59

Chairman BUNNING. I would like to draw a few conclusions from
the GAO report. I point to the charts showing that since President
Clinton implemented his “Partnership Agreement,” and Executive
order, funding for union activity at SSA has more than doubled,
going from $6 million to $12.6 million.

The money to pay Social Security employees who work full time
on union activities comes out of the Social Security Trust Fund, the
Medicare Trust Fund and General Fund. More than 65 percent,
comes out of the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare
Trust Fund. Our senior citizens understand it is our responsibility
to protect that money and they know how concerned we are.

Tam not quite sure that the money should come out of the Social
Security Trust Funds. I would suggest to SSA that they look at this
in negotiations of the new contract that is coming up, because it
is in my opinion and the opinion of some Members of this Sub-
committee that if this t; of practice continues, that the Social Se-
curity Subcommittee will look at legislation to do a better job of
protecting the Social Security Trust Funds and the Medicare Trust

‘unds.

If anybody else would like to have a closing statement they may.
Mr. Portman.

Mr. PorTMAN. I have a quick question for you. That is, if Mr.
Mastriani is interested in coming to the table, I am just getting
started here. I would like to hear him and have an opportunity to
question him.

Is it because of our time? I am willing to stay.

Chairman BUNNING. It is because of our time and you were just
a little tardy, Mr. Portman.

Mr. PorTMAN. Is he going to come before us to answer questions?

Chairman BUNNING. You can submit any questions in writing
and he will respond to the Subcommittee in writing.

Mr. PorTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. This Subcommittee is in recess until we re-
ceive the testimony of Commissioner Shirley Chater on this subject.

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to recon-
vene on Thursday, June 27, 1996, at 10 a.m.]


10.

123

rent law our nati i ing o!
official time as long as the time NS deena “esomble nese andi

ublic i t.” WI dete! on wl
When a union official ial ume, what i
he-provied in texms-of the specific aclvuty {nos just category of activity
hat the time will for? Ca it he
ees ft manures nhs ca 3
explain what U low is the disagreem: i

AS you may recall, §7101 of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute states:

The Congress finds that --

(1) experience in both private and public employment indicates
that the statutory protection of the right of employees to
organize, bargain collectively, and participate through
labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions
which affect them --

(A) _ safeguards the public interest,

(B) contributes to the effective conduct of public
business, and

XXX

. Therefore, labor organizations and collective
bargaining in the civil service area is in the public interest.

At SSA, union representatives are required to follow the procedures
outlined below before they use official time:

e Union representatives are required to account for their time-in-
duty status using sign-in/sign-out sheets, other procedures utilized
by employees or other arrangements acceptable to management.

e The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and
implementing case law mandates and/or authorizes official time
for representational activities such as bargaining, third-party
litigation proceedings (arbitrations, Merit Systems Protection


25

Chairman BUNNING. You are telling me that an SSA employee
makes over $80,000 a year and performs full time union represen-
tation, and that the average salary is $42,000?

Ms. Ross. This is the information that we secured from SSA and
that we verified.

Chairman BUNNING. Does that include any fringe benefits, like
pension or health care or any of the other benefits?

Ms. Ross. Those are base salaries. They do not include benefits.

Chairman BUNNING. Who designates these people as union
employees?

Ms. Ross. The union designates people——

Chairman BUNNING. That is also part of the contract between
SSA and the unions that represent employees. The SSA has no say,
except when they negotiate the contract, who is and who is not a
union representative?

Ms. Ross. That is our understanding, that there is a list of peo-
ple that the union is supposed to submit to SSA, but the union
determines who the union representatives will be.

Chairman BUNNING. This will be my last question.

Looking at the GAO chart entitled Social Security Expenditures
for Union Activity, I see that these expenditures have dramatically
increased, beginning in 1993.

What was the date of the Executive order from President
Clinton?

oMs. Ross. The Executive order on Partnership was quite late in
1993.

Chairman BUNNING. October 1, 1993.

Ms. Ross. It sounds like the right date.

Chairman BUNNING. I yield to Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Is it true or false that SSA keeps track of union activity and
work?

Ms. Ross. SSA has a time recording system to account for union
time.

Mr. JOHNSON. How is it that you had to go to the unions then
to find out the time? At least you told us earlier that you got most
of your information from the union itself.

Ms. Ross. If we left you with that impression, it was an incorrect
impression. We got most of our information from the Social
Security Administration, and then we went into the field ourselves
and verified a lot of information.

Mr. JOHNSON. So you are saying that SSA does properly manage
and account for spending from the trust fund for union activities?

Ms. Ross. Maybe I could explain the system to you.

Each union representative is supposed to fill out a form and sub-
mit it to a supervisor before he uses any. time for union activities.
The data from those forms is entered into an automated system.
The forms are then submitted to SSA headquarters biweekly.

For about half of SSA, there is a manual system. The union rep-
resentatives fill out the forms, but they are collected every 6
months and sent to headquarters.

While verifying, we found that there were a great deal more
problems in the manual system than the automated system. The
possibility of records being mislaid in a 6-month period for one.


154

taxpayer. The union collects up to $12 per pay period from each
of its members, accruing millions of dollars each year. It is
those dues which should be used to pay the employees of the
union, not Social Security payroll taxes. If the union had to
use the dues it collects to support union activities at SSA, I
strongly believe that some measure of balance would be restored
at SSA. In the current "Partnership" climate, the unions are in
fact running SSA to the detriment of achieving SSA’s mission to
serve the public.

The General Accounting Office testified before your committee on
June 4, 1996 concerning this issue. In their testimony, GAO
reported that there are 146 employees who currently work full
time for the union and over 1,800 employees who are designated as
part-time union workers. That is, between 25% to 75% of their
working day is designated for union only work and they cannot be
assigned any agency work during that period. The average wages
for employees working for the union is $42,000 per year. GAO was
able to document $12.6 million dollars per year in union support.

I would submit the following for your consideration:

1. Neither the Union nor SSA has a clear idea of how much
time is spent on union activiti Record keeping is very
unreliable and every working manager in SSA today will
probably tell you that the time charged to the union “Bank
Hours" is far, far under reported. The time tracking system
is poorly designed and reports do not reflect all of the
employees’ time spent in union activities. When the union
misreports or under reports their time, challenges by
management go back to the union for their decision on their
own reporting failure. Consequently, AFGE seldom corrects
their reporting problems.

2. GAO’a report to your committee includes expenses only
for the 146 full time employees. It does not include
expenses incurred by over 1,800 part time union employees.
Nor does it include the time or expenses of over one
thousand employees who serve as local stewards and are not
included in the number of part timers listed above,

3. GAO reported that there are over 1,800 designated part
time worke Once again, record keeping in this area is
unreliable because even the union is unsure of how many
employees are actually designated as part time workers.

When an employee is designated as a part timer, management
has very little say in when they spend their time on union
activities and when they will be able to work. When they
are questioned about their time spent, they often respond
with threats of ULPs and grievances. Consequently, they are
rarely challenged and often spend more than their designated
time in union work.

4. If each of the 1,800+ part timers spent only 25% of
in union work, that is the equivalent of over 450
taken out of production, in addition to the 146
full time employees. If the part timers averaged 50% of
their time in union activities, (a more realistic number than
the 25% minimum figure), that is the equivalent of over 900
employees who could be put back into production on behalf of
the taxpayers of America, Nine hundred employees multir ied
1 average of $42,0C- wages per year equals 37.8 mil=2on
ars. This expenditre on union support is far, far -ore
GAO's report of oniy $12.6 million in support,

ated using expensss of the full time union employees
and it does not include all of the before mentio

ise operating expenses SSA pays for the union to condct
Swn business



20.

149

am interested in your reaction ne 25, 1996 Washi:
iece mes Gl: titled "What Can Gov Do?
The American public has repeatedly said that it wants leaner government
that works. Tw if has occurred to you that you may
jeopardizi ures of the 65. loyees at SS. your
conunued efforts to “give away the store" to the unions to the extent tha
thi 1c ma} ne disenchanted with Joa] other

alternatives’
sed on you many visits to the SSA fiel

= "Partnership" causes the public to have
to wait lon: re i vices?

e We disagree that our partnership activities are in any way
jeopardizing the future of our employees. On the contrary, as I
testified before the Subcommittee last year, we look on our
partnership with the union as an important means of advancing
the goal set forth in our Agency Strategic Plan: to create an
environment that ensures a highly skilled, motivated workforce
dedicated to meeting the challenges of SSA's public service
mission. By working with the unions, we involve those of our
employees who are often in the best position to make useful
suggestions about improving service in deciding about things that
need to be done and how we will do them.

e Under our partnership agreement, we have seen our relationship
with the union shift away from a costly and litigious one to a
more cooperative one, involving union representatives in the
decision making process to help craft solutions to better serve our
customers. I believe that this shift has made us a better Agency
and a better provider of service to the American public.

° We also believe it is in SSA's best interest to support the union's
continued participation by funding certain activities, since the
ultimate success of our efforts to improve our operations rests
with the employees who work with them every day.

° The implication that the public is waiting longer for poorer
quality service is unfounded. As one piece of evidence to the
contrary, we would note that an independent survey in 1995
conducted by Dalbar, Incorporated, rated SSA's telephone service
as being the best when compared to companies renowned for
customer service.


COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.
BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois SAM M. GIBBONS, Florida

BILL THOMAS, California CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ANDY JACOBS, Jr., Indiana

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky HAROLD E. FORD, Tennessee

AMO HOUGHTON, New York ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
WALLY HERGER, California BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut.
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
MEL HANCOCK, Missouri SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
DAVE CAMP, Michigan BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DICK ZIMMER, New Jersey GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN LEWIS, Georgia

SAM JOHNSON, Texas. LF. PAYNE, Virginia

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
MAC COLLINS, Georgia MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JIMMY HAYES, Louisiana
GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska
PHILLIP D. MOSELEY, Chief of Staff
JANICE Mays, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky, Chairman

SAM JOHNSON, Texas ANDY JACOBS, JR., Indiana

MAC COLLINS, Georgia BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio LF. PAYNE, Virginia

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts

JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska
MEL HANCOCK, Missouri
GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas

ab


119

. Expansion of the Program Service Center SPIKE Units.
e Implementation of Legislation Agencywide--such as:

. Drug Addiction and Alcoholism;

2 Welfare Reform: Noncitizens and Childhood
Disability Standard Changes; and

LJ Debt Collection

° i i view
Initiatives Agencywide--such as:
. Payment Cycling;
. Focus Groups;
. Reengineering/Streamlining; and
. World Class Service.
‘mplememation of Governmentwide Regulauions Agencywide--such as:
s Early Retirements/Buyout;
. Redeployment Programs;
. Travel Regulations;
. Mandatory Use of American Express Cards;
. Family Friendly Leave Act;
. Voluntary Leave Transfer Program;

. Voluntary Leave Bank; and

. Family and Medical Leave Act.


68

‘STATEMENT OF
DR. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittes

I am here today in response to your invitation to discuss
the use of the Social Security trust funds to pay for employee
union activities, particularly expenditures for salaries and
related expenses of Social Security Administration (SSA)
employees who conduct union business on official time.

At the outset, T would like to clarify several points.

Under tke law, the Social Security Administration pays for
official union time from general revenues and trust fund moneys.
SSA is fully in compliance with the Federal Labor Relations Act
the Social Security Act, and the Internal Revenue Code. Working
in partnership with our employees and their representatives
assures the delivery of quality customer service. For this same
reason, there are many examples of private companies, such as
General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Inland Steel and Armco Steel, who
pay ‘or cfficial union time. During the last several years, SSA
has had many reasons to devote time to labor-management
relations. These activities have ranged from improving security
to ensure employee safety to Congressionally-mandated
streamlining and downsizing the agency by 4500 employees by 1999.

Authority to Pay for Union Expenses

First, it is important to note that all of SSA
administrative expenses are paid for from a combination of funds
derived from the trust funds and from general revenues. In full
compliance with the law, allocation of union official time is
distributed between the trust funds and general revenues in the
same proportion as all SSA administrative expenses. The authority
to devote trust fund dollars to administrative expenses derives
from Section 202{g) (1) of the Social Security Act and Sections
9704 through 9706 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Secondly, SSA is bound by both Federal law and its own
collective bargaining agreements to pay for certain union
expenses. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) codified
a series of executive orders which began in the early 1960s, and
allowed the use of Federal funds to pay for these expenses

SSA employees who serve as representatives of the unions use
what is referred to as “official time" when performing union
representational activities. The first national collective
bargaining agreement which covered official time became effective
on June 11, 1982 when John A. Svahn was SSA Commissioner. Under
the law governing union activities, known as the Labor-Management
Relations Statute, (which was part of the CSRA), official time is
defined as time employees spend acting as union representatives
which they would otherwise spend in duty status and for which an
agency pays the employees as if they were performing their normal
duties. It is important to understand that official time granted
to union representatives to engage in activities on behalf of the
union is deemed to be Agency work.

The Government is required by law to authorize official time
for the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement
including attendance at impasse proceedings. In addition, except
for certain restricted activities specified in the statute,
official time must be granted in any amount the union and
management agree to be necessary, reasonable, and in the public
interest. Other uses of official time include attending formal
meetings at which management discusses conditions of employment
with employees and consulting with management and negcl .ating
memoranda of understanding, also known as impact and
implementation bargaining



152

millions of Americans have placed in the system. We mandate that both the employee and
the employer contribute to trust fund, and promise that their money will only be used to
pay eligible recipients. Now we learn that this money is being used to openly fund union
activities. The fact the cost to SSA for union employees is a small percentage of the total
SSA expenditures does not make it right. I cannot, in good conscience, tell either
working families or retired individuals who rely on Social Security as their sole source of
income that we are using any of their money for union activities, particularly when we
are fully aware that the Social Security Trust Fund will be bankrupt by the time my
children reach retirement age.

