[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEXTGEN FEDS:
RECRUITING THE NEXT GENERATION
OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-65
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov or
http://www.docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-997 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Member
Columbia Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland James Comer, Kentucky
Harley Rouda, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Katie Hill, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Ralph Norman, South Carolina
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Peter Welch, Vermont Chip Roy, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Mark DeSaulnier, California Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Frank Keller, Pennsylvania
Ro Khanna, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Wendy Ginsberg, Subcommittee Staff Director
Joshua Zucker, Assistant Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mark Meadows, North Carolina,
Columbia, Ranking Minority Member
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Jackie Speier, California Jody Hice, Georgia
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands James Comer, Kentucky
Ro Khanna, California Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachsetts W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Jamie Raskin, Maryland
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 25, 2019............................... 1
Witnesses
Panel 1
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney, Member of Congress, 12th
District of New York, U.S. House of Representatives
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Panel 2
Robert Goldenkoff, Director of Strategic Issues, Government
Accountability Office
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Margot Conrad, Director, Federal Workforce Programs, Partnership
for Public Service
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union
Oral Statement................................................... 13
Rachel Greszler, Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement................................................... 15
Written opening statements and the witnesses' written statements
are available on the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: https://docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
The documents entered into the record during this hearing are
listed below, and are available at: https://docs.house.gov.
* Letter from the Federal Postal Coalition; submitted by Rep.
Maloney.
* Letter from the National Partnership for Women and Families;
submitted by Rep. Maloney.
NEXTGEN FEDS:
RECRUITING THE NEXT GENERATION
OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
----------
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Gerald E. Connolly
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Connolly, Norton, Sarbanes,
Khanna, Raskin, Meadows, Massie, Grothman, Norman, and Steube.
Also present: Gomez.
Mr. Connolly.
[Presiding.] The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
The subcommittee is assessing how to build an effective
Federal work force in the 21st century. I now recognize myself
for an opening statement, and then I will recognize the ranking
member. By the way, welcome to our colleague and member of the
committee, Representative Maloney.
The need to build the next generation of Federal employees
has never been greater. According to the Office of Personnel
Management, in 2017, 69 percent of the Federal work force was
over the age of 40. Only 54 percent--15 percent fewer--of the
total civilian labor force fit that category. When it comes to
recent graduates, the Federal work force is woefully behind. At
the end of 2018, only six percent of the Federal work force was
under the age of 30; in the private sector, 24 percent.
This means agencies across the Federal Government are at
risk of losing institutional knowledge as older employees
retire, and agencies find themselves unable to recruit new
employees for the future generation of civil servants. It means
the Federal Government will lack experienced leadership because
agencies are currently failing to find and train people in
their 20's and 30's who can and will fill leadership and
management roles in the next 15 to 20 years. It means taxpayers
will end up paying the price due to a widening skills gap in
critical occupations across the Federal Government, hindering
agencies' ability to fulfill their missions on behalf of the
American people.
Today's hearing will focus on what the Federal Government
can do to attract the next generation of Federal employees to
public service, and discuss how the Federal Government as an
employer can and should compete with the private sector for
that talent.
In this Congress, the Committee of Oversight and Reform,
and this subcommittee in particular, have conducted extensive
oversight in programs that have gone awry, and have either
endangered the safety and security of our Nation or have wasted
taxpayer dollars. We have examined missteps related to the
decennial Census, veterans' healthcare problems, the waste
created by the Department of Defense's financial management,
and agency failures in IT management and acquisitions. You will
notice the ``I'' word appears in none of that work.
Each of these areas is on the Government Accountability
Office's high-risk list, and GAO cites critical work force
skills as gap factors that have led to the placement on that
list. It is unsurprising that Strategic Human Capital
Management has been on the GAO high-risk list since 2001. Post
and pray--posting a job vacancy and praying it will get
filled--is not a viable human capital strategy for long-term
success.
Given the age distribution of the current Federal work
force and the continuing changing nature of work, the Federal
Government as a whole must do a better job of attracting and
retaining top young talent in the Civil Service. Note, I didn't
say keep them forever or make a permanent career of it. A lot
of young people may not, and probably don't want, a 30-or 40-
year career in one job or in one service. The Federal
Government is going to have to adapt to that, that that is the
new normal, and people are going to move in and out of Federal
service during their careers.
The Federal Government should look to private sector
practices when it comes to establishing a pipeline to public
service, especially those companies that compete for the same
talent that agencies are looking for to fill current skill
gaps. For example, agencies could better use current internship
programs to identify and recruit qualified individuals for jobs
in the Civil Service, as does the private sector.
In 2011, I introduced the Federal Internship Improvement
Act to generate awareness of Federal internships available to
students, to provide data on the efficacy of the Federal
Government's use of internships, and to provide a mechanism for
agencies to systemize those programs, upgrade them, and use
them to find qualified full-time employees as a recruiting
tool. This is done routinely in the private sector. I know
companies that if you are chosen as an intern, there is an 85
percent chance of a job offer, and almost an 85 percent chance
you will say yes. That is not the case with the Federal
Government. Not even close.
The same year the Obama Administration established the
Pathways Program to boost recruitment of diverse, entry-level
hires in the Federal Government through internships and recent
graduate hiring in the Presidential Management Program for
students with graduate degrees. However, participation in the
Pathways Program and agency use of that program as pipeline to
fill the skills gap remains disappointingly low. For Fiscal
Year 2014, the last year in which OPM published data, only 15
percent of competitive Federal Government hires were Pathways
appointments who had the option to convert to permanent Federal
positions.
The Federal Government must also do more to compete with
the private sector in terms of benefits, and I know our
colleague, Mrs. Maloney, will talk about this in detail in a
few minutes. Those benefits and leave policies are essential if
we are going to fill gaps in highly skilled positions in
critical sectors, such as information technology,
cybersecurity, financial management, and the like. In a Harris
poll published earlier this year, the U.S. government's
reputation ranked last in comparison to 100 top companies.
Last.
Simply put, individuals graduating from top schools are not
attracted to Federal service for a lot of reasons. This is
party due to the fact that the Federal Government has struggled
to offer workplace flexibility and work-life balance in Federal
service that are available in the private sector. In 2019, the
Federal Government still does not offer paid family leave to
its employees, including maternity and paternity leave. As of
March of this year, 18 percent of private industry workers
reported some access to paid family leave through the employer,
and in some cases it is highly generous.
The availability of paid family leave is even more
prevalent among professional and technical occupations and
industries. Full-time workers and workers in large companies,
many of them the Federal Government competes with for talent,
such as, for example, the consulting firm, auditing firm
Deloitte and Amazon. They each offer a minimum of 16 weeks of
paid leave to male and female employees for childbirth,
adoption, or other family medical care, versus the Federal
Government, zero. Agencies are facing situations where
employees leave their agencies to start a family only to
startup again as an employee for a contractor or consultant
hired by the agency to do similar work because they have got
the benefit coverage. The Federal Government doesn't.
I am also concerned that the Federal Government continues
to fall behind the private sector in terms of telework
opportunities. Telework allows an employee to work from a
remote or alternative location, thereby reducing commute time
and allowing employees to work during weather events. We know
continuity of operations is very important for a series of
events here in the Nation's Capitol--underscore that--starting
with 9/11.
The availability of telework we find is fundamental to the
recruitment and retention of the next generation. OPM has found
that compared to other generations, Millennials are almost
certainly likely to prioritize telework when making employment
decisions. Is it part of the offering? Yet instead of expanding
its use, unfortunately some Administration agencies are rolling
it back. In the past two years, for example, the Departments of
Agriculture, Education, and Interior have changed their
policies to limit the number of days employees are permitted to
work as telework. USDA employees, for example, used to be able
to telework up to four days a week. Since January 2018,
employees at that agency have been limited to one day a week.
The Federal Government can do more to attract and develop
the next generation of Federal employees. I look forward to
discussing the issues we have highlighted here as well as other
opportunities, such as training, work-life balance, and other
incentives agencies can offer our young and ambitious work
force looking forward to serving our country in some capacity.
With that, I am pleased to call on my partner in this
enterprise, the distinguished ranking member, former chairman
of this subcommittee, Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this hearing, and obviously the Federal work force plays a
critical and important role in the functioning of our
government. It is one of the areas that honestly we have been
able to work in a bipartisan manner, and that is not normally
the way that you would see this particular issue. But you and I
both agree that the Federal work force and how we go about
attracting new talent needs to be reformed.
For the past two decades almost, the GAO has warned us
about the skills gap and what is going to happen. They have
been sounding the alarm and saying, you know, you need to do
something about it, and sadly, we have done nothing. By
nothing, we still have a 40-year-old Civil Service act that
needs reform. The way that we attract new talent is critical.
But it is not just on these critical fields that need to be
addressed through STEM careers. It is really across the board.
You know, in this new day of attracting young talent, the
grayer I get, the more I realize the work force, the way that
it was when I went to work is changing, and so we have to adapt
to that. I have got a statistic here that says only 6.1 percent
of Federal workers are under the age of 30. To me, when you are
attracting talent, you want to go out and get the brightest and
the best. I know that when my kids were going to college and on
to law school, it was not necessarily saying you need to go to
work for the Federal Government. In fact, the Federal
Government didn't even make the top five in terms of priority.
So we need to work together on that.
As we look at this, the National Commission on the
Military, National and Public Service has warned that, ``Many
agencies at all levels of government lack effective systems to
hire students and recent graduates.'' Sometimes it is just
making sure that those students know that there is an
opportunity, one, but they are wanted is the second part of
that. We will lose out so many times because recruiters will go
in. Especially in an environment when the unemployment is as
low as it is, it is a very difficult and challenging time.
You know, it takes 106 days, an average of 106 days, to
hire a Federal employee. I mean, listen, we have got to do
better than that. And I can tell you, that is not just with the
background checks. That is not with the security clearances,
because what we do is a lot of times we will give them a
temporary clearance so that they can come in. If we calculated
that in until the point where they are at full steam, it would
be even more problematic.
