Another piece of the President’s Management Agenda that is also loudly trumpeted (although seldom in the same concert with personnel “flexibility”) is the “competitive sourcing” of Federal jobs. The target number is 50%. The President wants the Executive Branch – his Executive Branch – to be able to steer one half of the remaining Federal work into the private sector. And while the President and his key people do not mention it, the rest of us should remember that the private sector is well aware of the benefits to be gained from the astute political contribution, whatever its form.
Does “flexibility” enable “competitive sourcing”? Why, yes indeed. After you have “competitively sourced” 800,000 Federal jobs into the private sector, what are you going to do with the 800,000 civil servants who now have nothing to do? Why, you are going to “flexibly” lay them off, just like the TSA. And who are they going to appeal to? Why, to the person that decided that they should get the axe. Sounds like an enabling move to me.
Couple personnel “flexibility” with “competitive sourcing” and what do you get? According to the President, you get efficient government. I am certain that’s what “Boss” Tweed said, too.
Dr. Jones is available through e-mail at William.H.Jones-1@nasa.gov and also reads the grc.talk newsgroup regularly; however, he reserves the right to say nothing at his convenience.
LESA dues paying members in good standing are encouraged to submit articles for review and possible publication for a future IMPACT Bulletin. Please send your articles by E-mail to Alice.A.Martinez@grc.nasa.gov, or by mail to IFPTE, Local 28, MS 15-10