Employing individuals who are 100% union representatives is also a disservice to
tbe thousands of honest, hard-working SSA employees. Invariably the efficiency of any
SSA office is lowered when an individual is designated as a union employee. Such an
individual is still considered as an SSA employee despite the fact that they may not be
performing any SSA duties, Consequently, the productivity per employee of that
particular office is lowered by the fact that at least one individual is not contributing to
the designated workload of the office.

Following this statement, please find letters received in my office which further
document these problems. The first letter (Attachment 1) is from Mr. David Mauldin,
who recently retired as the Director of the Social Security Office in Muskogee. The
second letter, with attachments, (Attachment 2) is from Ms. Bettie Hulsey, a current,
long time employee at the Muskogee office. The third letter, with attachments, was sent
by Ms. Virginia Rowan, who recently retired from the Muskogee office, These letters
represent the opinions and experiences of their authors and I ask that they be submitted to
the record.

These problems are not limited to the Social Security offices of Eastern Oklahoma
Apparently, SSA offices throughout the country employ full or part-time union
representatives. Considering the overall impact of this practice, I urge this Congress to
take action, The people of the Second District of Oklahoma and the people of the United
Sates would be outraged if I were to employ, at taxpayer expense, a full time union
representative in my office. They should be equally outraged to learn their local SSA
office not only does this, but that it is perfectly legal.

Given that employing union representatives through the SSA clearly limits the
ability of an office to fully service its clientele, given that it is a clear misuse of the
Social Security Trust Fund, and given that employing union representatives is a disservice
to the actual SSA employees; I suggest that we take immediate action to make such
practices illegal. If SSA employees desire local advocates, they should pay for the
expenses of such a service in the same manner as the private sector - through their union
dues. I am confident in the fact that under such a system SSA employees will receive
more than adequate representation. At the same time we will ensure that our tax dollars
are used only for their designated purpose: the Social Security system,

I would like to thank the Chairman and the members of the Subcommittee for
allowing me this opportunity to comment on this issue. I look forward to the
subcommittee’s findings and I welcome the opportunity to correct this problem.
Faithfully submitted this fourth day of June,

er Gos,

‘Member of Congress

ineteen-hundred and Ninety-six,

Attachments:
1) Letter from David Mauldin
2) Letter from Bettie Hulsey
3) Letter from Virginia Rowan

The attachments are being held In the Subcommittee files.


79

Mr. Dyer. I cannot say that. I know that some probably do spend
up to 25 percent, but it is all over the place. I do not have the fig-
ures and I do not think we have the data collected in detail.

Chairman BUNNING. You do not have the data, you ought to have
the data.

Mr. Dyer. I do not have it here.

Chairman BUNNING. I would request that you furnish that data
to this Subcommittee, of those 1,800 people that are supposed to
be part-time employees.

Mr. Dyer. Right. Well, let me turn to Ruth. Ruth, you are more
familiar with the kind of data we collect.

Ms. PIERCE. Yes. Congressman, we keep records of official time
that is spent. For the 1,800 or so part-time employees that you are
referring to in the field offices, they submit reports that are actu-
ally accumulated in terms of an automated process. We do have
that data, as well as other manual reports which, as the GAO has
indicated in its report, we are going to try to automate, and make
the records more precise, as well.

But, to specifically answer the question as to whether any of the
1,800 employees do spend 25 percent, we are sure some of them do
and some of them spend less time than 25 percent, as well.

Chairman BuNNING. In the 1995 Social Security Administration
Report, Commissioner Chater, the Social Security Administration
reported that 404,000 hours of official or government paid time was
used for union activity. GAO verified that 413,000 hours were used,
an underreported rate of about 2 percent.

However, the GAO audit was very limited in scope. It only cov-
ered half of 1995 and included 5 out of 1,300 offices, 2 out of 37
tele-service centers, 1 out of 137 appeals, and 3 out of the many
components at Baltimore headquarters.

And, just for the record, roughly how many components are there
at the headquarters?

Ms. CHATER. There are seven major components at headquarters.

Chairman BUNNING. Commissioner Chater, how much would the
underreporting rate be if GAO actually audited all of SSA?

Ms. CHATER. I have no idea. I cannot say.

Chairman BUNNING. Ten times, 20 times higher?

Ms. Cuater. I’m sorry?

Chairman BUNNING. Would it be 10, 20, or 30 times higher?

Ms. CHATER. I do not think so.

Ms. PIERCE. Our numbers show 404,000 hours and GAO shows
413,000 hours spent on official time.

Chairman BUNNING. About a 2 percent difference.

Ms. PIERCE. But, when you compare what they did with other
agencies, they did not followup at all, because no records were
kept. But, our records are fairly accurate, and I believe the GAO
report indicated the same.

Chairman BUNNING. No. Those were actual numbers that they
took.

Ms. PIERCE. Yes. But, they were different timeframes, too,
Congressman, if you recall.

Chairman BUNNING. Well, that is not important.

Ms. PIERCE. Well, yes, I think it is.


15

granted official time in connection with other labor/management
activities, as long as the official time was deemed reasonable,
necessary, and in the public interest. The act continued to permit
agencies to provide unions with routine services and facilities at
agency expense. The act prohibited the use of official time for
internal union business, such as solicitatiou of members

‘TIME SPENT ON AND COST OF UNION ACTIVITIES AT SSA

SSA has a national system for reporting time spent on union
activities by union representatives. This system is separate from
the agency's time and attendance and workload reporting systems.
Under this system, union representatives generaily fill out and
submit forms to their supervisors to account for union time. The
hours reported on these forms are then periodically aggregated and
submitted to SSA headquarters for totaling. This time-reporting
system consists of two component systems that cover roughly an
equal number of employees. The first is an automated system that
captures time reported by union representatives working in field
offices, which are the primary point of public contact with SSA,
and at teleservice centers, where calls to SSA‘s national 800
number are answered. The second component is a manual system used
to capture time spent by union representatives at SSA headquarters,
as well as at Program Service Centers, the Office of Hearings and
Appeals, and other components. Neither system is designed to
capture either time spent by management on union-related matters or
the number or names of individuals charging union time.

We conducted a Limited verification of time captured in SSA's
national reporting system at one SSA region and several
headquarters components. By tracing source documents for union
representatives’ time to reported totals in the system, we
discovered additional time not captured by the two systems. These
gaps occurred primarily in the manual system and resulted from
inaccurate reporting from the source documents, overlooked reports
for some union representatives, and uncounted reports for some
organizational units during certain reporting periods. We also
verified that similar procedures were being used at three other
regions, which could result in similar underreporting at these
locations. Figure 1 shows the total time spent at SSA on union
activities, including the additional time we discovered.

Hours
500,000

413000

400,000 -

© Bani/Union-initated Grievances C] Nonbani/Other Activities

Source: SSA national time reports and results of GAO verification.


‘cuine disability review ~.
continuing disability review backlog stands at 3.1 million cases and over " , Office of Heari
Appeals? Who is looking out for the interests of the taxpayers and

; : pion

work at taxpayer expense?

The last few years have been marked by a number of events impacting
on official time, thus resulting in increased expenditures. First, SSA
and AFGE negotiated a new National Agreement in 1993, necessitating
extensive training and orientation for managers and employees, and
union representatives were deeply involved in this process. Second, the
Executive Order 12871 on Partnership was issued in October 1993, and
we began the efforts to establish a viable partnership, necessitating more
union-management consultations, and joint partnership training. Third,
SSA initiatives in response to National Performance Review objectives
of improving customer service necessitated more labor-management
Jealings and interface, via bargaining, partnership activities, and work
‘cams.

SSA has undertaken many initiatives in order to improve its service to
taxpayers (See the attached list of initiatives). Implementation of these
initiatives requires consultation and/or bargaining with union
Tepresentatives under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute.

Attachment


15.

134

. w w
iod?

OF SSA's 65,000 employees, roughly how many were evaluated based

on the new pass-fail appraisal system this year, and of these, how many

sled?

Unfair labor practice charges and grievances represent two distinct
processes. The former concern alleged violations of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute; e.g. failure to provide the union
with an opportunity to bargain over changes in working conditions, and
rarely concern an individual employee matter such as appraisal, the
grievance procedure being the vehicle for dealing with the latter.
Therefore, the decline in unfair labor practices was unrelated to the
change in the appraisal system which occurred in 1995. It is true that the
major issue being grieved prior to 1995 was appraisals, and that the
number of appraisal grievances filed after implementation of the new
appraisal system diminished. Approximately five grievances were filed
during the last appraisal period.

Information reported to date shows that approximately 62,755 employees
were rated under the pass/fail system; of those, six employees were
rated as not in good standing.


14

SSA GOAL: Provide world-class public service

L. SSA will process all initial DI claims within 6 months after onset or
60 days of effective date.

(Results: SSA is off their mark by 50%, with less than a 4% improvement rate since
1992.)

Percent of Initial DI Claims Processed Within 6 Months
After Onset or Within 60 Days of Filing

Percent Goal 100%

1992 1993 1994 1995

Fiscal Year

Source: SSA Accountability Report For Fiscal Year 1995


32

Ms. Ross. Not to my knowledge. Let me—I should supply an
answer for the record on that one.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. My time is up. Maybe another witness can clarify
that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. I would like to welcome the Chairman of
the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Thomas.

You may question.

Mr. THOMAS. I am a former member of the Social Security
Subcommittee—back in 1983 when we restructured it. It is a pleas-
ure to be with you. I want to continue the line of questioning in
a slightly different way.

We have contracts between employer-employee, and obviously
they are limited in what they can negotiate under the contract.

Ms. Ross. Yes.

Mr. THomas. The control of time, bank time versus nonbank
time, is that part of the negotiations? Is that part of the contract?

Ms. Ross. Our understanding is that the contract governs the
amount of bank time or time that will be used for union-initiated
activities.

That is my word; “union-initiated.”

Mr. THOMAS. I understand.

Does this have a statutory basis in the 1978 law? Do you know
when the Civil Service Reform Act was passed?

Ms. Ross. It permits the use of official time for union activities.
The particular way they have done it at SSA has resulted from
their own unique history.

Mr. Tuomas. Fine. Is the amount of time part of the negotiating
process, how much time would be spent on the bank time?

Ms. Ross. Yes, it is, a maximum amount.

Mr. THoMas. A maximum amount. In President Clinton’s
Partnership program, the nonbank time, which is that employee
who works on union activities some of the time, is controlled by
management and so you would have a partnership negotiated be-
tween management and the employee on the nonbank time. You
testified that on the bank time, management does not control when
that is drawn on, spent or carried out; is that correct?

Ms. Ross. Yes.

Mr. Tuomas. So, the partnership as advocated by President
Clinton is only on company time. When those individuals do their
union work, there is no partnership. Those folks control the situa-
tion completely, is that correct, in terms of their time?

Ms. Ross. On the bank time, the union has a much larger role
in initiating the activities.

Mr. THOMAS. You indicated that people who keep track of their
bank time would put as little information down as “x hours,” or
could fill out an option category, a checkoff form as to what they
did during those hours.

Ms. Ross. They are supposed to fill that out.

Mr. Tuomas. Is that negotiated or is that a voluntary one on the
part of the union, the checkoff list of activities?

Mr. MILLER. I do not think that it is required. The terms “bank”
and “nonbank” only apply to field office facilities. They do not apply


103

Ms. CHATER. We will check on all of that and let you know.

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, we would appreciate you responding to the
Subcommittee with that information when you get it.

Thank you very much.

[The following was subsequently received:]

Our records indicate that no full time union representatives have received per-
formance based awards in 1996.

The types of cash (or cash-equivalent) awards given by SSA are:

*Commendable Act of Service Award, given to groups or individuals for signifi-
cant accomplishments or contributions which have promoted the mission of the
agency;

.  Hecognition of Contribution Award, given to employees who have maintained
high quality performance throughout the assessment cycle;

¢On-the-Spot Award, given for singular or noteworthy accomplishments; and

«Time Off Award, also granted for singular accomplishment.

All administrative expenses, including awards, are allocated based on SSA's cost
allocation formula to SSA’s various funding sources, including the trust funds and
general revenues. For fiscal year 1995, about two-thirds of SSA’s administrative ex-
penses were charged to the trust funds (Old Age and Survivors Insurance, Disability
Insurance, and Medicare Insurance Trust Funds) and one-third to the general fund.

Chairman BUNNING. Last but not least, I wrote you 2 days ago
and asked you for a list of the full time employees, union employ-
ees and their awards up until now.

Ms. CHATER. Yes.

Chairman BUNNING. And your office has not produced that. It
seems to me that would be a very easy list to produce. If you know
who they are. I do not have any problem with my payrolls in my
offices knowing exactly what I pay my people. You just happen to
have a few more.

But, there are only 146 that I am interested in. So, can I count
on you to furnish that to me by the end of the day or the end of
the week?

Ms. CHATER. We will certainly have it to you as soon as we can,
but you really only gave us about 24-hours notice to do that. Be-
cause you have asked for names of people I am always concerned
about the confidentiality of our data and I want to be sure that
what we give you is accurate.

And, so, when we give it to you we will have checked to be sure
those names and numbers will be accurate.

Chairman BUNNING. When will you give it to us?

Ms. CHATER. Perhaps by the end of the week.

Chairman BUNNING. Thank you.

Mr. Jacoss. Mr. Chairman, I have reserved some of my time.

Chairman BUNNING. You did, go right ahead.

Mr. Jacoss. I just have one question of Ms. Pierce. I think the
one thing that has not been nailed down here is that you say that
you negotiate nationally with the union for guidelines for the
regional negotiations.

Are those guidelines binding?

Ms. PIERCE. They should be, yes, sir.

Mr. Jacoss. OK, if they are binding, then, anything that New
York did that is at variance with the national guidelines would be
vitiated by the national guidelines?

Ms. PERCE. We would be moving to correct them if we find
something not in compliance.

Mr. Jacoss. Thank you.


39

Mr. CoLLins. Well, I appreciate that. I think we will probably
hear that from the representative of the union, and I am sure he
will try to convince us of areas that—of activities that have been
moneys that have been well spent. I would think that would be
coming. I wish they had been more cooperative with you and had
given you that type of information where we could have shared
that, too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. English.