One of the areas has been a pet peeve for me on this
committee, that the chairman and I have agreed on, is really
looking at the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and using that
as a benchmark in terms of what happens, how it should happen,
and to deal effectively with underperforming employees. When
you look at the demotivating factor of employees who feel like
they are not getting recognized, their input doesn't matter,
the promotions are not based on merit, that it is all in who
you know or who you happen to be associated with, we have got
to change that. Now, it will require a leap of faith, and a
bipartisan leap of faith, to do that because if you break
anything that is 40 years old, they always say, well, I love
the way that it was, but.
So I think that we are committed. I don't want to speak for
the chairman, but I know in the privacy of our conversations,
working hand in hand to actually make a difference to make sure
that the Federal work force is not only the best, but the best
recognized, the best financially rewarded, and ultimately where
it becomes a path that makes the top 10 instead of the bottom
10 in terms of priority in going to work there. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend. Now, it gives us great
pleasure to welcome our first witness. Our colleague from New
York will speak about her legislation, which I am----
Mr. Meadows. Do we get time for rebuttal with her?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connolly. We, of course, will have lots of rebuttal
time. But anyway, we are delighted Congresswoman Maloney, for
your leadership on a very important issue. As I indicated in
the opening statement, family leave, family priorities, a pro-
family environment is going to be critical, frankly, if we want
to recruit the Millennial generation, and we need to. So your
legislation, it seems to me, is more timely than ever. I know
we were able successfully to get it onto the defense bill, and
we may have to take independent action again here.
But I look forward to your testimony. Welcome the
committee, and thank you in advance for your leadership on such
a critical issue that affects so many people potentially
positively. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you so much, Chairman Connolly, and
Ranking Member Meadows, and fellow members of the committee for
the opportunity to testify about a bipartisan policy approach
that positions the Federal Government to compete for the next
generation of top talent that will serve the American people,
H.R. 1534, the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act.
This is a bill that is critically important to me. As a
mother, I know firsthand the challenges of balancing work and
family. I vividly remember when I was pregnant with my first
daughter going to the personnel office and asking them what
their paid leave policies were, and their response was, we
don't have any policy. We expect you to leave. I said, I don't
want to leave. I need to work. I plan to come back. And this is
what they said: ``You'll be the first one. We expect you to
leave.'' Well, I did come back.
But I would say that for a country that talks about family
values, when you look at the policies that we have in place for
flex time, for affordable and available childcare, for leave
for the birth of a child, for sick leave, we are really far,
far behind the rest of the world. According to a study by the
United Nations, out of 187 countries, only two do not provide
paid leave for the birth of a child, the great United States of
America and Papua New Guinea. We do not want to be on that
list. Believe me, 185 countries cannot be wrong. We are far,
far behind the world in the policies of providing for our
people to balance work and family.
To your issue today about the Federal work force, it is
aging, and our economy is changing. Women are working more and
more because they have to because it takes two incomes to keep
a family alive. In 2017, the average age of the U.S. Federal
worker was 47 years, and at the end of 2018, only six percent
of the Federal work force will be under the age of 30. More
broadly, throughout our country women serve as the sole or
primary breadwinners in 40 in of the households with children
under the age of 18, and two out of three families now depend
on the wages of working moms. These glaring statistics reveal a
pressing need to recruit the next generation of talented civil
servants to fill the coming retirement void, while also
allowing the ability for aging workers to care for themselves
and their loved ones.
The Federal Employee Paid Leave Act is an important and
long-overdue step that will make our Federal work force better
positioned to effectively serve the American people today and
into the future. The act builds on the Family Medical Leave Act
of 1994. Before that, women were fired when they became
pregnant, but after 1994, 12 weeks of unpaid leave was afforded
to families in America. President Clinton, who signed this bill
into law, told me of all the things he did in his eight years
of office, more people came up and thanked him for the Family
and Medical Leave Act, which we are trying to enhance with pay,
now today than any other thing he did while in office.
Our bill, the one that I have authored along with you and
many others on the committee, would provide Federal employees
with 12 weeks paid leave in a Calendar Year for the birth,
fostering or adoption of a child, applying to both parents--
both the father and mother are covered--the care of an ill
spouse, child, or parent, a serious medical personal condition,
or a qualifying circumstance due to a spouse, child, or parent
assigned to active duty in the military. The Federal Government
needs to lead from the front when it comes to family friendly
workplace policies, and has a unique opportunity to do so with
this bill that will provide a critical benefit to over 2
million Federal workers.
The research on the benefits of paid leave speak for
themselves. Family friendly policies reduce turnover retention
by 37 percent, and Federal agencies' turnover is expensive and
costs between 16 and 200 percent of a worker's annual salary.
Studies also indicate we could prevent the departure of well
over 2,600 female employees per year, saving the government $50
million per year in costs associated with employee turnover.
Paid family leave improves productivity, reduces turnover,
boosts morale, and attracts more talent. It also provides a
benefit to families and the broader economy. Paid leave is
associated with reduced infant mortality, improved child and
maternal health, higher labor force participation for women,
which equates to higher family incomes, and growth in the
economy as a whole. It provides so much.
Federal employees have suffered years of pay freezes and
government shutdowns. These are not the actions of a model
employer. How can we expect to recruit and retain talent if we
do not match the private sector in offering paid leave? As the
chairman said, this is one area where the private sector leads.
They are far ahead of the public sector, which usually sets a
model program and leads, so we have a lot of catching up to do.
Job security, a respect for workplace, and adequate pay and
benefits are the least we could provide to retain and to
attract the top-tier individuals we need to run our government.
The U.S. Federal work force provides invaluable and
essential services that keep our country safe and prosperous.
Federal employees research the next medical breakthrough,
protect our environment, secure our airports, our
infrastructure, keep us safe, inspect our food, monitor banks,
and so much more. Provide our mail. These men and women
dedicate their lives and service to their country, and it is
time our country does more to recognize all that they do.
Our legislation has 47 co-sponsors and was included in the
House-passed Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization
Act. The Senate version did not include paid family leave. It
is now being worked through in the conference committee, and I
am hopeful that Congress will retain this provision in the
final bill. If not, I hope this committee will report out the
bill and move it quickly through the House.
I have two letters in support of FEPLA, one by the Federal
Postal Coalition, signed by 21 public service employees and
unions. The other is led by the National Partnership for Women
and Families, and it was co-signed by 94 leading organizations
who represent Federal workers and advocate on behalf of family
friendly and workplace policies. I'd like to enter both of
these letters into the record.
Mr. Connolly. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Maloney. In conclusion, policies that enable workers
to care for themselves and their families without risking their
jobs or economic security are good for workers, families,
employers, and our Nation. It is well past time that our Nation
truly honors families by offering this basic benefit for the
Federal work force.
Thank you so much. It is a great honor to appear before
your committee and address my colleagues in Congress. Thank you
so much for your support, too, for the bill. I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman, and
thank you for your leadership. I just want to, if I may, ask
two questions. I know you have got a schedule. Forgive me. But
one is, what is your sense of how important this subject is to
the Millennial generation we need to tap into for the future
work force? Is this something nice to have, or is it something
they view as kind of a sine qua non for employment?
Mrs. Maloney. This is absolutely essential for young
workers. Our society has changed. Both the man and the woman
are working. The mother and the father are working, and both
incomes are needed to make ends meet for most families. I must
tell you that I get phone calls from Federal employees, and
they literally ask me when is your bill going to pass because I
want to plan my family around having a baby around when the
bill is passed so that we can have paid leave. We cannot afford
to take unpaid leave.
So many, many families are just living on a string, and
this is a benefit that helps them balance work and family. It
is absolutely essential. Unlike other countries, most
industrial countries have this benefit. We stand along with
Papua New Guinea in terms of the birth of a child. But it is
absolutely essential. The private sector is providing this. So,
how are we going to compete and get those Federal workers when
this basic benefit that is provided by most countries is not
provided? I have worked on this bill, I am embarrassed to say,
for 20 years. I got it out of the House twice. It never got
through the Senate. To me, it is something that is absolutely
pure. How often do we get to work on something absolutely pure?
This is good for society, good for individuals, good for
the overall economy, good for the Federal Government and the
wellbeing of our Nation. And it is long past due.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. The only other question I have got
is, for the record, should this provision that is in the House
version of the defense authorization bill not make it through
conference committee--God knoweth why--obviously it would be
your desire that the bill that has already passed the House
come back to our committee, be reported out of our committee as
a separate spending bill, and brought to the floor for action.
Is that correct?
Mrs. Maloney. That is absolutely what we need to do.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney. Hopefully it passes, but if by some chance it
doesn't get through the Senate--we have over 240 bills on the
desk of the Senate waiting for action--so we have to start all
over again and work very hard to get it thanks through.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney. Personally, I think it is a scandal that we
haven't acted on this basic support for families.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Norman, any questions on your side before
we thank Congresswoman Maloney?
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Congresswoman Maloney. Thank you for
your testimony. I am from the private sector. We have hired
over the years a number of people. We have hired people from
the Federal Government and the local government, and their main
reason for leaving wasn't pay. It wasn't benefits. It was just
we're tired of what Mr. Meadows said, the bureaucracy, the red
tape, the promotions given fairly or unfairly. How does your
bill rank with extended family leave with the fact that when
CBO compares pay for Federal employees to the private sector, I
think what they came up with was the government employees are
generally better compensated than the private sector? They also
did a study that the employment benefits are worth 52 percent
more than similar employees in the private sector.
When you do the retirement benefits, private industry,
private business generally is three to five percent of
employees' salaries. The Federal Government's is equal 15 to 18
percent of their salaries. Now, tell me how you justify that in
light of these facts.
Mr. Maloney. Well, the fact that what I have worked on is
balance between work and family because most women working have
to. If you are going to have a family, you have to have some
policies in place that help you manage that family. Even with
the support of a supportive husband, having a baby is
physically - it is a joyous event - but it is transformational.
