Talking It Out
The Obama administration let White House pool reporters sit in on the breakout sessions at the fiscal summit yesterday, and the reporters, especially Jon Ward, the Washington Times writer assigned to the procurement breakout session, came away with some interesting tidbits on how lawmakers from both parties view the fiscal challenges facing government. In the procurement session, Ward wrote, lawmakers returned repeatedly to the workforce issues involved.
Susan Collins, the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, cited the large number of procurement workers who are retiring. “It all comes down to an insufficient number of procurement officials," she said.
Joe Lieberman, who chairs the committee, said of agencies, “It is obvious that they're not following that law,” against contracting out inherently governmental functions in services contracts. Claire McCaskill, who will be chairing a subcommittee on procurement, said "it's stupid" that it's easier to hire contractors at the Department of Homeland Security than it is to bring in less expensive federal employees. And Darrell Issa, the new ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the federal government should be paying premiums to federal employees who stay beyond retirement age.
All of these issues are going to be big this year, so it's great to get a preview of where key lawmakers stand, at least on how hiring and pay ought to work. I just wish Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secretary, hadn't started the breakout session by warning that it might be dry. She shouldn't downplay these issues--they're vital, and they'll get more attention if she calls attention to them without denigrating them.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
This may sound rediculous to some, but I'd like to believe that an "bona fide" government employee might be a more loyal and dedicated employee since they have a connected interest in who signs their paycheck. I don't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers, there are many hard working contractors that do a fine job everyday. In fact, I've seen cases where contractors were eventually hired on as government employees when all the conditions were allowed by the law. But when you've seen down-sizing within your organization where contractors now perform work that government employees used to do you tend to see things in a different light.
I question the comment "less expensive federal employees" made by Claire McCaskill, though I'd like to believe her. We've been under the impression that the feds started hiring contractors because they were cheaper than government employees (no benefits to pay). What's up with that? However, I whole-heartedly agree "it's stupid" that it's so difficult to hire someone on the government payroll.
Regarding Darrell Issa's comment of "paying premiums to federal employees who stay beyond retirement age," I don't support that one. I've seen way too many RIP (retired in place) employees that are very comfortable with their position at their desks. This isn't a good thing. There are many young people, educated with new knowledge in science, engineering, technology, etc., who can't find employment because the RIPs occupy the position. Old knowledge is valuable, however when that knowledge simply occupies a slot it has lost its value. Sometimes old knowledge needs to find a new life.
My opinions come from 24 years of federal service at the same organization. However, during those years I have worked in several capacities and climbed the federal ladder. I've seen, heard, and experienced many things during my federal career. As soon as I'm eligible I'm going to take my old knowledge and retire to a new life.
Mary Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:55 AMMary - You shouldn't tar all retirement eligible employees with the same brush. It's not fair. In fact expressed openly I'd say it's discriminatory in the prohibited kind of way. I think Issa has a great idea. The devil as always is in the details and in fleshing this out you don't make it an entitlement, you make it a discretionary incentive. E.G. extend retention bonuses to intended retirees in much the same way that you may to high performing employees with better job offers or revive some of those proposals made last year to eliminate the penalties on reemployed annuitants or extend them to retirement eligibles. In your new life do you hope to come back as a contractor as so many RIPs do? How's that help with your objections to this idea?
Old Guy Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:48 AMTo Old Guy, I am sorry that I came across wrong. I am well aware that there are plenty of workers that are either eligible or long past eligible who are extremely valuable to their organization. I didn't make myself clear by saying "way too many." Indeed the number of RIPs is small, but since the government is trying to get more work out of less people (due to down-sizing) even one RIP is too many. Please know I didn't mean that everyone that can retire "should" retire.
With respect to my own retirement life, I have absolutely no intentions of returning to work as a contractor. My plan is to stay retired and not work for anyone.
Mary Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:56 PM