Mr. ENGLISH. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Laughlin.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Ross, when you were doing your audit research and inves-
tigation, were you able to determine when the actual union activity
hours substantially increased in 1993, and what the level of deliv-
ery of constituent Social Security services were?

is. Ross. We did not look at that question in particular.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. You did not look to see if there was an increase
in Social Security beneficiary services?

Ms. Ross. No, we did not.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Did anyone volunteer that to you?

Ms. Ross. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Well, the reason I asked, in the President’s
Executive order of October 1, 1993, in the very first paragraph two
different times it talks about reforming government to increase the
delivering of the highest quality of services to the American people.
I think we are entitled to know if this increase in expenditure of
trust fund money, wherever it goes, gives the highest quality of
services to the American people.

Would you agree with that?

Ms. Ross. I think it is very important to know how—about the
quality of service provided by SSA.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Would you want that information in order to con-
clude where the trust money went, whether it was justified to be
spent the way it was spent, as an auditor?

Ms. Ross. If I was doing that piece of work, yes, I might want
to do that. But, that was not what we were doing.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. OK. But, if you were trying to determine if the
fiduciary responsibility in using taxpayers’ money and trust fund
money was justified with a substantial increase of activity in any
category, if the ultimate goal is to provide services to senior citi-
zens and beneficiaries, wouldn’t you want to find some substantial
justification?

Ms. Ross. Yes, sir, I think you would. I think you would want
to say that this activity was worth it in terms of how the Agency
could be measured on any sort of outcome measures, but especially
service to the public.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. And even though that was not part of your direc-
tive in your audit, did you see any indication of increase in services
to the Social Security beneficiaries?

Ms. Ross. I do not have a response to that.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Did anyone show you an increase or decrease in
Social Security beneficiary complaints lodged with SSA?

Ms. Ross. We did not see anything like that; nor did we ask.


164

The union insisted the following items be the rating criterion:

(1.) Experience (Seniority)

(2.) Only three (3) names be submitted on the Well Qualified List

(3.) The Selecting Official would be forbidden to contact the applicant's
manager/supervisor for a recommendation.

The workgroup returned to San Diego in July for an additional two weeks of

negotiations. After the two weeks, the workgroup was unable to reach a

consensus on the size of the Well Qualified List, and the package was

returned to the Deputy Commissioner Operations, Headquarters Partnership

Council for resolution. This is yet another example of costly, unproductive

union involvement in what should be a management perogative.

BILINGUAL PRY DEMONSTRATION PLAN - (5% Pay Raise for Non-management
Bilingual Employees)
The following was received from a bilingual management official:

“Although (1 am) a supporter of proper recognition and remuneration for
employees who truly utilize their bilingual skills, the proposed
demonstration project will overcompensate a large segment of the bilingual
employee population that does not necessarily utilize a second language in
the performance of their duties and many who may not even be proficient in
this second language, yet they have been identified as bilingual.

“In the current environment of Partnership, diversity, Articles 17, 21, and
26, a potentially divisive measurement as pay differential for a segment of
our employee population just does not fit and our decision makers need to
realize we can not be politically correct all of the time. We also need take
into consideration a second language proficiency, in many cases, was already
an eligibility factor in our recruitment actions and promotional
opportunities. A pay differential could further polarize our human resources
to the extent it could become a detrimental force in our organization.

“For whatever it is worth, | dare to suggest we need to tie any additional pay
remuneration for bilingual employees to the true performance of their duties
in a second language and to the benefits our customers and Agency will
derive from this performance. | also have a serious problem with our
decision makers, again in trying to be politically correct, excluding members
of management with bilingual skills from this pilot. This exclusion alone is
sufficient for many to suspect that SSA is not truly concerned about
providing world class service to the non-English speaking if it chooses to
exclude bilingual managers - who have been the driving force in penetrating
the non-English speaking communities in our Country to better inform this
public and provide the much needed outreach on behalf of our Agency.

“The Bilingual Demonstration Plan is another union-initiated project with a
cost to the taxpayer of $10 to $15 million dollars per year.”


Tursny, Jey 25.1996 AT?

Tu Wasiscroy Pent

James K, Glassman

What Can
Government Do?

{tn a modern republic such 28 ours, politics frequently
produces good pobcy— that i, 1's a system that finds out
people's desires and acts on them. But pobiics rarely
produces good government—that is. i's 2 system that puts
pokes into place ma messy netfxient, often counterpro-
ddacuve way.

“Look,” says Peter Drucker, the great management
guru, n'a recent wersien with the editor of Ine, maga’
-Bne, “no government in any map developed country realy
‘works anymore. The United States, the United Kingdom,
Germany, France, Japan—none bas 1 goverumeat the”
Gizens respect or trust -

"The big problem, Drucker says, is that °no one. as fara
Lean see, is yet ‘the ght question: What can
iroverument do?” Not what should st do, but what camit 66,

{ive always been 2 “should” kind of guy—questioning
‘whether government has the night to involve itset inthe,
ars, agriculture, railroading. etc. Bur Drucker’s “cat

have to pander to labor. or any other interest group, for
voles. They're tee, subject to market forces, to run their

Ws 00 accident, iter, that costs of governmeatran”
bealth care spstems—Medicare and Medicand—are ning”
10 fast. The federal government—uandcr polical pressure
{om doctors, hospitals, sens, governors and insurers"
simply can't cut expenses and deliver good service the way’
that companies subect manly to the pressures of the
marketplace can. Fat an even more hornfying example.”
look at the Veterans’ Adminstration, with its own 584°
healthcare insttovons, pronding obs for constituents of
earl every member of Congress)

‘The pout is that poliucs can. with valid. produce
‘atonal heath poy. But shuld not be the force tha
shapes the management of that pobcy.

‘Ove solution to the problems ofboth Socal Security ahd"
Dublic Bealth care isto get the government out of manage
‘meat entirely Let tissue voucbers with which American®
Uhemselves can purchase retirement plans or medical '
‘services from private ims, There should be oversight, but
2044 Satbensyee buena

‘msues, the Clinton

{ben political pressures—for example, the need to plesi®
labor unions, which spend millions to belp elect Democrats.”
‘Here's a typical horror story: Using the payroll axes‘

average annual salary of these taxyzayer-pud unon ofS
aie 441870. Nactylow of them make a kaa
‘$40,000, sad ane makes $81,000.

‘The General Accounting Orfice reported on this uniodTM

4
{80 to 146, according to GAO. Tota cons to the taxpayers:
Meanwhile, the Socal

‘unity trast fund ia
approaching insolvency.
‘The truth is that effectively runsing 2 retirement

ceed for tlre tnt ston “Te resent bea
about eliminating government jobs. Yes. but of the
192,000 eu, 145.000 were inthe Defense Department—a,
“peace dividend” brought about by the end ofthe Cold War:
ie can’t ceally cut government jobs unless we cut govers:
‘ment
Drucker says that the United States doesn't have’ a:
government that “olizens respect of trust.” But as we've"
seen over the past year, clizens not only distrust gover’

Clintoo): Announce right now that, if elected, you wil
feese government in place. No more new programs, 96"
ktiool spendng on cutent programs, no increases io
tax revenues, «

‘rd freee of ths sort would eave the deft at about

Scape te 5 bos nds wach secrng t9
‘ew study by Cinaens Against Government Waste, alts?
the Food Stamp program. na
‘But we can't bring government back under control with
2 single cootract oF 8 single election. As Drucker says,

rather than business .. 1s going to be the
‘oat isaportant area of entrepreneurdhup and innovation
{or the vert 20 to 25 years” So let's freeze now, and get

‘entrepreneurs to work on solutions.


148

Federal LUboF KuIuHUNS AUEKAKy

part 2423 of this chapter: Provided, how-
ever, that related matters may be con-
solldated for hearing as noted in
§2422.27(4) of this subpart.

$2422.94 Righta and obligations dure
{ng the pendency of representation
proceed

(a) Existing recognitions, agreements,
and obligations under the Statute. During
the pendency of any representation
proceeding, parties are obligated to
maintain existing recognitions, adhere
to the terms and conditions of existing
collective bargaining agreements, and
fulfill all other representational and
bargaining responsibilities under the
Statute.

(b) Unit status of individual employees.
‘Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this
section and except as otherwise prohib-
ited by law, a party may take action
based on Sts position regarding the bar-
gaining unit status of individual em-
ployees, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(2),
‘7112 (b) and (c): Provided, however, that
its actions may be challenged, re-
viewed, and remedied whera appro-
priate.

Errective DATE NOTE: At 60 FR 67291, Dec.

29, 1905, part 2422 was revit
March 15, 1996. For the conver

PART 2422—-REPQESENTATION PROCEEDINGS.

Sec.

2422.1. Who may file petitions.

2422.2 Contents of petition; procedures for
‘consolidation of existing exclusively rec-
ognized units; filing and service of peti-
‘lon; challenges to petition.

2422.3 ‘Timeliness of petition.

2422.4 Investigation of petition and posting
Of notice of petition; action by Regional

Director.

2422.5 Intervention.

2422.6 Withdrawal, diamtssal or deferral of
‘petitions; consolidation of cases; denial
of intervention.

‘Agreement for consent election.

2422.8 Notice of hearing; contente; attach-
ments; procedures.

2422.9 Conduot of hearing.

422.10 Motions,

2211 Rights of the parties,

2422.12 Duties and powers of the Hearing Of-

fcer,
3422.19 Ovjeations to conduct of hearing.
0422.14 Filing of briet

222.15 Contents of fecord.

2492.18 Decision and Order of the Regio:
Director.

2422.17 Application for review of a Decls
:nd Order of the Regional Director.
22.18 Election procedure, request for
thorized representation election obse

ors,

2422.19 Challenged ballots.

2422.20 Tally of ballots.

2422.21 Certification; objections to elect!
determination on objections and ch
longed ballots.

2472.22 Runoff elections.

2422.21 Inconclusive elections.

AUTHORITY: § U.8.C. 7134.
Source: 45 FR 3498, Jan. 17, 1980, unl
otherwise noted.

$2422.1 Who may file petitions.

(a) A petition for exclusive recognit!
may be fled by a labor organization reque
ing an election to determine whether
should be recognized as the exclusive rv
resentative of employees of an agency In
‘appropriate unit or should replace anot!
labor organization as the exclusive
resentative of employees in an appropris
untt,

(b) A petition for an election to determt
Ifa labor organization should cease to be t
‘exclusive representative because It does r
represent a majority of employees in the «
isting unit may be filed by any employ
employees or an Individual acting on beh
of any employee(s).

(0) A potition seeking to clarify a matt
relating to representation may be filed by
activity or agency where the activity
agency has a good faith doubt, based on ¢
Jective considerations, that the current
recognized or certified labor organtzat!
represents a majority of the employees
the existing unit or that, because of a su
stantial change in tho character and scope
the unit, st has a good faith doubt that su-
‘unit 13 now appropriate.

(d) A petition for clarification of an exis
ing unit or for amendment of recognition
certification may be filed by an activity
agency or by a labor organization which
‘currently recognized by the activity or age
cy ag an exclusive representative.

(0) A petition for determination of ellg
bility for dues allotment (purauant to
U.8.C. 1115(c)) may be filed by a labor organ
zatlon,

(0A petition ta consolidate existing excl
aively recognized units may be filed by
labor organization, or by an activity or age
oy, or by a labor organization and an acti
{ty of agency Jointly.

337


35

term, historically significant, unprecedented, because there was
this period of flat activity.

The second question has to do with—I am going to run out of
time here, Mr. Chairman. Maybe you will give me a minute.

In your report you talk about SSA managers and indicate that
the managers have said to you that they are having difficulty man-
aging SSA, and particularly having control over people’s time and
how it is spent. Whether it is the public sector or private sector,
this is important to us as a panel and to the Congress. Then the
management issue isn’t really fleshed out, and I wonder if you
could give us a little more detail on that. You indicate that because
of current practices the managers are expressing concern. Is that
because of the 1993 change or is it because of other issues? Can
you give us any more information on that?

Ms. Ross. Do you want to talk about the managers you actually
talked to?

Mr. MILLER. Actually, the one thing that I would say to you is
that from what we could tell, and I know I am caveating this, but
the only folks who were reporting partnerships separately on
forms, that we looked at, were the folks in the program service cen-
ters in the San Francisco area. They were not in district and
branch offices. Consequently, we could not verify how much part-
nership time was taking place in the district and branch offices,
the field managers who we are talking about.

Mr. PorTMAN. OK.

Mr. MILLER. To the extent that they were talking about current
practices, I can only assume that they were more concerned about
the potential for the effective partnership than what had actually
taken place, because most partnership activity in SSA, up until the
time we were there, was taking place in the regional offices and in
the program service centers. So, I think that concern was aimed at
the potential for partnership to affect their activities.

They were specifically talking about, I think, in the current
sense, the current way that the forms are filled out and their lack
of control over the time of individuals, as having an effect on what
they viewed as normal office operations.

Mr. PoRTMAN. OK.

Mr. MILLER. Not relating that directly to partnership.

Mr. Portman. OK. I will not ask any more questions. Just one
quick comment. I think we need to focus on what these managers
are saying. You indicate that 21 of the 31 field managers you inter-
viewed expressed serious concerns about the ability to manage, and
they went into some detail. And I think to the extent that it is re-
lated also to the specific initiative in 1993, we need to know that
and follow that line.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. OK. I just wanted to make a comment that
prior to the signing of the Partnership Executive order, that fund-
ing for union activity was flat, 1990, 1991 and 1992. After that
date in October 1993, funding for union activity went from $6 mil-
lion to $12.6 million. And I find a very strong relationship to the
signing of that Executive order.

Otherwise, I will ask this question: How many new members in
the union were there in SSA from 1993 on, that would allow the


67

Bean, and Disney and Nordstrom. We have also been selected as
having one of the five best Web pages on Internet of all govern-
ment agencies.

I want to point out that the practice of labor/management part-
nership activities is not limited just to Social Security or govern-
ment alone, but has long been an established private sector prac-
tice by companies such as GM, AT&T, and Saturn and so on.