It is life changing. It is very, very challenging in every way,
shape, and form. To be told that you can't have any leave, you
are going to lose your job, a lot of people do not want to face
that particular choice. Families need two incomes to make ends
meet.
Now, you gave some very good comparisons with the private
sector, but in terms of paid leave for the birth of a child,
the private sector always gives that, and they give paid family
leave, which encompasses sick leave and taking care of sick
spouse. You heard the story in the chairman's testimony that
most Fortune 500 companies provide extensive paid leave for the
birth of a child. I talked to a friend----
Mr. Connolly. For both the man and the woman.
Mrs. Maloney. Yes, exactly, for both the man and the woman.
I have talked to some of my younger friends, and they were
saying that they were being given three months' paid leave, two
months' unpaid leave. That is much, much more than what my bill
is, which is 12 weeks of paid leave, that just builds on the
unpaid Family Medical Leave Act that this Congress jointly
passed. So in terms of comparing paid family leave, the private
sector is 10 times more ahead of the public sector on this
particular benefit.
Mr. Norman. Yes, I guess my thing is there has got to be an
offset, and the figures I cited, it was combined men and women.
You could do all of them with 2 million people. It was higher
than the private sector. So I guess my response was it may be
they don't have the family leave now, but they are being
overcompensated in other areas, and there's an offset on that.
Thank you for your testimony.
Mrs. Maloney. I want to thank you for your comments, too.
Mr. Connolly. I want to thank our colleague, Congressman
Maloney. Again, your leadership is so critical an issue that
has got to be addressed for so many reasons--fairness, keeping
families together, promoting family values in a real way--but
also in the context of this hearing and this subcommittee. The
future of our Federal work force is certainly going to impinge
inter alia benefits such as this, recognizing the need of young
families to be able to address compelling needs. So thank you
for your leadership, Carolyn, and we wish you well today.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you.
Mr. Connolly. Absolutely.
Mrs. Maloney. It is a great honor. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. We will follow up on this with the full
committee.
I want to welcome our second panel of witnesses, and if
they could proceed to the witness table.
We have with us Robert Goldenkoff, director of strategic
issues at the Government Accountability Office; Margot Conrad,
director of Federal recruiting and hiring programs for the
Partnership of Public Service; Anthony Reardon, the national
president of the National Treasury Employees Union; Rachel
Greszler, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. If all
of you could stand and raise your right hands. It is the
practice of our committee to swear in our witnesses, so thank
you.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Connolly. Let the record show all four witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated.
The microphones are sensitive, so I would ask you to turn
on the button when it is your turn or when you are asked a
question, and speak into microphone like I am doing so that all
of us can hear you. Now let us see. We are going to ask
everybody to summarize their testimony within a five-minute
framework. We will, without objection, enter your full
statement into the record, as is our custom.
So, let's see. Mr. Goldenkoff, you are recognized for five
minutes. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Government Operations.
STATEMENT OF MR. GOLDENKOFF, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC ISSUES,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Goldenkoff. Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Meadows,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
this afternoon to discuss how agencies can recruit and retain
the next generation of public servants, especially in a tight
labor market.
Today's hearing is very timely because next month marks the
70th anniversary of the Classification Act of 1949. Although
this law was passed when Harry Truman was President when the
Federal work force consisted largely of clerks, it is still
governs how Federal jobs are organized for pay and other
purposes, and is one of several building blocks of the Federal
personnel system that is outmoded and undermining agencies'
efforts to build a high-performing work force.
As you mentioned earlier, GAO added Federal Strategic Human
Capital Management to its list of high-risk of government
programs in 2001. Although Congress, OPM, and individual
agencies have made improvements since then, it still remains a
high-risk area because mission critical skill gaps across a
range of occupations continue to jeopardize agencies' vital
missions.
My remarks today will focus, first, on some of the key
drivers of the government's personnel challenges, and, second,
talent management strategies that can help agencies overcome
these challenges and build a top-notch work force to better
meet their missions. The bottom line is that while agencies'
efforts to recruit and retain needed staff face a number of
hurdles, agencies are not helpless, and there are a number of
actions they can and, in some cases, are already taking within
their existing authorities and flexibilities to build a high-
performing work force.
The government's human capital challenges can be traced to
at least three causes. The first one is structural. Much of the
current system of Federal employment policies was designed
generations ago for a work force and types of work that no
longer exist. Obsolete approaches to job classification, pay,
and performance management are hampering the ability of
agencies to recruit, retain, and develop employees. The last
time the personal system was comprehensively overhauled was
over 40 years ago with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
A second reason is that employee demographics are not on
the government's side. The Federal work force is becoming older
and increasingly eligible for retirement. For example, nearly
32 percent of permanent Federal employees who are on board as
of September 30th, 2017, will be eligible to retire over the
next five years. At some agencies, 40 percent or more of the
Federal work force will become eligible to retire during that
same time period, and they include Treasury, NASA, EPA, and
HUD. Without proper succession planning, these agencies are at
risk of gaps in leadership and institutional knowledge.
A third reason is that agency operations are being deeply
affected by a set of evolving societal trends that include how
work is done and the skills and competencies that employees
need to accomplish agencies' missions. These trends include,
for example, technological advances in such areas as robotics
and artificial intelligence, an increased reliance on non-
Federal partners to carry out Federal work, and fiscal
constraints. Leveraging key talent management strategies could
help agencies address these challenges. They include, for
example, the following four activities.
First, agencies can better align their human capital
strategies with current and future mission requirements by
using work force analytics to identify the knowledge and skills
necessary to respond to current and future demands. Second,
agencies must also strengthen how they acquire and assign
talent by using a range of available hiring authorities and
flexibility, such as internships, to cultivate a diverse talent
pipeline. Third, agencies must also incentivize and compensate
employees with market-based and more performance-oriented pay,
and although agencies may struggle to offer competitive
salaries in certain labor markets, they can leverage telework
and other robust work-life balance programs to meet workers
needs for employment flexibility. Finally, by improving
employee engagement with more effective supervisors, better
performance management and staff development, as well as by
involving staff in decisions that affect them, agencies can
enhance employee retention.
So, Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Meadows, members of
the subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement, and
I'll be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Connolly. You are a pro. You had 10 seconds more to go.
Good job. Ms. Conrad, you have five minutes. Thank you.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARGOT CONRAD, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL WORKFORCE
PROGRAMS, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Conrad. Thank you very much, Chairman Connolly, Ranking
Member Meadows, and members of the subcommittee. I am Margot
Conrad, the director for Federal and recruiting hiring programs
at the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization dedicated to effective government. In this role, I
lead the Partnership's efforts to inspire young people to
consider Federal service, work with agencies to improve talent
acquisition, and pursue broader hiring systems reforms.
We are here today to discuss what can be done to help our
Federal Government attract the next generation of great talent.
In the private sector, 21 percent of the work force is in their
20's. In the Federal Government, that number is just six
percent. Government needs to be able to recruit the next
generation of talent that can operate in a complex, automated,
and interconnected world.
There are three primary barriers. No. 1, government has an
image problem. Agencies don't do a good job branding
themselves. I have been all around the country recently talking
with students on campus, and they can't understand what kind of
opportunities are in government or how to get in. They are
frustrated with USAJobs. They find it hard to navigate. Eighty-
two percent of people aged 18 to 34 say that they would apply
for a job on a smartphone, but USAJobs doesn't have an app, and
the website on a mobile device is cumbersome to use.
Hiring freezes and government shutdowns deter potential job
seekers. Our report released earlier this week, called
``Shutdown Letdown,'' tells the story of three Pathways interns
at the Department of Homeland Security who wanted to stay on as
full-time employees, but they didn't know when the shutdown
would end, they couldn't wait, and they took private sector
offers instead. Their jobs are still unfilled today.
No. 2, agencies don't build for the future. Instead they
are focusing on immediate needs. Agency missions are evolving,
and the nature of work is changing. More than 80 Federal
occupations are expected to be impacted by technology and
automation, but agencies haven't done the critical strategic
planning to determine what needs to change and how to align
their work force and recruitment plans accordingly. Agencies
don't view internships as an important pipeline of future
talent. The number of student interns hired fell from 35,000 in
2010 to 4,000 in 2018, according to the President's Fiscal Year
2020 budget.
And No. 3, hiring is complex. The Civil Service System
hasn't been updated in 40 years. There more than 100 different
hiring authorities. It takes 106 days on average to hire.
Agencies compete against themselves and with the private sector
for talent. Frankly, it is hard to compete for talent with a
compensation system that dates back to the 1940's.
So what can Congress do? There are four [steps] we
encourage Congress to take. No. 1, Congress can help the
government improve its brand by avoiding shutdowns. Pass
legislation to end shutdowns and crisis budgeting, and
celebrate success. Recognize the innovative contributions of
Federal employees in your districts. Visit agencies to learn
about their work. Special kudos. I know, Chairman Connolly, you
have done this and so has the ranking member. It is important,
and it really makes a difference. Employees feel valued.
No. 2, make it easier for government to hire students and
entry-level talent. Create one place that students can go to
learn about Federal internships. And on the back end of
USAJobs, create a data base with resumes for individuals who
have completed internships and can be hired quickly by
agencies. Enable agencies to hire students and recent graduates
more quickly, directly, and empower agency heads with more
authority to make hiring decisions with OPM oversight as
appropriate.
No. 3, enable talent to flow in and out of government.
Young people today are seeking continuous learning and expect
to have many employers over the course of their career.
Encourage and facilitate innovative talent models. For example,
the Partnership has teamed up with MasterCard, Microsoft, and
Workday, and 12 Federal agencies on an innovative program to
build the next generation of cyber leaders for our country
called the Cyber security Talent Initiative. Young people will
spend two years in a Federal agency with robust leadership
training and development, and then they will be invited to
apply for a position with a corporate partner. And they may
receive loan assistance from the corporate partner if hired.