Now, it is true that President Clinton signed an Executive order
to form the National Partnership Council which has guided us in
our work. It had a goal of encouraging labor/management coopera-
tion and partnership, but the basis of our partnership was already
in place and has been there for about 30 years under both Demo-
cratic and Republican administrations. The Federal Labor Manage-
ment Relations statute requires the Social Security Administration
to pay for certain union expenses related to management improve-
ment activities, including official time.

Under the Internal Revenue Code and the Social Security Act, all
SSA administrative activities are paid for by apportioning the costs
between both general revenue and the trust funds.

Since this is required for all activities, official time expenditures
come from these sources as well. Therefore, we are complying fully
with Federal law and have been doing that since the statutory
requirements were enacted.

Let me say something about the cost of official time. It is. very
small when taken in the context of the benefits that we feel we re-
ceive from union/management partnership. As you well know, our
administrative budget for Social Security is less than 1 percent of
our annual revenues. And the amount of money, $11.7 million in
fiscal year 1996, spent on official union time is less than three-
tenths of 1 percent of our administrative budget. But, that small
percentage of funds pays for representatives of more than 52,000
employees in 1,500 field offices across the country.

So, besides creating a highly productive work place, there is an-
other positive outcome. Because of labor/management cooperation,
unfair labor practice charges have decreased from 467 in fiscal year
1990 to just 209 in 1995.

The GAO estimates that the cost of a single charge is about
$28,000, and so one can extrapolate from that and say that we
have a potential savings of about $7 million each year by having
fewer of these cases.

By fulfilling our statutory obligations, we feel that we are creat-
ing a new and more productive organizational culture and we are
committed to maintaining that working relationship. We are com-
mitted to working together to solve problems that are mutual.

We think the partnership is making a difference, not just to the
thousands of Social Security Administration employees who serve
the public but to the millions of Americans who rely upon us to do
our work.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement and attachments follow:]


104

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Laughlin has one more question.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Commissioner, have you seen the James
Glassman article that was in the Washington Post Tuesday that
was entitled —

Chairman BUNNING. I put it in the record earlier.

Ms. CHATER. Yes, I did.

Mr. LauGHLIN. OK. And did you ask her these questions?

Chairman BUNNING. No, I did not ask these questions.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I just wanted to know what your reaction was to
the article?

Ms. CHATER. Well, I do have a reaction actually. We studied it
quite carefully because the company with which we were compared
was Fidelity Instruments, which has 20,000 employees for 20 mil-
lion customers, which is a ratio of 1: 1,000.

But, our ratio is one employee per 3,400 customers and I would
dare say that Social Security carries out a lot more duties than
simply selling a product and investing the funds. We, as you know,
do all the disability claims and take care of workers, as well as
beneficiaries and so on.

So, yes, I read the article very carefully but I think the compari-
son is not quite fair.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Does it cause you any concern that the public
could get disenchanted with the Social Security Administration be-
cause of the perception that management is giving away the store
to the unions in this process and, in fact, the public would look for
an alternative to the Social Security Administration?

Ms. CHATER. Well, it always concerns me when there is some no-
tion of people losing confidence in the Social Security Administra-
tion. In fact, one of my major objectives for our agency is to restore,
enhance, if you will, the confidence in the Social Security system.
So, of course, it concerns me.

But, we have in place a larger initiative to try to restore, main-
tain and enhance the confidence in our Social Security program,
because we believe in it so strongly.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. In closing, commissioner, I represent two of the
three most senior populated counties in Texas, and we have 254,
by age. And I represent a lot of Social Security recipients. And I
have talked about their trust fund money going for union activity
and I have yet to find one in my district that knew that was hap-
pening, and I have got to confide in you, they feel like their trust
has been undermined.

Ms. CHaTER. But I have to say this, that when we talk about
union activities it is very important, as I have been doing today,
to use the phrase union activities related to Social Security work.
The union activity we are talking about today is union activity that
contributes to a cooperative arrangement between labor and
management.

I would go so far as to say that if we did not have a union and
we were not paying these salaries that we are talking about today,
we would still be paying the salaries of our employees to do much
of what the union does now.

That is, work with us on redesign, work with us on changing our
business processes, work with us to make a more productive work


167

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is a consolidated list of recommendations from the many
managers and employees with whom | spoke:

(1.) Eliminate all taxpayer monetary subsidies to AFGE including, but not
limited to, salaries, telephones, postage, FAX, space, etc. paid to and for the
use of union representatives.

(2.)_ If taxpayer funding cannot be stopped, require all SSA components to
implement a non-self-reporting, ACCURATE and THOROUGH ACCOUNT of ALL
time, both bank and non-bank hours, used by AFGE officials.

(3.) Pass legislation to guarantee all Federal employees not only the right to
elect union representation, but also the right to request de-certification of
the union at the local DO, BO and TSC level.

(4.) Call for an independent, immediate, in-depth, special investigation,
similar to "White Water", into AFGE, AFL/CIO, activities. This investigation
should be conducted not only in the Social Security Administration, but also
through-out the entire Federal Sector. Both SSA management and employees
should be subpoenaed to testify regarding union activities, and all must be
afforded protection from reprisals from not only SSA top management
officials, but also from AFGE AFL/CIO officials. The Special Investigation
should be conducted under the direction of the Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Social Security, U.S. House of Representatives. The final
report should be submitted to both the House Ways and Means Committee
and the Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on Social Security and Family
Policy, U.S. Senate.

We believe these recommendations will result in a finding that AFGE
activities have cost the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost
salaries, efficiency, production and public service. The Executive Order
creating the Partnership has proven to be a true detriment to public service,
a betrayal of the public trust and a financial disaster for the taxpayers.

Thank you for your concern with the AFGE situation, the effect of union
activities on SSA operations and for the opportunity to submit this
statement for consideration by the Subcommittee. In the interest of brevity,
1 have not attached all of the many statements and items that document my
statement; however, | will be submitting them seperately to the
Subcommittee. If | can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me.


Subject.

126

fewa sve "Memorandum
PRD 2 1885

Deputy Commissioner
for Human Resources

Use of Official Time by Social Security Administration (SSA)
Employees In Representing the American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE)--Information and Action

All Regional Commissioners, Managers and Supervisors in Field
Offices with AFGE Recognition

In light of our recent experiences on the use of official time
by employee union representatives, I vant to assure that our
managers understand and fulfill their obligations and
responsibilities under our labor agreenents, the law, and
Executive Order 12871.

As most of you are aware the area of official time has been
controversial within SSA over the last decade. Although ve
are in a new era of partnership with the union, there rezain
certain concepts which all managers need to follow. Many
Guidelines have already been set out in detailed instructions
on this subject in the Manager's Handbook for the 1993
National Agreement. Nonetheless, I want to take this time to
reinforce the message in certain areas.

Recently, situations have developed where union
representatives have requested official time while serious
operational concerns exist. In such circumstances the union
representative should be informed that a request can not be
granted at that time due to the existence of an operational
exigency; however, the request should be approved for the
earliest possible time when this situation no longer exists.
For instance, a union representative/clains representative is
taking an interview, and wants to terminate the interview in
order to go on official time, In general, the tine should be
denied until sometime after the interview is completed. Ke
would consider the disruption of the interview to be an
interference with the Agency mission to serve the public, and
its completion vould be viewed as an exigency.

Likewise, if the union representative is in a critical
reception/interviewing position of dealing with the public,

and there is a shortage of personnel in that position on a
given day, then an exigency would exist and the granting of
official tine could be deferred until the operational hardship
is relieved. This, of course, would have to be a situation of
limited duration, and would not apply to a long term staffing
shortage.



45

Chairman BUNNING. Do you still accrue Federal retirement
benefits?

Mr. GaGE. Same thing there. I pay both ends of it. The govern-
ment does not pay.

Chairman BUNNING. Under FERS or CSRS?

Mr. Gace. Under CSRS.

Chairman BUNNING. In other words, you pay both ends?

Mr. GaGE. Yes.

Chairman BUNNING. Well, then what is the advantage of being
on leave from SSA?

Mr. GaGE. Sometimes elections do not go well.

Chairman BUNNING. You mean as an employee of SSA?

Mr. GaGE. Yes. I would go back to my job.

Chairman BUNNING. Are any officers from the other five councils
paid by the union?

Mr. GaGE. Yes, when they do internal union business.

Chairman BUNNING. They are paid on a part-time basis by the
union?

Mr. Gace. Correct.

Chairman BUNNING. When do they get paid by SSA?

Mr. GaGE. When they are doing activities under our contract,
they are paid by SSA.

Chairman BUNNING. In 1993, the Social Security Administration
came before this Committee and asked for $200 million to relieve
the problem of huge CDR, continuing disability review, backlogs in
the Social Security Disability Program.

Mr. GaGE. The backlogs are still there.

Chairman BUNNING. Well, you are going to have the money to do
them.

Let me get back to the $200 million that was put into the Social
Security Administration’s administrative budget. Were you one of
the employees that received a bonus from that?

Mr. GaGE. No.

Chairman BUNNING. Did any of your union members receive a
bonus from that $200 million?

Mr. GaGE. Are you asking me if some union representatives
receive bonuses?

Chairman BUNNING. I am asking you a simple question—$200
million was given to SSA to work down the backlog of CDRs. The
Social Security Administration did not use the $200 million for
that. They used it to pay bonuses and many other things, 50 to 65
percent of the Social Security Administration’s employees received
bonuses. I am asking you a simple question.

Mr. Gace. Sir, I do not know where the money for the bonuses
came from. You have to ask the Agency.

Chairman BUNNING. I did ask the Agency that already.

Then it did go to employees?

Mr. Gackr. If the Agency said that——

Chairman BUNNING. Sixty-five percent of the employees were
paid a bonus.

Mr. GaGE. If the Agency said that they used the money for the
CDRs as part of the money for employee bonuses I am sure they
would know.

Chairman BUNNING. They did not use it for the CDRs.


87

not giving away their responsibilities by working with the union,
that’s not the idea at all. Because we, by law, can take our admin-
istrative expenses from the trust fund. In fact, it is the only place
besides general revenue that we can take expenses from. Our ad-
ministrative budget does, indeed, partially come from trust funds.
Official time is considered an administrative expense.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. In your efforts to lead your agency next year and
the following year, have you come up with any estimate of how
much money it will cost for union activity in the year 2000?

Ms. CHATER. We expect that the partnership that we have
worked out with our union will certainly continue and, indeed, will
improve.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. That is not my question, Commissioner. My ques-
tion is how much money? Is it going to be more money, is it going
to be less money, is it going to be about the same?

Ms. CHATER. We think it is going to be about the same. We ex-
pect the number of people to be working on full time union activi-
ties, for example, to level off.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. And where is the supporting documentation that
allows you to tell us that you expect the cost to the taxpayer is
going to remain the same for this union activity that has dramati-
cally increased since the Partnership Agreement signed by
President Clinton in 1993, where full time union activity on the
part of the SSA employees has more than doubled and the amount
of taxpayer dollars being spent on full time union activity in the
last 2 years has more than doubled, where is the data—can you
give it to us, will you give it to us—that allows you to tell us in
this hearing that you expect it to remain the same it the next 4
years?

Ms. CuaTER. I am only making a projection that it will remain
the same because we know, for example, that a lot of union part-
nership work has gone into the redesign process for disability. We
plan to have that process totally in place by the year 2000.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Are you telling us that you expect union activity
just to go flat this year?

Ms. Cuater. I am telling you that I think that, between now and
the future years, we will have reached a leveling off of the number
of people who work full time in our union.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Even though there is been the dramatic increase
in union activity, union membership, union expense at taxpayers’
cost, you expect it to go flat this year?

Ms. CHATER. I expect that it will stabilize because many of the
reasons that caused us to increase——

Mr. LAUGHLIN. No, but stabilize tells me one thing, I am asking
about dollars being increased.

Ms. CHATER. Well, dollars will slightly increase as salaries go up,
of course, but the—

Mr. LAUGHLIN. That makes me awful nervous, Commissioner,
when you say, “slight increase,” because in my 8 years here when
I hear slight, it often gets into millions and sometimes in real
dollars, in billions.

What do you mean by slight increase?


8

separate from the agency’s time and attendance system and also
from the workload reporting system.

Under the union time reporting system, union representatives fill
out and submit forms to their supervisors to account for union
time. The hours reported on these forms are then periodically ag-
gregated and submitted to SSA headquarters in order to be added
into a national total.

The large chart, the one on your left, shows the total time spent
at SSA on union activities, including some additional time that we
discovered as a part of our audit that was not included in SSA’s
system, so that the solid line is SSA’s reported time and the dotted
line above it includes some additional time that we found in the
course of doing some verification of these time records. The overall
time spent on union activities has grown steadily from 254,000
hours in 1990 to over 418,00 hours in 1995. This is the equivalent
of paying the salaries and other expenses of about 200 SSA employ-
ees to represent the 52,000 employees in the bargaining unit in
1995.

To determine what contributed to the increase in time spent on
union activities, we developed information on the categories of time
used. Time spent on union- or employee-initiated grievances, as
well as on other union-initiated activities, remained relatively con-
stant between 1990 and 1995. Most of the increase in time spent
on union activities during this period is attributable to bargaining
activities related to changes in work assignments and working
conditions.

Now, if I could move from time to costs and turn your attention
to the other chart, SSA’s estimates of union costs showed an in-
crease from $6 million in 1993 to $11 million in 1995. As you know,
SSA’s total administrative expense budget for fiscal year 1995 was
about $5.5 billion.

In order to determine the accuracy of SSA’s cost estimates, we
constructed our own estimates of union-related costs. We identified
about 1,800 union representatives who are currently authorized by
the union to spend time on SSA’s union activities.

SSA has also reported that the number of full time union rep-
resentatives, those spending 75 percent of their time, or more, on
union activities, grew from 80 to 145 in the last 6 years. We identi-
fied about the same number. We identified 146 full time union
representatives.