Government should consider similar models for other
occupations.
The Department of Defense has an authority to use a talent
exchange approach, and that should be expanded across the
Federal Government to other agencies. We need to make sure that
people who leave government can return more easily. They bring
back valuable knowledge.
Finally, we need to modernize the Civil Service System.
Long term, you have got to streamline the hiring process,
simplify job classification and compensation reform to have a
market-sensitive compensation system. In the short term,
Congress can examine and understand what works so that agencies
can succeed. Invest in H.R. and evaluate the effectiveness of
different hiring tools.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much. Very thoughtful testimony.
President Reardon. Mr. President.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY M. REARDON, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Mr. Reardon. Thank you. Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member
Meadows, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on behalf of the 150,000 Federal
employees represented by NTEU. I am pleased to be here to
discuss how the government can build the most effective work
force, attract skilled and talented individuals, and
consistently engage Federal employees.
NTEU strongly supports the merit system principles, which
ensure that individuals are hired to work for the Federal
Government based on merit, without regard to their race, age,
gender, political views, or relationship with the hiring
official. We also support the application of veterans
preference as part of our obligation to help those who have
defended our Nation and our freedom.
While we recognize that the process used to hire new
employees can be difficult, agencies rarely use more than a few
of the multiple hiring flexibilities available to them, and we
remain concerned with proposals to expand noncompetitive
eligibility for various groups. History has shown that agencies
have abused such flexibility, using these programs as a primary
method of hiring, which undermines veterans preference and the
principles that ensure a merit-based, nonpartisan Civil
Service.
Despite the challenges and onboarding, changes to the
hiring process will be of little help if the government cannot
recruit and retain talented individuals. Government shutdowns,
disparaging comments by government leaders, pay freezes and
below-market raises, benefits cuts, and efforts to roll back
workers' rights, all make it harder to recruit a new generation
of civil servants, and have led many to leave Federal service.
A recent Senate report noted that in the last five years,
repeated government shutdowns cost taxpayers nearly $4 billion
and had an impact on the ability to hire new employees. As
Congress and the Administration work to finalize spending
agreements for Fiscal Year 2020, we urge you to keep this in
mind and do everything you can to prevent another shutdown.
I would also like to highlight a troubling trend we've seen
at many agencies: the reduction in the availability of
telework. Studies show that telework improves performance and
morale and makes it more likely for employees to stay at their
jobs. Given the reductions in telework at HHS, NTEU recently
surveyed more than 1,600 employees there, and found that five
out of six said reducing or eliminating telework would be a
factor in deciding to leave the Department. Mr. Chairman, NTEU
particularly appreciates your efforts to ensure telework is
available to Federal employees.
One critical benefit missing from the current list of
Federal benefits is paid family leave, a necessity for today's
families that benefits both employees and employers. NTEU fully
supports the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act, led by
Representative Maloney, which was also included in the House-
passed NDAA. Few employees can go weeks without pay, and no one
should be forced to choose between a paycheck and caring for a
loved one. We ask this committee's help in ensuring the
enactment of this important benefit.
Treating employees fairly and making sure they have a voice
in the workplace also significantly impacts recruitment and
retention. Unfortunately, the current Administration has
attempted to undermine employee rights and eliminate
opportunities for employees to share their ideas and raise
issues that could impact agency missions. This does not make
employees feel valued and engaged. Just yesterday I was here at
the Capitol as hundreds of Federal employees stood together to
make their voices heard because they are fed up with their
treatment in the workplace. They aren't asking for special
treatment. They are simply asking for respect. If skilled
workers continue to feel disrespected, they will leave Federal
service, and it will be difficult to convince the next
generation of workers to consider government service.
Mr. Chairman, you and many of your colleagues on this
subcommittee have been great allies of Federal workers. You've
been leading the charge to ensure fair pay, working hard to
protect employee benefits, and standing up to ensure workers
continue to have a voice in the workplace. We sincerely
appreciate all that you do, but the mere fact that we have to
fight so hard and so often for these basic things takes its
toll on the workers that I represent. They are in a constant
state of an uncertainty, and that has a significant impact on
morale and on the government's ability to recruit and retain
talented employees. Ensuring that the Federal Government can
attract and retain the best and brightest benefits all
Americans. To do that, we must ensure employees are provided
fair pay, and benefits, and treatment in the workplace.
I look forward to continuing to work with the members of
this subcommittee to do that. Thank you, and I'm happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, we have
three pros in a row within five seconds. God bless you. Our
final witness on this panel is Rachel Greszler. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF RACHEL GRESZLER, RESEARCH FELLOW, THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION
Ms. Greszler. Thank you. I will try to match on the timing.
In order to carry out their missions, Federal agencies must be
able to recruit and retain the best and the brightest workers,
so I would like to focus on three areas today to help achieve
that. First is by providing competitive compensation, second is
by improving workplace environments and opportunities, and
third is using innovation and flexibility to meet the
government's needs and to help workers grow.
So first is compensation. Federal employees receive
significantly higher compensation than their private sector
counterparts, but the premium is lopsided. The CBO estimates an
average 17 percent premium for Federal employees, but that
includes a 53 percent premium for Federal workers with less
than a high school degree, a 21 percent premium for those with
a bachelor's degree, and then an 18 percent penalty for Federal
workers with a master's degree or a professional degree. So to
help bring public sector pay into parity with the private
sector, policymakers should reduce the pay differences between
step increases, and slow the rate at which Federal employees
receive step increases.
Moreover, with 99.9 percent of all Federal employees
receiving pay raises, greater emphasis needs to be placed on
truly performance-based raises. Policymakers should limit the
appeals process for pay decisions to within-agency appeals, and
they should remove the requirement that managers must create
performance improvement plans for employees simply because they
decided not to award them a pay raise. Some of the savings from
these changes should go toward increasing pay for high-demand
positions, including using existing options, such as special
payments, signing bonuses, and superior quality appointments.
Aside from pay, benefits are an even bigger source of
compensation differences. The Federal Government provides three
to four times as much in retirement benefits as the private
sector, and yet workers tend to undervalue pension benefits.
The government could provide a more appealing and more
competitive compensation package if pension benefits could
instead go toward higher pay or toward higher 401(k)
contributions.
Paid family leave is another important benefit for workers.
Over recent years, we've seen tremendous growth in the private
sector offering paid family leave benefits, and this is not
just a race to the top among employers that have high-income
employees, but also with newer access for lower-and middle-
income workers. The 20 largest companies in the U.S.--these are
companies like Target, Walmart, Starbucks, Lowe's--now all
provide paid family leave. Since employer-provided policies are
best for workers, it makes sense for the Federal Government to
provide paid family leave to its workers. But such a policy
should replace the current de facto paid leave policy that
exists through the use of unlimited sick leave accumulation, as
well as six weeks of advanced sick leave.
The second area for improvement is creating a positive
culture in a merit-based workplace that attracts and retain
good workers. The overwhelming majority of Federal workers are
hard workers, but the system shelters and even advances
obstinate employees and sometimes those who don't do their
jobs. The burden on managers to discipline or remove these
employees hurt the agency's mission and other employees who
have to pick up the slack. Policymakers should make it easier
for managers to address poor performance by limiting the
appeals process for Federal employees to just one forum instead
of four, by lowering the burden of proof for dismissing Federal
employees, by increasing the probationary period from one to
three years, and expediting the dismissal process in
particularly egregious cases. It's also important that Federal
managers have the proper training to understand the tools and
resources available to them to uphold a merit-based and
accountable workplace.
Finally, greater innovation and flexibility can help the
government meet its needs and also increase its appeal to
workers. The government's primarily one-size-fits-all H.R.
policies don't always work well across as many as 430 agencies
and sub-agencies, 350 different occupations, and 2.1 million
Federal workers. Moreover, as Millennials with different
employment expectations replace retiring Baby Boomers, the
Federal Government will have to create more flexibility in
their compensation, better engage workers, and provide
opportunities for growth.
Some potential avenues include targeted training programs,
such as the new Federal Cyber-Reskilling Academy, aptitude
tests similar to the military's, better use of special hiring
incentives, more flexible compensation packages, and making it
easier for Federal workers to move across agencies or back into
the Civil Service. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Again, a pro. Thank you. I want to call on my
friend, our colleague from Maryland, to begin the questioning,
Mr. Sarbanes. But before I do, Mr. Reardon, you were very kind
in your remarks about telework, but I want to point out that
the chief author of the bill we got on the books during the
previous Administration was actually chiefly authored by Mr.
Sarbanes, the Telework Enhancement Act. He was gracious enough
to allow this freshman at the time to participate in that
process because I was so committed to telework as a local and
regional leader in metropolitan Washington. So I salute Mr.
Sarbanes for his leadership. He and I are collaborating on a
followup bill that we hope will become law in this Congress.
Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes, for your leadership, and you are
recognized for your line of questioning.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
convening this. Thanks to the witnesses. I was still relatively
new here myself, but I was smart enough to spot that you would
be an incredible resource and asset on that topic. I am glad we
have had the opportunity to work together over the years and
most recently to try to strengthen telework within Federal
agencies.
I did want to ask a question about that to Mr. Goldenkoff.
The Federal Workplace Survey Report that was released in March
found that 35 percent of employees--this is March 2018--
currently use telework, but 58 percent desire to telework or at
least telework more often. You talked in your testimony about
addressing barriers to telework, and that doing that is a key
practice for managing current and future Federal employees. Can
you just talk briefly about what some of those barriers are
that you see that need to be addressed that you view as a
challenge to step up to?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sure. Well, one of the barriers is cultural
within agencies. A solid notion that some managers have is that
if I cannot see you, how do I know that you are working? So
that needs to be overcome, and, you know, so long is that is
pervasive, telework won't expand. There are also some startup
costs. Agencies do have to invest in some startup technology.
There is training. So those can be barriers as well. But
overall, you know, it is something that is very doable.