The average salary in 1995 for these 146 full time union rep-
resentatives was about $42,000. We estimate that the total costs to
SSA for union activities of all union representatives was about
$12.6 million, so our estimate shown on the chart is slightly dif-
ferent from the one from SSA. SSA estimated the cost of union ac-
tivities to be $11 million compared to our estimate of $12.6 million.
Ninety percent of this $12.6 million was personnel costs. The re-
maining $1.2 million in total SSA costs included travel expenses,
SSA’s share of arbitration costs, and support costs such as supplies,
office space and telephone use.

Regarding the amount of union dues collected from union mem-
bers, we determined that about $4.8 million was collected in 1995,
mainly through payroll deduction. The unions use these funds for
their internat expenses, which include the cost of lodging and


USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND
MONEY TO FINANCE UNION ACTIVITIES AT
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1996

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON Ways AND MEANS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room B—
318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bunning (Chairman
of the Subcommittee) presiding.
(The advisories announcing the hearings follow:]

()


150

Chairman BUNNING. Thank you all and the hearing is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.)
[Submissions for the record follow:]


42

Union representatives are prohibited from using official time on
any internal union matters. This means they cannot use official
time to organize workers, solicit new members, campaign for office
or conduct union elections. Union representatives are also forbid-
den to use official time for any partisan political activities.

Our contract provisions detail a procedure by which union rep-
resentatives request official time and identify the nature of the
union activity and receive approval from the manager. A form is
used to codify these requests.

The use of agency equipment, such as photocopiers, is also sub-
ject to the standards set by law and contract. Newsletters, fliers,
and bulletin board material must not malign individuals nor con-
tain partisan political material. Distribution of such newsletters or
fliers must be made on nonduty time of the union representative
and the union employees receiving it. Any abuses are acted upon
swiftly by the Agency and the union hierarchy.

We are extremely mindful of our responsibility and obligation in
this area and proud of our ethical record of policing and living up
to the statutory and contractual boundaries governing the proper
use of official time. But, I think now we can get to what the confu-
sion is about regarding some of this official time.

Even before the emergence of labor-management partnership in
the Federal sector and President Clinton’s Executive order, it was
apparent that at SSA we needed a new way of doing business. An
understanding developed that genuine changes in the effectiveness
of the Agency’s mission were possible only when labor and manage-
ment worked together to improve quality as well as the working
conditions of our employees to deliver the best possible service to
the American people.

We identified our common interests, talked through and better
understood our differences, and fundamentally changed the nature
of union representation within SSA. Much of the union representa-
tive’s time is now devoted to activities which can best be described
as collateral duties, or those shared by labor and management,
rather than traditional grievance handling.

The parties have been able to interface earlier in the decision-
making process which permits union/employee input on the front
end. Many times we have been able to complete bargaining obliga-
tions informally because of predecisional involvement, which allevi-
ates costly and frequent adversarial processes on the back end.
Litigation in all areas is significantly down and the prospects are
bright for further reductions.

The many changes now taking place within the Agency affecting
employees and requiring union involvement normally translate into
a significant increase in official time and litigation expense. How-
ever, better communication and joint union management problem-
solving processes have precluded increases of official time while
lowering litigation time and expenses.

While there is still pockets of managers and union representa-
tives who are slow to adapt to this new way of working, the mo-
mentum of change is quickly permeating through the organization.
I must say that I was disappointed to see the GAO basically con-
duct all of their interviews in the San Francisco region, which is
exactly one of those pockets.


161

STATEMENT OF
MAXINE NIELSEN, RETIRED,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Social Security Subcommittee:

My name is Maxine Nielsen. My career with the Social Security
Administration began as a Claims Representative in Dallas, Texas, June
19, 1963; and I retired as the Teleservice Center Manager, Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida, January 20, 1995. During my thirty one years with the Agency, |
also held the following positions: Operations Supervisor, Assistant
District Manager, Acting Assistant Regional Representative for Family
Assistance Planning, Staff Officer and Staff Assistant in the Dallas
Regional Office, District Manager and Teleservice Center Manager. | have
met and worked with all of the SSA Commissioners who served during my
career.

In preparation for this statement, | contacted Social Security managers
and employees in various offices in the Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York
and San Francisco Regions - in other words, across the country.

After speaking with Regional Office Staff, Area Directors, managers and
employees in the various Regions, | found, without exception, that both
current management officials and employees were "afraid to speak on the
record" to anyone unless they were subpoenaed by Congress and required to
do so. They feared not only damage to their current positions, but also
Regional Office and/or Headquarters retaliation. The statements |
obtained were forwarded to me only after | assured each of them | would
not disclose either their names or offices.

The following concerns were common to all of the managers and
employees | spoke with across the country. | want to emphasize that
these are concerns about problems that exist throughout SSA, Nationwide.

(1) UNION-MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP

The Executive Order creating the "Partnership" has almost destroyed the
Agency. In theory, it is excellent. In reality, a disaster. The Union (AFGE)
has historically been and continues to be more self-serving than Agency or
public-service oriented. The union is not interested in either public-service
or efficiency. Its primary functions are to expand its power and to protect
those employees either unable or unwilling to perform their jobs.

(2.) LACK OF LEADERSHIP

There is a total lack of high-level leadership at SSA. Commissioner
Chater is a political appointee who is not only incompetent but also
uninformed regarding Agency operations. Her primary goal is to be
confirmed as Commissioner, regardless of the cost to the Agency.

In addition, Regional management officials are "afraid" for their positions
and either will not or are unable to "stand up" to Headquarters.

In short, "Higher management will do anything to save their skins."


73

Excerpts from...

or Te,
% lll.

nigra

Accountability Report
For Fiscal Year 1995

Linking Program and Financial Results

Has Public Service Improved Under SSA--
Union "Partnership"?


82

When the union representative in a field office, for example, asks
for official time to do union-related work, our managers know that
they have the responsibility of saying, no, on occasion if taking
someone off a particular assignment would not be in the best inter-
ests of getting our work done to serve the American public.

Mr. JOHNSON. How often does that happen? In the past year,
how many times did that occur?

Ms. CHATER. I cannot tell you exactly how often it has happened,
but I can give you an example.

Mr. JOHNSON. You said you saw the reports, is that not a num-
ber on the reports?

Ms. CHATER. No.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is not included in your reports?

Ms. CHATER. Not that specific detail, no.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you would think you would want to know
where they are being used or not.

T am also told that grievances which went down, according to you
and others who have testified, was not because of your union part-
nership but because of the change in the pass/fail system that you
use now for employees.

Now, is that true or false?

Ms. CHATER. I believe that is false because the pass/fail system
has only come into being in the last year and we have seen a re-
duction of those grievances before that time.

Mr. JOHNSON. But, when did President Clinton authorize you to
use unions as a partnership?

Ms. CHATER. The Executive order went into effect in October
1993.

Mr. JOHNSON. And when did your pass/fail system go into effect?

Ms. CHATER. And our Partnership Agreement was written in
June 1994, but before that we were already working together with
union officials in cooperative ways.

Ms. PIERCE. And the pass/fail system was implemented in fiscal
year 1995.

Mr. JOHNSON. I was told 1993.

Ms. PIERCE. No.

Ms. CHATER. No.

Mr. JOHNSON. So, you did not do it until 1995?

Ms. PIERCE. No. this is the first year that it has been in
existence.

Mr. JOHNSON. When did you see a decrease in grievances? And
let me have the Commissioner answer, please.

Ms. Pierce. Surely.

Ms. CHATER. The grievances went from 467 in 1990 to 209 in
1995.

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I understand that you are trying to downsize
the agency to some degree and over the past few years have elimi-
nated up to 10,000 employees, is that true?

Ms. CHATER. No, that is not true.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you trying to downsize?

Ms. CHATER. Definitely.

Mr. JOHNSON. And have you eliminated some employees?


USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND MONEY
TO FINANCE UNION ACTIVITIES AT THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

JUNE 4 AND 27, 1996

Serial 104-91

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

ee

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-808 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
‘Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-056099-3
=
DP



108

Chairman BUNNING. I am sorry but Mr. Collins arrived a little
late and we are going to allow him to question. Go right ahead.

Mr. CoL.ins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be brief. What is so difficult to explain to constituents is
the fact that work does not get done, and that the money spent on
union activity doubled from $6 million a year in 1993 to $12.6
million in 1995.

Now, that is difficult to explain, I do not care how you shell it,
that is tough to explain.

You know, based on your most recent comments, and you and
Ms. Pierce, it seems to me that you do not think you could operate
the Social Security Administration without the union. Could you or
could you not operate the Social Security Administration without
the union?

Ms. CHATER. We benefit from having a union partnership
through which to work and do—.

Mr. COLLINS. That was not my question.

Could you operate the Social Security Administration without the
union?

Ms. CuHaTER. I have already said that even if we did not have a
union we would have employees involved in our mutual problem
solving and our decisionmaking.

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I am not opposed to union. I mean I think
it is a right to, in the private sector especially, to have collective
bargaining but it is also a right to choose to either belong or not
belong. But, all indications from your comments are that you could
not operate without the union. The union does it all.

What about your other workers, do they have any input? Accord-
ing to your testimony a few minutes ago, you insinuated the other
employees are just there, they have no input as to how the proce-
dures are, how to change the procedures, how to redesign the pro-
grams, how to be more efficient to the beneficiaries, is that true?

Ms. CHATER. No, that is not true. All of our employees have ac-
cess to managers to make suggestions about how we change our
processes and how we do our Business. Where we are having very
great success is with the union partnerships at local levels, where
they are working together in very cooperative ways for the safety
of employees and how to get our work done in new and different
ways.

Mr. COLLINS. You mean at the local Social Security office in
hometown, USA?

Ms. CHATER. Yes.

Mr. CoL.ins. Well, why do we hear differently from the man-
agers? The managers say it is the most disruptive organization and
the most disruptive time that they have experienced in years, try-
ing to administer and meet the needs of the beneficiaries? Why are
we hearing something different from that end than what you are
saying from this end?

I know we are inside the beltway and things change when you
get inside this beltway, but why are we hearing at home that this
partnership is not working? They are frustrated. The managers are
rustrated as to how they have to try to administer the needs of
beneficiaries and, yet, they will use the union as a stumbling block
for them.


131

e Disability Initiatves--such as:

Screening Units;

Decision Writing Units;

Adjudication Officer;

Disability Claims Manager;

Third Party Assistance;

Disability Processing Centers;

Early Decision List/Sequential Interviewing;

Disability Models.

* Many or most of these initiatives are the subject of the Memoranda of
Understanding we provided the GAO


159

tn practical terms, AFGE recognition is akin to a ifetime appointment tn my
‘experience. the AFGE has failed to tell employees of the extreme complexity of
de-cerlification. which apparently was writen by the AFGE SSA employees are
denied their basic right to determine their own union representation on a
continuing basis. The remedy is legislation.

Commissioner Chater states that the law prohibits official time for internal union
business and "Thus, SSA does not pay for union expenses related to these
activities.” The law may say that, but the union ignores it and SSA ignores the
union ignoring it. | have ignored it myself on instruction from superiors, and so
have most other SSA managers with whom I have talked. The word 1s, DON'T
QUESTION THE AFGE'S USE OF OFFICIAL TIME! If a manager has a
complaint about AFGE’s use of official time, the manager is instructed to discuss
itwalh_a management Labor Relations person. That is where the complaint
ends. The Commissioner's reference to supervisors reporting this time and
SSA keeping records, sounds like a control. It is not. Supervisors sign the form
and forward a copy. If you can't question it, itis nol a control The contract
provides field office unions 100,000 hours of official time per year. Hours not
used in one year may be carried forward. Excluded from these "bank hours are
time spent in consultation with management officials and local bargaining, To
my knowledge. only the unions in field operations offices have "bank” hours
Other parts of the prganization have other types of official time definitions, from
“reasonable.” to specified percentages of time, to specific hourly limits

Before the issue of furloughs came up, my information is that the dues paying
AFGE members amounted to about 24% of their bargaining unit people Now,
GAO indicates that figure is 47%. The point is, anyone who thinks that the
solicitations for these additional members, and the distribution of union
literature, were conducted solely outside of official time, within the letter of the
law. never watched the AFGE at work. | can not accept the idea that
Commissioner Chater really believes what has been written.

The so-called Union-Management Partnership has worsened labor relations in
SSA field offices, not improved it. Before partnership, many local social security
offices had their own local. They had their own local president who also
performed SSA job duties and for the most part, fairly represented the local
employees. The Partnership brought with it, the consolidation of locals into
larger, area locals. These consolidated locals consist of 10 to 20 offices. or
‘more, with appointed presidents. These new local presidents contral AFGE's
actions in local SSA offices. On site stewards are little more than reporters. in
many locals, The local presidents seldom are familiar with all the needs in
various offices. Nonetheless, local managers must deal with them Increasingly,
local presidents are becoming more authoritative and more confrontational
They are more aggressive because SSA does not file ULP charges against the
union. The only union-management grievance filed by management. in many
years, was filed just weeks ago. The subcommittee has already been advised of
that action

Under these circumstances (top management allowing AFGE free rein), the
AFGE is moving into traditional management areas. The AFGE 1s gaining more
control and authority over SSA operations with no responsibility to the taxpayers.
The word is starting to go out only dues paying members will benefit from
AFGE authority Recently, that authority was extended to deciding cash awards
(who and how much) for bargaining unit members In another area, employees
who request a hardship transfer (i e.. spouse sick. aging sick parents. etc ) need
the usual management approval. If the office sought 1s one with AFGE
representation the request must ALSO be approved by the AFGE. If the AFGE
does not approve. the employee can not be transferred In SSA management
circles. we call the authorizing MOU “The Memo From Hell” SSA 1s allowing
the creation of a second managerial organization thal is responsible only to




109

Is that the way it should be?

Ms. CHATER. You have heard from some managers that they do
not feel their partnership is working very well.

Mr. COLLINS. They do not even feel like they are part of the
partnership.

Ms. CHATER. Now, remember, we are talking here about 1,500 of-
fices across the country, many of which I have visited. I have met
with union officials and I have met with employees who are rep-
resented by those officials, and I have met with managers and I
can tell you many, many stories about successes in working
together as partners.