Agencies have successes with telework, and it does make good
business sense. It helps, as you know, employees deal with
work-life balance issues as well as various contingencies that
occur in the local area, continuity of operations.
Mr. Sarbanes. What is interesting is that I think the
statistics demonstrate that in agencies where telework has been
implemented in an aggressive and sustained way, sort of this
notion of I cannot see you, are you working, goes out the
window because they tend to be some of the most productive
places to work. And when a culture of productivity takes hold,
often spurred by the telework, it actually spreads to the
entire work force, whether they are teleworking or not. So the
benefits, the cultural benefits, of assimilating telework, I
think, are there to be seen in the statistics, in the data. But
we have got to make sure we are keeping track of what the
barriers are so we can address them in a meaningful way.
I want to now completely switch gears over to you, Ms.
Conrad, because I know in your testimony, certainly your
written testimony, you talk about how student loans are a
pretty significant barrier to public service, and that, in
particular, the proper implementation of the Public Service
Loan Forgiveness Act would help with recruiting younger workers
into Federal service. That is something near and dear to my
heart because I was an author of the original PSLSF Program,
and I am anguished by the failure for that to be implemented in
an effective way, and the impact it is having, frankly, on
millions who could potentially benefit. Can you talk a little
bit about that in the context of how Federal employees are
accessing or could access a properly implemented student loan
forgiveness program.
Ms. Conrad. Well, thank you very much for asking the
question.
Mr. Sarbanes. I think your mic is not----
Mr. Connolly. Yes, you have got----
Ms. Conrad. Thank you very much for asking the question. I
remember I actually worked with you, Mr. Sarbanes, many years
ago on that legislation.
Mr. Sarbanes. Yes.
Ms. Conrad. I am very excited that it was enacted. You are
right. I think this is an example of where Congress has given,
you know agencies, the ability to use this tool, and it is not
being implemented to the way that you all had envisioned when
you set this up. Certainly student loan debt right now is a
huge, huge issue among young people in our country, and it is a
real barrier for talent coming into public service if they
don't have access to programs. So the Federal Government does
offer a student loan repayment program, and then you have the
public service loan forgiveness legislation that you had
championed.
So I think through the oversight process here, there is a
real role for Congress to play to really try to figure out how
to fix this and add greater clarity for implementation because
otherwise we are leaving, you know, many, many young Americans
on the sidelines who thought they could access this benefit and
it turns out they can't.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Just in closing, I am going to encourage our committee to
look for opportunities to potentially bring some of these loan
servicers in here and demand some accountability from them
because they are not acting for the benefit of the borrowers.
They are just protecting their own industry.
With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend and I look forward to
working with him to make sure the committee marks up the
followup telework legislation we have been collaborating on so
we can set some metrics within the Federal Government and,
hopefully, encourage telework where it is appropriate.
I thank the gentleman.
I now call upon my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, for
his five minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. First of all, I would just like to
make a point. I think Mr. Reardon kind of was a little bit
critical of this administration, and I will point, having
talked to a lot of state employees, particularly in Wisconsin,
it is very difficult and sometimes intimidating if they feel
that not being--or being a little more conservative they are
viewed hostilely by their Federal employees.
You know, we need a lot of good Federal employees. We
particularly need more people down on the border with the
Border Patrol and I know the administration has been very
supportive of them.
But when you say things like critical of this
administration if I am a more conservative person for whatever
reason I may be intimidated or be afraid to work for the
Federal Government because I am afraid I am getting myself in
an environment that is hostile to conservative people.
So I just--I just want to make that point.
Now, a general question. I don't know if anybody's got it.
Mr. Connolly. Did you want to allow Mr. Reardon to respond?
Mr. Grothman. Well, it wasn't a question but if he wants to
respond.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Reardon?
Mr. Reardon. Yes. Congressman, thank you for saying that.
So it gives me the opportunity to respond and here is what
I will tell you--that I represent a labor union that represents
about 150,000 employees and I will tell you that the people
that we represent I have a large number that are supportive of
the Republican Party, supportive of the Democratic Party,
Independents, and many others.
One of the things, if you are familiar with my public
statements, I am very right down the middle. Here is what I--
here is what I look to. I want as much support from everybody
in this room for Federal employees as possible.
I am interested in people who support Federal employees. I
represent--I represent employees at CBP. So the folks that are
in the ports of entry down in Texas and in airports and
seaports and so on and so forth, I represent those folks.
I can assure you that I am not interested in, you know,
saying derogatory things about anything. But with regard to the
administration, I want to be very clear about what it is that I
was referring to.
We have had a 35-day government shutdown, and if we are
looking at ways that we are going to entice people to come to
the Federal Government, to Federal service, or to remain in
Federal service, that is not a good way to do it.
We had--we have had a enacted pay freeze that was
ultimately overturned. That doesn't help.
So there are a lot of things that are very personal and
very important to Federal employees and that is--and other
things that I could go into but that is why I made that
statement.
It is not for me from a--from a political angle. For me, it
is about the impact on my members and their families.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Reardon.
In consideration to my colleague, I would ask that his full
five minutes be restored because he was allowing Mr. Reardon to
respond to an observation.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
I just--I have to respond.
Mr. Connolly. Just one second. Can we put back five
minutes, whoever is--there we go. Got it.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you much.
I just want to point out there was a shut down. I am not
going to take sides on it. I will just point out it was a shut
down over a wall.
You showed a little bit of partisan coloring there because
some people, of course, blame President Trump and some people
would blame my colleagues next door for not agreeing to fund
the wall.
[The side] upon which side you are on [determines] who you
blame for that. I would argue that they were both equally at
fault, not one more than the other.
But okay, now I will give another question here. In
general, and I guess this is for Ms. Conrad, when it comes to
people leaving employment and get a lot of statistics comparing
the private sector to the public sector, percentage wise, say,
if you are in your 30's, your 40's and your 50's, are there
statistics available as to who is more likely to switch jobs or
leave employment--the Federal employee or the private sector
employee?
Ms. Conrad. Sure. So we could followup and get you that
information. I am happy to do that. I don't have it in front of
me right now.
But what I will say is that we do know that this next
generation that is coming in to public service and actually
just coming into the work force, more broadly, that they are
really interested in having mobile careers. They are likely to
move around and be in multiple jobs rather than first----
Mr. Grothman. Well, that is okay. You don't know the answer
to that question. You don't--you don't know. Okay.
I will give a question to Ms. Greszler. According to a 2018
Federal employees viewpoint survey, only 28 percent of
employees believe sufficient steps are being taken to deal with
underperforming employees who cannot or will not improve.
Do you have any suggestions for Congress how we can--and I
have heard this from people working in the government--what we
can do to restore faith?
It is very difficult if you are a hardworking person doing
everything right to see the guy next to you or gal next to you
not doing as much, nothing happens. Do you have any
suggestions?
Ms. Greszler. Yes. I am glad you brought that up because I
have talked to a number of managers--Federal managers--that
have explained how difficult it is for them when they have an
employee who is kind of dragging down everybody else by not
doing their job or refusing to follow the agency's mission.
The process takes so long. It is so burdensome. These
managers come in and they say, I am going to do the right
thing. I am going to try and get the right employees in here
who are willing to fulfill the agency's mission.
They try to get rid of somebody. It takes a year and a
half, on average. It takes hundreds of hours of their time and
they simply give up because they can't do their own job because
it takes so much time to comply with these lawsuit--not
lawsuits but appeals processes.
So one of the easiest ways to fix that would be to require
employees to choose just one venue for an appeal if they have
been dismissed. Currently, they can pick three out of our
different venues and they can go from one to the next to the
next to drag on the process.
In the end, the decision almost always ends up being what
it initially was, but it just takes the time and that deters
managers from ever trying to dismiss a problematic employee.
Some other recommendations there were just lowering the
burden of proof. Currently, it is a preponderance of evidence.
You could reduce that to substantial evidence.
Also, increasing the probationary period just would give
managers more than just one year to determine whether or not
that employee is a good fit, but making it more than three
years, and that could be better for the worker as well, kind of
giving them an opportunity to test that out.
Then just expediting the dismissal process. If you have a
particularly egregious case of a Federal employee who has posed
a threat, who has intimidated other workers, that employee
should have a quicker process to be dismissed.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
Next question, could you comment on, like, the average age
of retirement or the number of people? I think we have a lot of
people out there right now in their late 50's or 60's who still
have a lot to give society.
Is the Federal Government doing anything to find a way to
hire them or bring them in, or could you comment on that?
Actually, Ms. Conrad, I guess, is the one who should
probably know.
Ms. Conrad. Thank you. Yes.
So I do know that Congress has given authorities to
agencies to use authorities such as phased retirement programs
and there are great opportunities out there for those types of
programs where then current Federal employees are going to be--
--
Mr. Grothman. No, not current Federal employees. There are
a lot of people out there looking for a job in their late 50's
and 60's.
Ms. Conrad. Who are interested in coming in and----
Mr. Grothman. Can we use any? Is there any----
Ms. Conrad. Yes. So there are different types of
authorities that agencies can use to bring talent in for short
term. So you can think about the U.S. Digital Service. They
have a program. There is the ATNF program. So these are
different authorities----
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
Ms. Conrad [continuing]. that could come, bring down and--
--
Mr. Grothman. One more quick question. Do we have any
statistics for average age of retirement private sector versus
Federal Government?
Ms. Conrad. Sure. We can followup with those specific
points. I don't have them in front of me right now.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you all for appearing and I would like
to thank my chairman for giving me some extra time.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Grothman.
The chair now--well, just one thing. Mr. Reardon, don't be
afraid of being critical of the administration. There is
nothing wrong with that, from this chairman's point of view.
Some may take that as partisan but I think all of us are
subject to criticism and if you are in charge of the government
you are going to take some hits and justifiably so.
So we don't want to discourage constructive criticism.
Thank you.
The chair recognizes the distinguished gentlelady from the
District of Columbia, my friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Chairman Connolly.
First of all, I have to thank you for holding the hearing.