So, when you have 65,000 employees, of course, you are going to
have some who think that it is not going as well as it ought to. And
we have work to do. We are not perfect. We have a lot of strength-
ening to do of our partnership but we are working on that because
we believe in it.

Mr. CoLLins. Are only the union members doing the work, to de-
sign more efficient programs? I mean that was the indication a
while ago from your comments.

Ms. CuarteR. Yes. Is that right, Ruth?

Mr. CoLuins. Only union members——

Ms. PIERCE. We have others in the work groups as well. I was
explaining that some of the official time people are working and
was trying to describe that they are not doing ——

Mr. COLLINS. No, Ms. Chater insinuated that only union mem-
bers participate in the design programs.

Ms. CHATER. No, that is not true.

Mr. Couuins. Well, we go back to your comments earlier and you
laid it all in the laps of the union members as to all the great suc-
cess that has gone on in the last 2 or 3 years. And you did not give
the other employees of the Social Security Administration any cred-
it for any input. You insinuated that only the partnership of the
union members is successful.

Ms. CHATER. No, I did not mean to insinuate that only the people
who serve on partnership councils are responsible for the successes
that we have made, that is not true. All of our employees are in-
volved in various employee involvement programs and that differs
across the United States by region. It differs by how well the part-
nership councils are working together. It differs by a manager's
particular inclusive style and bringing people together to work as
teams.

So, while it differs, I would say that all of our employees are in-
volved and we hope that they will stay involved with partnership,
in general, but specifically the union/management partnerships
that we have in place in a formalized way.

Mr. Couuins. Well, in other words, now you are saying that those
who are nonunion members are part of the team with union mem-
bers to reach decisions on how to better administer the program?

Ms. CHATER. Yes, that is true.

Mr. CoLuins. Well, you know, I find it odd that the Administra-
tion would issue such an Executive order within the Social Security
Administration to have these type partnerships between nonunion
and union members but, yet, they are adamantly opposed to the
Team Act which does the very same thing in the private sector.


30

employee, but it seems appropriate and responsible to capture time
for a major activity.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. After reviewing your findings and your report,
have you found that the SSA has simply decided not to keep track
of the union spending because it violated the spirit of the Partner-
ship Agreement?

Ms. Ross. I do not know how they are reporting time for partner-
ship activities. We found—as we said, a substantial increase in
union costs over the past couple of years. We said, what category
does it show up of the categories that are on this form, and it
showed up in the bargaining category.

Now, whether bargaining was used just in its traditional sense
or that is where people were putting in time for partnership, I do
not know, but it would seem appropriate for SSA to consider keep-
ing track of partnership activities because it is a cost center.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Laughlin.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. When you talk about the fiduciary responsibility,
you are talking about the responsibility of the SSA to the Social
Security beneficiaries, aren’t you?

Ms. Ross. To the beneficiaries and to the taxpayers.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. But, there is not a fiduciary responsibility to the
employees of the SSA, is there?

Ms. Ross. That is not what I meant when I talked about trust
fund responsibility.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. It is to the taxpayers and Social Security bene-
ficiaries, limited to that group, and you are not trying to include
employees?

Ms. Ross. No, I am not.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. When we have heard about the accounting and
recordkeeping, I have read several times in your report that it was
not possible to estimate the actual time spent agency wide for any
reporting period. Do you mean by that that you are unable to look
at the SSA records and determine how much time was spent actu-
ally performing services to the taxpayers and the Social Security
beneficiaries, or were you saying you could not keep up with the
union activity time, or both?

Ms. Ross. I think we were talking at that point about the union
activity and the extent to which we were able to track and monitor
it. There is an entirely separate system for finding out what the
Social Security workers are doing at any point during the day. It
is a work monitoring system, and it is different from the union
system.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. So, in the union system it is difficult to determine
what they are doing because it is sort of a blanket report, union
time, 8 hours.

Ms. Ross. There are categories provided on the form that a union
representative can check off indicating the usage of his or her
union time.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Is it possible for an employee at SSA to confuse
whether he or she is performing union activity or constituent Social
Security beneficiary services? Do they overlap or are there gray
areas between the two?


89

The Social Security Administration is redesigning the disability
system from the ground up to streamline the process, reduce delays
and backlogs, and improve customer service. The agency has estab-
lished a redesign team for a new claims process and the list goes
on from there.

They have a committee on security with memory of the
Oklahoma City situation. The security system has added 101 secu-
rity guards, established stricter procedures for access to offices,
national employer awareness training of security, and so forth.

Mr. Chairman, if I could submit this for the record as my
thought of what probably this has brought about but noting
that——

Chairman BUNNING. It is perfectly all right if there is a
disclaimer on it, your disclaimer.

Mrs. KENNELLY. It is from me, absolutely.

[The following was subsequently received:]


84

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your timely, I think, and superb testimony this
morning, Doctor. I think it is entirely accurate in the perspective
you have presented it to us.

And let me say this, that through a process of downsizing you
should consult with the union. My experience—which may be dif-
ferent than some of the panelists this morning—is as a mayor of
a good-sized city in which I used to bargain with 6,000 employees
in 36 different bargaining units. And if you want an atmosphere
that is conducive to increased productivity where people get along
and morale is high, you stay in contact with representatives of the
work force.

And, as you have indicated, even in the absence of the union that
would still be a desirable goal to hear what the employees have to
say.

Now, specifically my question is this, does it not seem logical
that in a process of downsizing that new problems would occur,
unforeseen problems would occur?

Ms. CHATER. That is true.

Mr. NEAL. The result of which would require a different solution
or something, perhaps that had not been thought out?

The idea, I think that is being presented here—and I disagree
with the panelist who offered the last suggestion—if you want a
really strong work force they have got to feel as though the
outcome is part of their doing.

And, the additional suggestion that I would offer, and give you
an opportunity to comment on is, management’s job is not to come
in every day and order people around; and to think that in this at-
mosphere and the changes that have overtaken our society during
the last 5 decades that somehow that is going to be conducive to
a healthy work place.

I think, by and large as one who was on the other side of many
union decisions, that keeping a union in contact with you, speaking
to them regularly you can cut off an awful lot of problems in their
early stages. It is only when the problem is allowed to fester that
morale problems really set in.

Now, I know that that is a general analysis, but I would like you
to, perhaps, speak to it. And I used to deal with these issues every
single day for 5 years of my life.

Ms. CHATER. Well, I could not agree with you more. That is the
philosophy that we are implementing. I want to call your attention
to a report from the Department of Labor that has just come out
called Working Together for Public Service, and this report sup-
ports very much the philosophy that we are trying to implement
in the Social Security Administration. I would just read to you one
sentence if I might that says, “Based upon more than one year of
extensive analysis, the task force who wrote this report is unani-
mous in its belief that the movement toward employee participa-
tion and cooperation between labor and management offers State
and local government an unparalleled opportunity to improve deliv-
ery and quality of services.”

And so, my philosophy is that what we are doing, working with
the union in a cooperative ways, can only help us improve service,


12

industry. Finally, to determine the types of contract provisions
that exist in private industry with regard to the use of official
time, we reviewed ten contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.

In summary, federal labor/management relations were formalized
by executive order in the early 1960s.’ In 1962, an executive
order permitted federal agencies to grant official time for certain
meetings between management and union representatives, at the
discretion of the agency. The management contro) prevalent when
the first executive order was issued has evolved over time, and
today unions operating at federal government agencies have
significant involvement in operational and management decisions.
The use of official time, which is authorized paid time off from
assigned duties for union activities, has become a routine method
of union operation in the federal government. OPM officials told
us that currently no governmentwide requirement exists to capture
or report the amount of official time charged to union activities
They further noted that managers and employees would spend time
interacting on personnel and working condition matters even if
there were no unions operating at agencies.

We determined that over the last 6 years, the time spent on
union activities at SSA has grown from 254,000 to at least 413,000
hours, at a cost to SSA's trust funds of $12 6 million in 1995
alone. That is, SSA currently pays the equivalent of the salaries
and expenses of about 200 SSA employees to represent the interests
of the approximately 52,000 employees represented by unions at SSA.
This cost represents a portion of the $5.5 billion SSA incurred in
administrative expenses for fiscal year 1995

In addition, SSA has reported to the Congress that the number
of full-time union representatives, those devoting 75 percent or
more of their time to union activities, grew from 80 to 145 between
1993 and 1995, We found, however, that the reporting system for
collecting such data does not adequately track the number of union
representatives charging time to union activities or the actual
time spent. Consequently, we conducted a limited verification of
the hours spent on union activities reported by SSA and found that
time spent on union activities was underreported. While SSA is
currently developing a new system to more accurately track the time
spent on union activities, it plans to implement this system to
replace only the automated reporting system for union
representatives in the field offices and teleservice centers. SSA
is not planning to improve the less accurate manual time-reporting
system for its other components.

Under the terms of the current SSA union contract negotiated
in 1993, the selection of union representatives and the amount of
time they spend on union activities are determined by the union
without the consent of local managers. We found that over 1,800
designated union representatives in SSA are authorized to spend
time on union activities, although most of the time spent is by
SSA's 146 fuli-time representatives. Some SSA field managers told
us that their having no involvement in decisions about how much
time is spent by individuals and who the individuals are causes
problems in managing the day-to-day activities of their operations
Union representatives, on the other hand, told us that the time
they use is necessary to fully represent the interests of their
coworkers,

SSA reported that it paid for 404,000 hours for union
activities in fiscal year 1995, as compared with 442,000 hours
reported by IRS in fiscal year 1994, the most recent information
available. The Postal Service reported that 1.7 million hours

*Postal labor/management relations are governed by the Postal
Reorganization Act of 1970, which incorporates many provisions of
the National Labor Relations Act.


54

How do the 146 SSA employees who are also full time union
representatives perform their regular jobs?

Mr. GaGE. They do not. Some of their regular jobs might be
record maintenance clerk——

Chairman BUNNING. In other words, they have no other respon-
sibility except their union responsibilities?

Mr. GacE. Again, with the caveat that those union responsibil-
ities are very tied to agency responsibilities.

Chairman BUNNING. I understand.

I am going to yield to Mr. Johnson for one more question.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir, and thank you for your responses.
I appreciate it.

Tf we are reducing the agency by 5,000 or so, why did the full
time union employees go from 80 to 146?

Mr. GAGE. We concentrated time. Instead of having 1,000 people
out there, or whatever the number is, on 10 percent, 20 percent,
we concentrated the time in fewer individuals. We thought we got
more bang for the buck on that, both the agency and the union,
because you are dealing with someone who is——

Mr. JOHNSON. Eighty to 146 is not fewer; that is more.

Mr. GaGE. It is more, but the total amount of official time,
agencywide, did not go up.

Mr. JOHNSON. The 1,800 have always been there?

Mr. GAGE. Yes. We have stewards in virtually every field office.

Mr. JOHNSON. So, those are the 1,800 essentially. But, why did
you need more full time?

Mr. GaGE. Well, because you get people with more expertise,
they have more experience in handling things, they can handle a
wider range of issues.

The activities spur the official time. It is not like we just go out
and we have nothing to do, we sit around and do nothing. The ac-
tivities spur the official time, and I think it averages that the 145
we have come up to in the last couple of years has been because
of the tremendous changes in the agency that we have a respon-
sibility to our members to handle, to represent them on.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Laughlin will inquire.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Gage, as President of Local 1923 here in the
Washington, DC area, do you have any participation in the na-
tional organization, as a director, or participation since the bulk of
Federal employees are here in this city?

Mr. GAGE. I am from Baltimore, sir.

, Mr. LAUGHLIN. That is not far away. It is just across the county
ine.

Mr. GaGE. I participate in our conventions and I am a deputy
spokesperson for our Social Security locals.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Isn’t it true that AFGE is contributing per capita
tax to the AFL-CIO on the fund that was imposed by the AFL-~
CIO for campaign dollars?

Mr. GAGE. I imagine so. I do not have direct knowledge of that.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. It has been reported in the Federal Times on
April 18, 1996 that your union pledged $300,000 to the biggest ever
political campaign by organized labor.

Mr. GAGe. We are a member of the AFL-CIO and proud of it.


m7

SETTLEMENT ACREXMENT FOR OKA REPRESENTATIVES

1. «The Parties agreed to the follaving settlement amounts for
union officials identified herein for fiscel years (FYs) 1991, 1997

and 1993:

NAKE AETILEMENT _AHQUET
David Hess $3,500
James £. Marshall 41,100
Albert B. Carrozta $1,200
Betty 3. Brasil 81,750
Gregory McKenna 81,200
Carmen Alfonso 61,200
Barbera Hampton $2,600

Sue B. Burton £1.130
$13,770

The amounts cited sbove includes adjustments for any amounts
previously receiv,

2. The Agency agrees to pay the pending cleim before Arbitrator
Blackwell for attornay tees {n connection with 48 FLRA No. 32
(CO-9-91) in the amount of $6,005.00.

rE

ae


96

Chairman BUNNING. And could you tell me what they might have
been?

Ms. CHATER. Well, we offer something called an, “On the Spot
Award.” If somebody does something quite special at a moment in
time, the managers have the prerogative of presenting a small on
the pot award, for whatever that was. Those could be in addition
to this.

Chairman BUNNING. Now, Commissioner Chater, I am wondering
just how SSA was able to determine that these full time union rep-
resentatives merited a performance award since, according to ev-
erything I have been told, management is not allowed to question
union employees about what they do on official time.

Ms. CHATER. We—

Chairman BUNNING. Can you explain how you measured the per-
formance of these employees and determined they should receive a
cash award averaging over $1,000?

Ms. CATER. The determination was based on their last perform-
ance measure within the agency.

Chairman BUNNING. When was that?

Ms. CHATER. And I would like Ms. Pierce to tell you exactly what
year we are dealing with——

Chairman BUNNING. These are full time union representatives
that do not do Social Security Administration work.

Ms. PIERCE. I understand.

Chairman BUNNING. How do you measure a performance that
does not perform?

Ms. PIERCE. Well, let me answer why they have a rating and how
that is done, Congressman. When our contract was negotiated in
1988—it goes that far back—there was agreement reached that
union officials who spent 100 percent of their time on union busi-
ness would be able to carry over their last appraisal of record be-
fore they began spending 100 percent of their time on union activi-
ties in order to be eligible for promotional opportunities.

What subsequently happened was that our award system pro-
vided that individuals who received outstanding ratings were enti-
tled to an award. As a result, union officials who carried over the
outstanding ratings were given awards.

Chairman BUNNING. Seven years ago?

Ms. PIERCE. I challenged that process when I became the Deputy
Commissioner in 1991. Congress indicated that it was in appro-
priate for 100 percent union officials to receive awards based upon
performance done in a job where they worked before they became
100 percent union officials.

That challenge was subsequently litigated. We lost and the
Federal Labor Relations Authority upheld that and required us to
continue paying those awards.

Chairman BUNNING. In the new contract that you just nego-
tiated, what did you do?

Ms. Pierce. Under the new contract which we just negotiated,
we now have a pass/fail appraisal system and we no longer will be
paying awards based on outstanding ratings alone.

Chairman BUNNING. OK. That same memo further states, “100
percent union representatives will not receive awards in fiscal year
1995.” And you are telling me it is because of that fail-safe?


COMPONET/
UNION REP

Gordon, Noreen
Holtenbaugh, Earte
Hungerford, Wendy
Kinnewon, Thomae
Levy, Alvin
Moynihan. Mike
Price, Rabert
Roof, Rarold
Shield, Dans
Shpbegieman, Jan

Slebzak, Jomen
Spivak, Arnold
Tumminello, Vincent
Whelan, Jobn
Wilkecton, Steve

TOTAL

LEVEL

Ct ore eee

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

5]
3
a
3
3
1
3
3
2
3
3
a
3
3
3
2

170

AMOUNT
DUE

$4,200
$2,400
$2,800

Ht stot
LEO” Bg

LESS PRIOR
RECOGNITION

£540

e540

$940

* The Agency aliall rescind the cancellation of those
individuals’ award recognitions for FY9S, ex well asy

the request for refund of the payment amount received.

TOTAL
DUE

$1,860

tHe sT

4 evtags &


uty

Tl, SSA will pay or deny all initial SSI disability claims within 60 days
of filing date.

(Results: SSA is off their mark by 75%, with a 3% improvement rate since 1992.)

Percent of Initial SS! Disability Claims Paid or Denied
Within 60 Days of Filing Date
Percent Goal 100%
100 %
80% |
60% |
40% 233% 24.7 % 23.4% 26.6 %
20%
0%
1992 1993 1994 1995
Fiscal Year

Source: SSA Accountability Report For Fiscal Year 1995


36

creation of all these extra hours and dollars being spent on union
activity? Tell me how many new employees SSA hired in October
1993 through the current time.

Ms. Ross. I do not know the precise number, but SSA’s numbers
over the last several years have decreased.

Chairman BUNNING. The money spent by the Social Security
Administration for union activities comes out of the trust fund; is
that correct?

Ms. Ross. Yes, sir. A part—a portion of it does.

Chairman BUNNING. Over or around 50 percent of the money is
spent directly out of the Retirement Trust Fund.

Ms. Ross. Yes, sir.

Chairman BUNNING. Another amount, $2 million, comes out of
the Medicare Trust Fund; is that correct?

Ms. Ross. Yes, it is.

Chairman BUNNING. In other words, as we see our Medicare
Trust Fund shrink to the point where it will go belly up in the year
2001, we are spending $2 million annually on union activity at
SSA. And how much money are we spending annually out of the
Social Security Retirement Trust Fund?

Mr. MILLER. I believe it is about 48 percent.

Ms. Ross. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. If you could——

Chairman BUNNING. Right at 48 percent of the total?

Mr. MILLER. If you can draw a relationship between——

Chairman BUNNING. Right around $6 million.

Mr. MILLER. If you can draw a relationship between the expendi-
tures from administrative expenses attributable to title II pro-
grams, which is retirement and disability, that is about 48 percent;
SSI is about 37 percent and about 15 percent would be associated
with Medicare.

Chairman BUNNING. The only money coming out of general funds
would be attributed to SSI then?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Chairman BUNNING. I find it interesting, and I believe the senior
citizens of this country would be very interested to find out that
their Retirement and their Medicare Trust Funds’ money are being
expended on union activity, which is not controllable by the Social
Security Administration as far as time and what those union mem-
bers are doing in the field offices particularly. At least that is what
I have had field managers tell me.

In other words, if someone comes and writes down that they
want to do some bargaining, or whatever it might be, the field of-
fice manager, cannot stop them from doing that; is that correct?

Ms. Ross. They are supposed to be able to say that this is not
the best time or can we work it out a little bit differently. But
our—what we have heard is that local managers feel that it is very
difficult to have that exchange, and most times union representa-
tives do things when they feel they need to.

Chairman BUNNING. OK. Let me ask you about the $4.8 million
in dues collected by the Social Security Administration from the
union employees.

Is any of that money expended on union activities at the Social
Security Administration?


48

Mr. GAGE. Sir, our union——

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes or no?

Mr. GAGE. We have a PAC, political action committee that em-
ployees can contribute to separate from their dues.

Mr. JOHNSON. That isn’t the question I asked you. The unions
have tasked every union member for extra dues for political
purposes.

Mr. GAGE. No, we have not.

Mr. JOHNSON. Does your union do that?

Mr. GAGE. We have not asked our people for any extra dues, no.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are they doing it through their PAC?

Mr. GAGE. We do have employees who contribute to an AFGE
PAC. That is not from dues.

Mr. JOHNSON. So, it is partisan to a degree, then, if it is being
used for political purposes against republican candidates?

Mr. GaGE. That is not dues, sir. Clearly, that is not dues money.

Mr. JOHNSON. What is it?

Mr. GAGE. This is an extra contribution that employees make to
a PAC, like any other PAC, as citizens; not dues money.

Mr. JOHNSON. But it is union.

Thank you very much.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Collins will inquire.

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Gage, to follow up on Mr. Thomas’ earlier ques-
tion, it is on the first page of your testimony, the fourth paragraph,
union representatives can use official time only for those activities
which are reasonable and necessary and in the public interest. And
I believe it was stated earlier that oftentimes only hours are re-
corded and no specific activity listed. How do you determine, if just
hours are listed, they are actually in the best interest of the public
or if they are necessary or reasonable? What is reasonable? What
is necessary?

Mr. GAGE. Sir, that is not the procedure that we bargained. The
forms that we have, require the union representative to state the
nature of the business, and a supervisor does have authority to dis-
approve that union time.

Now, I have not seen the GAO data on this. Sometimes there is
a long relationship between a steward and a manager, and they
might shorthand the information if the manager knows what that
union person is doing. And I think a lot of it might have to go to
that. But, now we are not interested in official time abuse, or being
accused of it, and our accounting procedure by contract is set. And
I might also say that a question was left open that there is no cap
on the amount of union representatives we can have. That is not
true. We have clear caps on them, as well as the amount of time.
And managers do have a control of that activity.

Social Security is not giving this away on official time. These
things are actual and reasonable, necessary for the mission of the
Agency.

Mr. COLLINS. But, there is an indication at the field level that
oftentimes a supervisor does not ask for a form to be signed or even
accept a form because they know they cannot deny it, or they can-
not make a certain request, or-——

Mr. GaGE. That is his the supervisor's problem. It is really—
when I say that, a good supervisor can ask and should ask. And


117

it vit vel inue to inc!
H for umon acuvities 2 w (a

le; _ Since this is radi ifferent from the pai

As I noted in my testimony, this is a projection. We would like to
clarify that the reported expenditures thus far have identified traditional
jabor-management activities, and we are discussing the development of a
Process to track partnership activities.

We do have some reason to believe that these expenditures will level off
over the long term, but in the short term we expect to continue to see
some increases because we will be more consistently capturing
partnership time and will be capturing management time for the first
time. A lot of union partnership work already has gone into our
streamlining processes, and interest-based bargaining (IBB) and
facilitator training is almost complete. We are looking at more efficient
means of dealing with our labor-management relations responsibility;
2.g., a more cost-effective way of delivering contract training than the
Yace-to-face sessions traditionally used, which incurred travel expenses.
We are resolving more of our labor-management relations issues in a
cooperative process rather than through litigation.

Our recent experience has indicated that many major changes have
occurred Agencywide as a result of implementation of direct
service/customer service enhancements; partnership initiatives;
legislation; National Performance Review initiatives; Governmentwide
regulations and Disability initiatives. Their implementation required
consultation and/or bargaining with union representatives in
Headquarters and/or Regions under the Federal Service Labor-
Management Relations Statute. A list of these initiatives is attached.

As we gain more experience working in a partnership mode, we
anticipate that costs should level off, and more importantly, that costs
will reflect a more productive use of our resources than litigation and
traditional adversarial bargaining.

Attachment


53

Mr. PorTMAN. I understand that. I am not suggesting that. I
think it would be helpful for us just to understand how this hap-
pens, and why these costs are escalating. They all come out of the
trust fund, so obviously it is something everybody wants to scruti-
nize.

In reading the material and looking at the GAO report, when you
come into this notion of official time and full time union represent-
atives I am just confused—you, again, very carefully distinguished
between internal union activity, which is prohibited from being
charged to official time, and nonofficial. I mean, if someone is full
time union, whether they are making $30,000 or $80,000, does that
person spend necessarily 40 hours a week doing Social Security
Administration work? And I am not saying that it is not union-
related or partnership related.

And then the internal work, which I assume everyone has to
do—I mean, don’t you have to do some internal work if you are a
full time employee? Is that charged beyond that 40 hours? How
does that work? I just do not understand it.

Mr. GAGE. Well, I would agree with your characterization that
these employees are working on Social Security activities more
than union activities, and they are receiving time for it. They are
representing the union also on that Social Security activity. That
really is what I see the difference in concepts here are, how we are
misunderstanding the usage of time.

Mr. PorTMAN. No. I think I understand that. And my question
is: Are you suggesting that those people spend more than 40 hours
a week doing their job, because necessarily don’t they have some
other functions that are not official?

Mr. GacE. Some of these people are detailed into central office,
or they are detailed into a regional office.

Mr. PoRTMAN. That may be 20 or 30 out of 145?

Mr. GaGE. Yes.

Mr. PorTMAN. OK. But, the bulk of these people are out in the
field working day to day, with the Social Security supervisors and
so on.

I would just make one final comment because I know I am
running out of time.

When we look at this, and what got the Subcommittee interested
was when the supervisors came to us and said, we are having dif-
ficulty managing the Agency. Two-thirds of the supervisors inter-
viewed by GAO say there is a real problem here.

Mr. Gace. All in San Francisco, right.

Mr. PORTMAN. Well, wherever they did it. You indicated that
may be a pocket, but still two-thirds is a pretty substantial num-
ber. That is what we are trying to get at here. And the question
is, how do you attribute these activities to various activities be-
cause they are coming out of the trust fund? That is very sensitive.
We need to evaluate that.

Chairman BUNNING. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. PoRTMAN. But also, how do we get the mission of the Agency
back on track? That is what we are trying to get at.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. You are welcome, Mr. Portman.


ls

188

Compensation Over and Above Salaries
to Union Representatives’

NAME
Conrad, Susan
Krall, Andrew

‘Angelet, Ana
Ballard, Evan P.
Bigelow, Kirk
Comito, Francis
Deduliis, Ralph C.
Edmonds, Jeanette
Fahlikman, Charles
Fretwell, Warren C.
Hampton, Barbara A.

Mauger, Robert C.
Panagiotopoulos, Andrew
Pastore, Gianmarco
Sheehan, Michael V.

Berkowitz, Samuel H.
Bristow, Gwendolyn
Flovick, Carolyn E.
Holley, Phil
Jefferson, Terence L.
Merritt, Frank S,
Pyle, Rita
Rosendale, Patrick S.
Southam, Jean
Witmer, Archie

Adams Jr., William B
Burke, Jacqueline F.

‘Marsh, Matthew C.

Young, Anthony

OFFICE
‘Sommerville, DO
Worcester, DO

New York City - Downtown, DO
Camden, DO
Patterson, DO
Jersey City TSC
Bushwick, DO
Syracuse, DO
Brooklyn OHA
Jamaica ROPIR
Hoboken, BO
Amherst, DO
Mineola, DO
Glassboro, BO
Flatbush, 00

Philadelphia - West, DO
Upper Darby TSC
Suffolk, BO
Charlestown, DO
Baltimore TSC.
Baltimore TSC
Townson, DO
Baltimore TSC
Wilmington, DO
MATPSC

‘Augusta, DO
Hendersonville, DO

Petersburg, DO
Ft. Lauderdale TSC
Gainsvitle, DO
Birmingham ROPIR
Birmingham, DO
SEPSC

AMOUNT
$325
$ 510

$ 800
$325
$ 325
$ 800
$ 325
$ 325
$ 325
$ 325
$1400


49

if he suspects an abuse of official time, he is not doing his job if
he does not correct it.

Mr. CoLLins. Well, there seems to be a good bit of intimidation
at that level from those union members to those supervisors, which
in the long run winds up not helping the situation, not helping to
accomplish the goal of the job of all of the employees.

Mr. Gack. Sir, I think it comes——

Mr. COLLINS. Whether it be union or nonunion members.

Mr. GaGE. That is not our interest.

Mr. COLLINS. The kind of report we are getting from field rep-
resentatives is that it is intimidating. They cannot control the situ-
ation. They are not able to accomplish the goals of what the em-
ployees, whether they are union or nonunion, are supposed to be
doing, and that is to see that the Social Security Administration
prioritizes those who receive Social Security benefits and have
problems within the Agency. The employees are not able to accom-
plish their goal. That is one of the things that brought this issue
to the forefront.

Mr. GaGE. Yes, I hear that.

Mr. CoLLINs. You say that you all have been able to gain in your
activities, and that you should actually—based on your testimony,
the costs should be going down, not up.

Mr. GacE. I think the costs have gone down.