This is the first hearing I can remember--it shows how long it
has been--where we took a wide-eyed view of the Federal work
force, which, in some ways, is collapsing before our very eyes.
I don't think the public would want that to happen. Before
I ask my questions, and I could have asked for time to speak so
I hope you will give me this time because I have chosen your
hearing in order to introduce a bill to provide short-term
disability insurance for Federal employees.
We know that they have long-term disability insurance. That
is very important. But, amazingly, Federal employees do not
have short-term disability insurance until they have been at
least 18 months employed.
If they become pregnant, develop a pregnancy-related issue,
have a short-term disability, it seems to me that one of the
things we want to do is to keep with at least to where the
Federal Government often is, and my bill would say that an
employee would have to pay for it.
The way I got this idea, frankly, was talking to Federal
employees who were paying for it. There are some who are paying
for short-term disability as I speak but without a group rate.
So I intend to work hard to try to get this bill passed and
ask that the chairman give us some priority on that.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentlelady and I would simply
underscore it is in addition to the examples you gave. If you
have an accident and you have to be out of work to have surgery
and physical therapy, that is not a long-term chronic condition
but it may require a few months and you do need short-term
disability when you are out on a leave.
So there are lots of exigent circumstances, I think, where
we need that kind of consideration. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. I certainly appreciate that. I think you seldom
find people buying insurance on their own and paying for it. It
tells you everything about the need.
I am very troubled by this age gap. I think the Federal
work force is withering away, and they are going to other
occupations, particularly technical occupations, which provide
no benefits.
Federal Government does at least provide that. I am
concerned with what is maybe causing that, especially
considering that there are some ways in which the Federal
Government is superior as an employer.
So my figures show me that five times--there are five times
as many people in the government's IT occupation over 60 than
under 30. That is what I mean by dying out.
Perhaps you, Mr. Goldenkoff, could tell us what risks the
Federal Government faces if we fail to recruit the young people
for whom IT is almost a second language.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sure. Well, thank you for that question.
I think I know the data that you are referring to and it
makes a very interesting graphic if you look at it visually. If
you look at the IT work force, it is getting older. But at the
same time, the percentage of younger IT workers in the Federal
Government is going down.
So there has been this increasing gap in the middle as
these two lines separate from one another and I think you hit
the nail right on the head.
One of the risks there is it is less effective more costly
government. At the end of the day, the capacity of the Federal
work force needs to equal the demands of the mission and when
that equation goes out of whack, bad things happen.
The work needs to get done one way or the other. So it
means that the Federal Government may need to bring in more
contractors and that is going to cost money.
In some cases, the quality of the work goes down. Some
cases the work--the timing of the work it gets slowed down.
So----
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Goldenkoff, let me--let me followup
on that. We do have a lot of contractors and those contractors
are on their own. They don't have any benefits. They don't have
any sick leave.
So we are not only diminishing the Federal work force but
we are giving them so few benefits why come at all?
One of the reasons that you wanted to come to be a civil
servant is the benefits. So if you don't get that--and the pay
isn't the equal to where it is in the private sector--why
shouldn't people go elsewhere as, apparently, they are?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Okay.
Ms. Norton. In other words, I am questioning whether
contractors are a solution to this dilemma since we have so
many contractors in the Federal Government always.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Yes. I mean, it depends on the nature of
the work and, you know, and this is what Federal agencies need
to think about and that is their total work force--what jobs
are best suited to be performed by career Federal employees--
what jobs are best performed by others.
So you don't want that to be your default strategy because
you have no other alternatives and that is what could happen if
we--because of a failure to get younger people into the civil
service if that talent pipeline suddenly stops or turns into a
trickle.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with you after this
hearing the possibility of more aggressive outreach by the
Federal Government, perhaps a bill that would instruct OPM to
report to us on an outreach program.
Maybe it won't say we are the best and brightest when it
comes to benefits, but I don't believe the Federal Government
is recruiting. I just think it says, okay, if you are here we
will look at you and see whether we should hire you.
If they are going to compete with the private sector, it
seems to me they got to be out there with the private sector
trying to get the best workers.
Mr. Connolly. Well said.
Mr. Reardon, you looked like you were----
Mr. Reardon. I was.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. thirsty to want to respond to
that.
Mr. Reardon. I was. Thank you.
You know, on this issue, I think it is--I think it is
important that we make certain that, you know, the folks that
we want to bring in to Federal service--well, let me say it
this way.
Our best recruiters should be and I think could be our
current Federal employees, and let me give you an example. So
at CBP NTEU I represent the employees I mentioned earlier in
our ports of entry--land border, airport, seaports, so on and
so forth.
We are short in this country 3,300 CBP officers across the
country. I will tell you that I deal with those folks all the
time and they love their mission and they love their country.
Most of them that I speak to, or at least many of them--let
me say it that way--many of them will not go home and tell
their sons or their--or their cousins or their best friends to
come to work at CBP.
The reason they won't is because not--not because of pay.
It is because we don't have enough of them so the staffing is
short, and what they end up having to do is they end up being
sent on 60-day or 30-day TDYs to different parts of the
country. They end up having to work 16-hour days day after day
after day.
So my point is this. We have got to make sure that we are
taking care of our current Federal employees because they are
the ones who are, in large measure, going to be able to go out
and tell people, you got to come work for the Federal
Government--this is the place to be.
Mr. Connolly. You have also underscored we do need to take
care of our current Federal employees. But in the 16-hour
workdays in the conditions you describe, the only ultimate
answer to that is more of them to share the burden, and that
comes back to the whole question of recruitment and retention.
I think that gets more difficult, not easier, as we move out
generationally.
A rule--a strict juridical rules-based Federal workplace is
not going to work with the millennial generation.
We are going to have to reimagine how we do that while
protecting people's rights that we worked so hard to build. But
how do we build a work force and a workplace of the future that
can compete for employees--talented employees, and I think that
is really our big question.
I would be glad to work with you, Ms. Eleanor Holmes
Norton, in trying to reimagine that.
I now call on my good friend from one of the Carolinas.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connolly. Which one am I calling on? All right.
Mr. Norman from South Carolina?
Mr. Norman. Thank you to each one of you for taking the
time to come.
Ms. Greszler, I think I understood you right to say that in
an effort to get pay up you would eliminate performance
standards. Is that right?
Ms. Greszler. No. I think--so you would need to increase
the performance-based pay increases. Instead of having it just
be a de facto 99.9 percent of Federal employees get a pay raise
simply because of their tenure, we need to be using true
performance-based pay raises more frequently.
Mr. Norman. Okay. So the standards you are in favor of
leaving, having performance standards like the private sector
does--having that in place that would benefit?
Ms. Greszler. I think managers need more flexibility to be
able to give true quality pay raises.
Mr. Norman. Now, I think you were--tell me if I am wrong--
that you referred to a study by the CBO that said the pay for
government employees was less than the private sector.
Is that right?
Ms. Greszler. That is for people with professional and
master's degrees. Their overall compensation is 18 percent
lower and their pay is also slightly lower. I believe it is
three percent lower at that level.
Mr. Norman. But at all levels across the board, am I
right--I mean, you agree with the study that overall it is
higher than----
Ms. Greszler. Overall, it is higher. Both the compensation
and the pay are, overall, higher on average.
Mr. Norman. Okay. How would you suggest on pay raises--what
is it based on now? Because we--again, as I told you, we hire
people a lot from government.
They are fed up with the hierarchy, people not getting--
and, Mr. Reardon, to get back to your point, the--a lot of them
were just upset with the bureaucracy of the interoffice play
that they have to deal with.
That is why they get--a lot of them get out. It is not
because of pay. It is not because of retirement benefits. It is
really not because of the job, but it is this thing with
elevating people who either don't deserve, in their mind, or
for other reasons. How would you respond?
Ms. Greszler. Well, as I say, there is just this GS scale.
A grade in your step and you just march up it based on the
number of years that you have been there.
You come in at a certain position and so it is pretty clear
on day one how long it will take you to get whatever level you
want to get to, and I think that we should have some more
flexibility. There are actually tools available to manager
currently but they are just not used that frequently. Whether
it is moving an employee up more quickly than is scheduled,
which is currently anywhere between one and three years.
But they are not utilizing the tools and that might be
because it is difficult. I don't know if there is pushback from
unions that don't want to see certain employees moved up over
other ones. I am not quite sure what the reason that we are not
using true performance-based measures is.
Mr. Norman. Are internal surveys used?
Ms. Greszler. I don't know if they are used within the
agencies. I just know of the overall government satisfaction
survey.
Mr. Norman. Let me tell you one thing you may want to in
your role look at. In the private sector, particularly banks,
you want to weed out the weak performers, do a outside internal
survey where it can't get back to the supervisor. It is from an
outside agency.
They will tell you exactly who is not performing the job
and they will tell you why. They will give you examples. A
well-worded survey is worth gold in the private sector. I have
never heard of it in the--in the government sector, and it
should be.
Anybody else have any comments to that? Mr. Reardon?
Mr. Reardon. Yes, I do. Thank you.
The first thing that I wanted to touch on was the--this
whole notion of the study that was done by the Congressional
Budget Office, which, as I recall, says that Federal employees
are paid 17 percent, on average across the board, more than
those in the private sector.
I would just tell you that I think the methodology that is
used in that Congressional Budget Office model is inaccurate or
it is not really the right way to look at it.
Mr. Norman. How would you change it?
Mr. Reardon. Well, I think--I think the methodology that is
used by the Department of Labor is actually the right one and
here is why.
The CBO really looks at things like, you know, what is
somebody's educational level that they have attained. You know,
it looks at some other things pursuant to that individual.
What the--what the Department of Labor study looks at is a
comparison from actual job duties in the Federal sector to
actual job duties in the private sector. So it is kind of an
apples to apples comparison.
So what the president's pay agent say--Department of
Labor--what they said was that in fact Federal employees are
paid 32.4 percent lower than their private sector counterparts.
So I think--I think that is important. In terms of the GS
schedule--I just wanted to quickly touch on that and the whole
issue of it being so difficult to get rid of Federal
employees--I don't actually think it is all that difficult.
The tools are there. Here is the problem, from my
perspective and talking to a lot of Federal employees. The
problem is that managers are not trained to deal with those
problem employees, and I just point to, for example, back in
about 2013 or 1914, I think it was, if you look at one of the
agencies where we represent employees is the Internal Revenue
Service.
In that agency in one of those years--I don't remember the
exact one so please don't quote me on it--but there was an 85
percent cut in training.
Well, these managers have to be trained. You don't just
show up in the workplace knowing how to--knowing how to
effectively manage people and lead people.
So I think it is important that we really look at managing
folks. In terms of the GS schedule itself, managers have the
ability to withhold a within grade increase or a career ladder
increase. They can simply withhold it.
I think there are ways to, if you have a really--a really
high performer you can certainly utilize a quality step
increase to get them more money.
The problem is that in the Federal Government right now I
think the last numbers I saw is that there are something on the
order of three percent of Federal employees who are provided a
quality step increase.
So I think there are some of those flexibilities that are--
that are available. It takes money to actually utilize those.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Reardon.
Did you want to comment, Mr. Goldenkoff?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sure. Well, a couple of things.
I mean, GAO----
Mr. Connolly. You don't have to.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Oh, well----
Mr. Connolly. You look like you wanted to.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, just to maybe build on some points
here. One is that we did look at six different pay studies that
were done several years ago comparing private sector and
Federal Government pay. They all said different things.
So our finding on that was not that any one study was
wrong. It is just that they looked at--they used different
methodologies, as was mentioned. They had different
assumptions.
So you can't take one study and think of it in isolation
and say that is the final word on which sector gets paid more.
But the other thing I just want to mention here because it
kind of links the two thoughts here by Ms. Greszler and Mr.
Reardon, which is that, you know, pay increases.
GAO would agree that pay should be more performance
oriented and the way pay increases are done now a lot of it is
not performance based.
So what happens is that in order to get--once you top out
within a grade sometimes in order to get to higher salary
levels and keep people agencies have no choice but to promote
them into supervisory positions and that gets into the point
that Mr. Reardon was making, which was that we don't have good
supervisors, you know, because they are maybe good at their
technical jobs but they don't have the skills to actually lead
and inspire and engage people and they also don't know how to
do proper performance management.
So a lot of this, my point is, is that it is all marbled
together and so we just can't pull any one thing out and look
at it separate and say, oh, that is the problem--let us just
deal with that. It all needs to be considered comprehensively
and holistically.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
I will simply say intuitively we--I think any one of us who
came from the private sector would say it is going to be hard
to hire lawyers when the private sector or law firm can command
X and we can only go up to Y--at least good lawyers.
I can tell you, you know, we have wonderful attorneys
within the Federal Government but we also--you know, I can
remember friends who would observe about, for example, Supreme
Court cases where the people are being outgunned by incredibly
educated smart well-off highly resourced private sector
attorneys, and we do the best we can. Not to disparage the
public but, I mean, we just--we can't compete with it.
When it comes to technology, Mr. Meadows and I have done a
lot of work in that area on this committee and subcommittee,
and I can tell you that the--you know, the generational thing
really matters when we come to IT because, you know, certain
age level and, you know, you were born to technology like fish
are born to water.
And if we are not competing in that realm with that talent
pool it affects everything we do, including--like Mr. Meadows
and I have looked at the large RPs.
Even having the technical know-how to translate the terms
of reference into the correct language to get the technology or
the system or software we need is a challenge and we have to
rely on the private sector to help us do that.
You can go down the list of professions, increasingly, that
require high skills and our ability to compete both because of
this juridical rules-based work environment the lack of cogent
benefits that Ms. Norton and others have referenced and the pay
scale.
So simply lumping everyone together, as Mr. Reardon says,
is not all that helpful. It is let us disaggregate categories
we know we are going to need--scientists and technologists and
the like--and try to figure out how we--how we be competitive
as we move forward.
I took more time than I should have but I was amplifying on
what--I think your point is well taken. You can't just lump
them together.
You really have to disaggregate and I think as we move
forward we are going to have to prioritize, pending some
comprehensive re-do, restructure of the whole system.
Mr. Meadows?
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank all of you
for your testimony. So, I was interested in the back and forth
between you, Mr. Reardon, and Ms. Greszler in terms of just
your perspective.
So, Mr. Reardon, would you support something that truly
reformed our GS scale where it says, all right, we are not
going to just do these levels with this step increase--that we
truly make it performance-based?
Because you were saying that a lot of times they don't
actually get an extra amount of money based on performance. You
know, they will get their normal step increases.
So, is that something that you think the unions could
support? Because it would fundamentally change the way that we
do things and it scares people.
So, I am asking a just--it is not an I gotcha question. It
is, literally, one of those that is it worth pursuing.
Mr. Reardon. Well, so thank you for that question, Mr.
Ranking Member.
You know, from my perspective, we have got a system in
place and I think, if utilized properly, it would work. But we
don't utilize it properly.
What I would like to see is that--for example, I mentioned
the quality step increases, which puts right now extra money in
people's pockets if a manager and the agency determines that
that person is such a high performer that they deserve another
step.
Mr. Meadows. But you have that in a way right now because
you have bonuses that you can give that are exceptional bonuses
that are allowed to be given and so there is maybe not an
incentive there to do that.
But we have that ability. But what happens is if 70 percent
of your work force knows that if I just show up and I am, you
know, breathing then I am going to get this next step and it
has nothing to do with performance, which Ms. Conrad's surveys
would suggest that the majority of your--you know, I looked at
actually the workers that you represent.
So the majority of the workers you represent believe that
they are not getting increase based on performance. Did you
realize that?
Mr. Reardon. Well, I certainly expect that there are some
who----
Mr. Meadows. No. No. I am saying across the board the
majority of your employees who--you know, if you look at it as
an aggregate, they don't believe that they are getting paid
according to their performance--the ones that you represent.
Mr. Reardon. Well, and I will tell you that I think in
large measure what that comes down to, and I am going to use an
actual example so that, you know, we are talking about
something specific.
If you look, for example, at the Internal Revenue Service,
up until 2014, I believe it was, 14 percent--13 to 14 percent--
of the bargaining unit employees, the people who can belong to
NTEU----
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Reardon [continuing]. received a quality step increase.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Reardon. Okay. So they--so instead of being a grade 12
step--a grade 12 step nine, they became a grade 12 step 10 or
whatever. But they got an additional----
Mr. Meadows. Step increase. Yes, I got it.
Mr. Reardon. Okay. So and the only way that they get that
is if the agency determines that they are a high performer and
are deserving of that.
So 14--13 to 14 percent several years ago in the IRS got
that. Right now, I believe the last numbers I saw is it is
somewhere in the neighborhood of three to four percent.
So I don't believe that we are actually utilizing some of
the tools that are already there.
Mr. Meadows. So I will give you that. So I go back to the
previous surveys when you are at your 14 percent. When was
that?
Mr. Reardon. I think it was 2013, 2014--in that
neighborhood.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So you are same employees were still
saying at a very similar level to where they are now that they
weren't getting recognized based on their performance.
So whether it is three percent, 12 percent--I guess what I
am getting at is when you have these certain steps and they are
not based on merit, it becomes a demotivator and I think you
can see the surveys that we get that would suggest even within
your covered employees they are demotivators.
So how do we fix that? If you are saying, listen, all I
want is a little bit more money at the top--that would fix it
for you--that is good. At least we know not to embark on it.
But if you fundamentally want to change, I am one of the
few Republicans who are willing to say that I want you to be
paid. I want to attract new workers. I am willing to invest
dollars to reform it and make it work.
I am also willing to hold harmless to make sure that people
are not getting penalized because we are going through a
reorganization to do that. But if that is just barking up the
wrong tree I need to know that.
Mr. Reardon. Right. Well, I mean, I appreciate----
Mr. Meadows. So is it barking up the wrong tree?
Mr. Reardon. It may be.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. I will yield back.
Mr. Reardon. So but here--but let me--no, but let me be
clear. You know, I never say, without knowing all the facts----
Mr. Meadows. No, I get that. But----
Mr. Reardon. Hold on. I mean, I am willing to listen. I am
absolutely willing to listen. But what I am telling--what I am,
you know, passing along to you is that my members, and I
personally believe that there is a system in place that would
work if it was properly utilized.
Mr. Meadows. Yes. See, and that is where probably
fundamentally we disagree, but that is okay.
Mr. Reardon. Okay.
Mr. Meadows. I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
As he knows, based on my own experience both in the public
sector and private sector, you have got to have incentives and
you also have to have disincentives. You have got to recognize
performance from nonperformance.
Example--I worked for a company once in the private
sector--because, believe me, not all is perfect in the private
sector--and my experience has been most managers would rather
put their head through a pencil sharpener than to have to
actually evaluate performance and nonperformance.
They really hate it. Some managers relish it but most
don't, because I got to--it is personal. You know, I got this
little division or even big one and it is Harriet or Joe. It is
not some nameless figure and I got to live with calling him or
her out as a nonperformer or under performer.
And, all right, I can remember one year there was a bonus
pool for one of our divisions or departments--we had four. I
won't name it.
The head of that division, a very skilled, technically
competent, highly educated man, just did not want to have to
make decisions--qualitative decisions about who got a bonus and
how much and who didn't.
So he took it out, divvied it up, and gave $250 to every
member of the department. Now, what was wrong with that? Well,
it absolutely refuses to distinguish the star performers from
the adequate or even subpar performers, and you can imagine the
impact on morale and productivity when you do something like
that.
So the person who comes in early and stays late, volunteers
for everything, often comes in on the weekends on his or her
own to finish a project or the one who comes up with new ideas,
the one who is the team player and is always also building
social events to just help glue people together, she gets the
same $250 as that clunker who literally is a clock watcher,
doesn't care, hasn't had a new idea in 20 years, just does the
job to the letter and no more.
I am not going to distinguish between those two. When I
give you both the same bonus I am saying as a manager I see you
both as the same. And writ large, at some point the Federal
Government has got to look at, while protecting people, making
sure their rights are protected which I think is what holds us
back.
There has been a history of violation of people's rights
and it makes it very difficult for anyone to want to change
those rules until, as Mr. Reardon said, we see what comes next
in advance.
But, on the other hand, we have to look at performance for
the Federal work force of the future. By the way, that
Millennial generation we want to recruit from expects us to do
that.
I mean, that is going to be just a kind of given and I
think that will put more pressure on us to adjust to the
future.
I see you are shaking your head, Ms. Conrad, and then I am
going to close the hearing.
Ms. Conrad. I just wanted to respond to a couple things
that you mentioned earlier.
So, first of all, you talked about the difficulty of
attracting lawyers to government or IT specialists, and I
wanted to share that, you know, we are supportive of a more
market-sensitive approach to compensation and we hope that is
something that we can have a conversation about because it is
very difficult to compete for talent in some of those, you
know, high-skill fields in government and it is something that
is really important to address.
I also just wanted to mention that----
Mr. Connolly. Can I just interpret?
Ms. Conrad. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Those who assert this number that--I don't
know, 34 percent better pay or 17 percent or whatever it is--if
that were really true, we wouldn't have a recruitment problem
at all. People would be flocking to want to work for the
Federal Government.
Mr. Reardon's example of CPB wouldn't exist because, of
course, those 3,300 positions would be filled because we are
paying 17 or 34 percent more than the private sector. I mean,
it is just--upon examination that can't be true on its face.
Maybe some positions, but certainly not the ones we are
trying to fill. And I interrupted you. I am sorry.
Ms. Conrad. No. No. No. I would just--thank you--I would
just argue that we need to look at compensation. We need to
look at performance management. But, ultimately, this all
starts with hiring.
I mean, this is all about how do we make sure we are
getting the right people in the door in the first place? How do
we make sure that we are recruiting the right people and then
how do we develop good leaders?
How do we make sure we have the manager training? How do we
make sure that there are growth opportunities? And another
issue we haven't talked about today is the probationary period,
making sure that, you know, there are some proposals to
lengthen it but it is also just about how you use it and making
sure there is an affirmative decision at the end of the
probationary period to keep that person on and move into the
civil service.
So I just wanted to flag those issues as well.
Mr. Connolly. Yes, that is a good one because in the
previous Congress some of our colleagues looked at trying to
extend the probationary period to two years.
I pointed out for those who say we want to run government
like a company I am not aware of a single company that would
have a two-year probationary period and if they did they
wouldn't be able to hire anybody.
I worked in the private sector for 20 years for two major
companies. It just--but that didn't stop some people from
proposing it, which would make the job we are talking about
today all the harder.
Did you want to comment, Mr. Goldenkoff? Okay.
Did you? Yes, Ms. Greszler?
Ms. Greszler. If I could just make one final comment, that
something I see as kind of low-hanging fruit in the way that we
can help recruit workers and that is there is--there are
differences in compensation and pay.
But I think that part of the reason it is hard to attract
workers is that a lot of the compensation is tied up in
benefits, primarily retirement.
If workers just have the option to take what goes into
their pension--there are studies that show workers value
pensions at $.19 on the dollar.
If you had an option--you are earning $50,000 right out of
college and you have $5,000 going into a pension that you don't
know if you are ever going to see because you might not work
for five years. It is 30 years off--if you could take that in
pay instead.
These are people who have student loans. They might be
wanting to buy a home. They have childcare expenses. Just
having that option to increase the pay. It is not just the
Millennials who are job hopping and have these higher expenses.
It is the lawyers.
If we are talking about a $150,000 salary, that is $15,000.
It is the older workers who might be 55 and think, I am not
going to be in there long enough to vest into the pension but
if I could take that as cash instead. So this is something I
think across the board would help recruit workers.
Mr. Connolly. Good point. At least being flexible about it.
I mean, I am always telling young people I know it seems like
it is eternity, but you would be amazed at how quickly you
approach retirement and you want to start early.
Mr. Meadows. Amen.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connolly. Right. You want to start early. So but
staying flexible I think is the point you are making and I
agree.
Can I make one final inquiry or invitation? And I also want
to include my ranking member in this because he and I have
collaborated on a lot of what we think are kind of good
government things that never get any attention in terms of
bipartisan cooperation. But we do it all the time and we want
to do more of it.
One of the ones I want to put on the table is what I
mentioned in my opening statement. It has struck me how
inadequate the Federal Government uses internships, and I just
look at--like, here is one statistic that just really leapt out
at me my staff gave me.
So in 2010, new hires of interns--student interns--were,
roughly, 35,000. Eight years later, that fell to 4,000. Now, I
can tell you in good companies, you know, those numbers would
be reversed. They are going up, and it is a very high
percentage of people.
Now, they often have really robust screening programs. I
know one company goes to universities. It is a status symbol to
be able to say, they hired me as an intern, knowing that your
future is also ahead of you and guaranteed if you want it.
If you are an intern with company X, you almost certainly,
unless you mess up, you will be given a job offer and off you
go to the races. We don't do that at the Federal Government.
When I looked at this a few years ago when I first got
here, I mean, I was shocked there is no systematic mentorship.
There is no guaranteed rotation around an agency so you get
exposed to the different missions and maybe pick one you like.
There is no debriefing or exit interview when you had your
internship to make sure it went well. There are no criteria for
what happens.
As a result, as you might expect, very low percentage of
interns--Federal interns--end up joining the Federal work
force.
Now, this is one right in front of us, right. We don't have
to go to anywhere. They are interning and that is, it seems to
me, our first resource and yet we are not using it.
That is something I would like to correct and I welcome all
four of you to share in more depth, and Ms. Conrad, you did
address it explicitly.
But it is--to me, it is at least something we could
influence and to the positive and learn from--how the private
sector does it and does it well.
I welcome all four of you giving us your thoughts on that
as we think about maybe a legislative remedy to make it more
effective.
Ms. Conrad. Can I----
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
Ms. Conrad. I want to just quickly respond to that, Mr.
Chairman, and share that I think one of the biggest challenges
that agencies are facing are around work force planning and
they are not making internships a key part of their work force
planning. They are not setting aside the FTE slots for interns
and for recent grads and so I think that is one of the key
areas.
Then I would also say that we need to really be focusing on
figuring out how government can compete with other sectors.
So the private sector is on campus in the fall and they are
making internship offers in the fall for the next summer, and
they can do them on the spot and government can't do that.
There are not that many agencies on campus in the fall.
Many are recruiting in the spring when other offers have
already been made and they are not able to do the on-the-spot
offer.
So I think we need to look at how to open up this system to
make it easier for interns to be able to come into government.
Mr. Connolly. Yes, but let me tell you, when we have looked
at--just anecdotally, not empirically because we don't really
have such data--but I am barely exaggerating some of the
reactions when they did do exit interviews, that the experience
was so wretched. You know, I would rather spend time in a
Taliban prison camp than return to Federal service.
That is how bad the experience was, and that is a signal
failure. I mean, better you not have a program. But it is also
just a waste of a resource in our command that we could use to
help us a little bit.
It doesn't solve everything but it is ready at our command
and we are not using it.
So did you want to comment?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Yes. No, these are all excellent points and
agencies can and should be taking greater advantage of
internships. It is an excellent way of building a pipeline into
government.
An important factor, though, is that it would be more
helpful if interns could be converted noncompetitively to
permanent career employees. That is no longer the case in many
instances.
GAO--we make extensive use of internships. As a matter of
fact, myself and my whole team here--shout out to my team--we
all started our service in the Federal Government as interns.
I started at GAO 30 years ago as an intern, then later
became a Presidential management intern. We have a current
intern with us, Tarenda--she is from Howard University--and my
two other colleagues, Allison and Shelby, also came in as
interns. The way--so GAO--we do it through effective campus
recruiting.
We build that as a brand on college campuses and so may get
to this in a separate discussion but we do actively recruit on
campus not just as a one-time event.
We build relationships over time so that we just don't
power shoot in when they are having a career fair. You are not
going to get a good response that way.
But we do have at GAO the ability to convert people non
competitively and a big proportion of our work force--of our
entry level work force in any given year came in as interns. We
also give them challenging work to do.
We treat them just like everybody else. We don't just throw
them a copy machine.
Mr. Connolly. I think--and no wonder you have success.
Let me just say, though, what I learned when I innocently
came to this. Like, why aren't we using internships more
creatively, was that there was some history?
And while you all may have used it creatively and well and
to effect, I know Mr. Reardon would remember that in the Bush
years there were some agencies that, under the guise of
internship, back doored people they wanted to place who
otherwise might not be qualified at the expense of people who
were qualified and lost their opportunity to work.
So we have got to make sure it can't be abused if we are
going to make this work. I want the flexibility you described.
But I also want to make sure we avoid sins of the past so
that we can have full confidence, moving forward, that it is a
creative tool we use, not a club we use to punish or favor
certain categories of people by getting around the normal
hiring process.
Mr. Reardon?
Mr. Reardon. I would also just add to that that, you know,
I would hope that we would make sure we pay attention to
veterans preference and not, you know, lose the importance of
that as well.
Mr. Connolly. That is right.
Listen, I want to thank all four of you. Thanks so much. I
think this is an important discussion that may be--very well be
one of a series we end up having because we have got to figure
out the future and one hearing doesn't do it.
But I really thank you all for the thought you put into
your testimony and I invite you, as I said, for followup in
terms of plans of action.
The specific one I give you is internships--how can we
better, more creatively, make it work for us in the recruitment
challenge we face and in filling some of the ranks we have
talked about that go sort of begging and do a better job, or
begin to look more like how the private sector succeeds than
how we look right now.
I thank you all so much. This hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]