Mr. CoLLIns. Well, my God, they—the reports do not show that.

Mr. GaGE. Well, we have about 145 people on full time. And I
think it was characterized, you know, that we have an $80,000 or
$90,000 person who is on full time. That is not what GAO said. I
understand you got that impression from them. We have an actu-
ary steward. He is a research guy who is paid that much, and he
uses maybe 3 hours a year on union activities. But, he filled out
a! form so he is included in how many union representatives we

ive.

So, we do not have any full time person who is paid like that
from the—from the trust fund.

Mr. COLLINS. My time is running out, though, John.

Let me ask you this. You cannot bargain for benefits. You cannot
bargain for a salary. Is the job situation so that you had to double
the amount of time, double the amount of expense on behalf of the
union and the union time? Is the situation on the job level, in the
workplace, that bad? Have the problems doubled in the last 2
years?

Mr. GaGE. Things are pretty tense on the work site. There are
a lot of concerns there. There are a lot of changes that we are try-
ing to make, such as health, and safety.

Mr. COLLINS. Like what?

Mr. GaGE. The health and safety 800 number; for instance, mov-
ing the 800 number into other components so that employees can
help with the 800 number calls.

Mr. COLLINS. What about health and safety? I mean, if you were
a construction contractor and you were digging and laying lines 10,
15 feet in the ground, I can understand safety. But, I mean, these
are office spaces.

Mr. GaGE. Well, the office spaces are not exactly in places that
are safe. We need guards. We are talking about different align-


78

Chairman BUNNING. Thank you Commissioner Chater.

I will question and then Mr. Johnson can question and then we
will put everybody on the 5-minute rule. I am not going to take
much more than 5 minutes, because we are going to get around
more than once.

GAO, in its report, estimated that in 1995, $12.6, not $11.7 mil-
lion, in trust fund moneys were spent on union activity. If each of
the 1,800 part-time union responsibilities spent only 25 percent of
their time on union work that would equate to 450 employees doing
full time union work, at an average salary of $42,000, this is ap-
proximately $18.9 million, alone, without including the salaries and
benefits of the 146 full time union responsibilities.

That sum does not include the millions of dollars in management
salaries spent on processing grievances, meetings with union re-
sponsibilities responding to frivolous union charges, and so forth.

Commissioner Chater, does not it appear to you that both the
$11.7 million that SSA reported in its 1997 appropriation justifica-
tion for SSA union in 1995 and the $12.6 million verified by GAO
are gross under estimates of the total cost of union activity at SSA?

I am not asking for a statement justifying this spending, just
your view on whether $12.6 million really represents the full cost?

Ms. CuATER. According to our records, which we believe are accu-
rately kept to the best of our ability, the costs that we have esti-
mated match the number of employees who are working on union/
SSA related activities.

Chairman BUNNING. In other words, you do not believe that the
part-time employees spend anywhere close to 25 percent of their
time on union activity?

We are now referring to 1,800 people.

Ms. CuaTEr. Yes, that’s true. Perhaps Mr. Dyer can tell us how
we calculated those costs?

Mr. Dyer. Well, again, the way we get the costs, Mr. Chairman,
is that we actually do surveys of where the time is spent by the
union employees. They report the amount of time spent on union/
SSA-related activities to our managers, and then we tally it, and
that’s how we got the calculations that we gave you.

Chairman BUNNING. Well, that still does not answer my ques-
tion. My question was, do the part-time union employees, union
representatives spend 25 percent of their time on union activities?

Now, if you keep good records, that should be very available to
you.

Mr. Dyer. Again, I am not familiar with the exact details of
records, but my own personal experience with working with the
stewards and various union officials and now people that are, as
you call them, part time, is that it ranges from a very small per-
centage of their time to 25 percent. It is all over the place.

Chairman BUNNING. You would say, in answer to the question,
that no part-time employees spend as much as 25 percent of their
time on union activities?

Mr. Dyer. I cannot say that.

Ms. PIERCE. Congressman, some part-time employees——

Chairman BUNNING. Excuse me.


88

Ms. CHATER. What I mean is that whatever is passed as the per-
cent of salary increases across the Federal Government applies to
us as well.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Would you say the figures that we are dealing
with since 1993 are a slight increase in cost to the taxpayer or a
dramatic increase?

Ms. CHATER. No, sir, they have increased considerably, which I
have already said, because we are doing so much more than we
have done in the past with our union/labor management partner-
ship.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, could I have one more question?
I see the red light is on but it has to do with money.

Chairman BUNNING. Yes, if you keep it short.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. The question will be short but I hope the answer
is not. What reports do you get on taxpayers’ money going for
union dues that are used for political purposes?

Ms. CHATER. I cannot answer a question that has to do with
union dues. I do not know the answer to that.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. In your partnership agreement with the unions,
they do not confide that information with you?

Ms. CHATER. Well, we have nothing to do with how union dues
are spent.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Well, you are paying them.

Ms. CHATER. We do not——

Mr. LAUGHLIN. It is part of your budget.

Ms. CHATER. No, we do not pay union dues.

Mr. Dyer. It comes out of the salaries.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Well, you are paying the salaries. So, in your
partnership agreement——

Chairman BUNNING. That is it. We will move on to the next
questioner.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. All right. We will have another round.

Mrs. KENNELLY. I think the record will show that Mr. Laughlin
was never a member of a union. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Dr. Chater for coming and I have been listening to
this and I would like to mention for the record, that Federal unions
are permitted to bargain under Federal statute. We are not dis-
cussing anything that is not absolutely regulated by the law. Fur-
thermore, in 1993, President Clinton issued an Executive order
which called for improving labor/management relations through
partnerships designed to bring labor into the early stages of agency
decisionmaking and avoid subsequent conflicts.

d as you and I know, Dr. Chater, this initiative is throughout
the entire Administration. It is part of a reinventing government,
it is part of the downsizing to make a more efficient Federal
Government. We are all aware that the taxpayers are very con-
cerned about where their dollars are going and they want a more
efficient government and that is the whole point of the partnership.

And I salute you for carrying out what you have been asked to
do by the President of the United States. Mr. Chairman, some of
the staff and myself were interested in what this union participa-
tion in the Social Security Administration did during the official
time under the Federal statutes. And we have compiled a list that
we think more or less says more than the chart before us.


43

Our union and I believe the Agency does not see union activities
and greater union involvement coming at the expense of the
American people but rather to their benefit. By any reasonable
measure, SSA’s investment in better labor management relations is
paying big dividends through better service to the American
taxpayer.

During the time that the union and SSA management, ap-
proached most issues in an adversarial manner our relationship
was still quite sophisticated. That same intensity in sophistication
is now much more positively channeled and our new way was not
really born with President Clinton’s Executive order. Both parties
saw other high performance organizations like Saturn, Corning
Glass, Harley Davidson, demonstrate that necessary improvements
were doomed to fail without the support and active involvement of
employees in their unions.

Even before the Executive order we were shifting away from con-
frontation and toward cooperation based on mutual goals. In short,
our relationship today is not so much the result of a radical notion
dreamed up by President Clinton but more a pragmatic evolution
based on our knowledge of the high performance organization and
enhanced by our deep commitment to public service.

The most striking observation that should be made from study-
ing the issue of official time in union activities is not how much
time and resources are spent on union activities but how much of
the work of the union done by our union is dedicated toward gains
in productivity, improvements in customer service, redesigning an-
tiquated work systems and cutting the cost of doing business.

Rather than a case of misplaced priorities, devoting reasonable
resources to union activities is a necessary investment to improve
quality and deliver the best possible service. It may be surprising
to some to find elected union leaders talking about greater union
involvement in workplace decisionmaking as a vehicle for produc-
tivity and better customer service. But, this is not about Democrats
and Republicans, conservatives or liberals. It is about a common-
sense, bottom-line approach to the American public’s rightful de-
mand for a more responsive and more effective government.

Our union shares this Subcommittee’s concern about resources to
administer our important programs. Indeed, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, from our previous appearances before this Subcommit-
tee, we have a long history in expressing those concerns.

However, suppressing union activities is not a solution. Not only
would a return to the old adversarial way cost more in resources,
but we will lose the speed and efficiency we have developed in deal-
ing with the increasing demands in SSA. Just a few recent prac-
tical examples demonstrate the cost efficiency and creativeness en-
abled by the progressive relationship between the union and
management.

I can elaborate on each of these as well as probably a dozen
more, but we created a direct service unit which moved employees
from staff and management positions into a versatile operations
group, being able to respond to various backlog pressures. And our
world class 800 number, we have been working on that for a num-
ber of years. And, I think that the beneficiaries out there know or


129

AGENCYWIDE INITIATIVES*

Impl . E . 2871 P .
Initiatives Agencywide--such as:

. National Partnership Council Meetings;

. Component and Regional Partnership Council
Meetings;

. Interest Based Bargaining (IBB)/Alternative Dispute
Resolution Workgroup;

. National Health and Safety Partnership Committee
for Security;

. Physical Security Conferences;

. Headquarters and Regional IBB and Facilitator
Training;

. Component and Regional Award and Merit
Promotion Assessment Workgroups and Panels; and

. Third Party Assistance Team.
OTHER INITIATIVES

Implementation of Direct Service/Customer Service
Enhancements, such as:

. Intelligent Work Station/Local Area Network and
Furniture Installation nationwide;

s Headquarters Direct Service Unit;
. Expansion of the Baltimore Teleservice Center;
Lt 800 Number Expert System;

. Remissioning of Western Data Operations Centers to
Teleservice Centers;

. Central Office SPIKE Unit; and


As I noted in my testimony and in comments to GAO, in past years,
official time was traditionally used in litigious, adversarial, costly third
party matters such arbitrations and unfair labor practice complaints.
Under our partnership agreement, our relationship with the union has
shifted away from such litigation to more joint activities, such as
involving union representatives in the decision making process to help
craft solutions to better serve our customers and creating labor-
management partnership councils and committees at the national and
local levels of SSA, including health and safety and security committees.
We believe that this shift has made us a better Agency and a better
provider of service to the American public.

Aside from the official time which is used for partnership agreement
activities, congressionally mandated initiatives to streamline and
downsize government have increased the need for official time to be
used to bargain over the impact these changes have on employees and
working conditions.

We would like to underscore the importance of the partnership between
SSA and the unions which represent its employees. One of SSA's three
fundamental goals set forth in our Agency Strategic Plan is to create an
environment that ensures a highly-skilled, motivated workforce
dedicated to meeting the challenges of SSA's public service mission.
We look on our partnership with the union as important means of
advancing the goal. As partnership matures it is expected that there will
be an increase in hours devoted to partnership activities.

As indicated in my response to question 1, because of the inconsistent
tracking of partnership time, and in order to more accurately record all
usages of official time, we will soon be issuing instructions concerning,
the tracking of partnership time.


ow i r CCOI | ea cy and ubli i
Me cisions. at it is a so-called “full
nee" isions?

SSA partnership practices are consistent with the current principles that
apply to labor-management relations in the Federal sector. Specifically:

s On September 7, 1993, Vice President Al Gore released the
Report of the NPR. The report of the NPR found that, "
Quality organizations require full and equal worker and union
participation... ."

. President Clinton's Executive Order of October 1, 1993 directed
Federal agencies to". . . involve employees and their union
tepresentatives as full partners with management representatives
to identify problems and craft solution to better serve the
Agency's customers and mission... .”

. Cn December 16, 1993, the Office of Personnel Management
issued guidance which states, ". . . Involve employees and union
representatives as full partners with management representative . .

a On June 22. 1994, SSA entered into a Union/Management
Partnership Agreement with the committed purpose to identify
problems and craft solutions.

All partnership practices are consistent with management's reserved
tights under the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute.


127

Hopefully, we will be able to successfully vork with the union
in these situations, and the time can be rescheduled/
temporarily postponed to the next/earliest convenient time
after the situation has passed. If this is not the case,
iaanagers must still direct these employee/representatives in
order to do what is necessary to accomplish the mission. Al)
employees are expected to follow the principle of "work now
and grieve later", A failure of any employee to follow a
proper written or oral order could be grounds for discipline.

Turthernore, managers should be slert to suspected official
time abuse situations and do what they can to ensur
Incegrity of the systens We can anticipate occasional
difficulty in reaching agreement vith the union in this area.
However, managers with suspected abuse situations can and
should act. This needs to be done by escalating the
allegation to involve regional management and central labor
relations staff, before any action is taken locally. We know
that such allegations are sensitive in nature to the union,
and we want you to bring all levels of management on board
before any action is undertaken. Our objective is to minimize
reversals that vill appear to undercut your position.

It is important to recognize that in normal situations the
union does have vide latitude in deciding wnat it needs to do
in faitiniing ies ntational role. Usually, the
af Line the Gnion ceske to use on a parcicular activity should
be approved unless the request is clearly unreasonable.
Putting it another vay, managers should not substitute their
Judgment for that of the union so long as the request is
within the range of reasonable approaches.

In closing, a review of the history of our efforts in this
area vill show that we preferred to retain considerably nore
authority over these resources than we currently have. While
only part of our objectives in this area have been realized
over the years, we still have the responsibility and
accountability that we need to prevent abuse, and to insure
u Hopefully, the current

t parti
rather than detract from our goals in this area. I choose to
‘think that our declining resources, and emphasis on improved
public service, will tend to bring the union and management
Closer in regard to these official time matters. I feel that
we have a workable system, and I ask the affected managers to
do what they reasonably can to make the system work.

oz Guest

uth A. Pierce


151

WRITTEN STATEMENT
OF
CONGRESSMAN TOM A. COBURN, M.D.

S11 Cannon House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

(202) 225-2701 S

Submitted June 4, 1996 to the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House
Committee on Ways and Means

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to
relay to the Committee my concerns regarding Social Security Administration (SSA)
personnel conducting union activities and utilizing government services during normal
business hours. Representing the people of the second district of Oklahoma, I am
specifically concerned about such practices occurring in the Muskogee, Oklahoma Social
Security office.

‘The purpose of my statement is not to condemn the employees of the SSA for
seeking representation through the American Federation of Government Employees -~
AFL-CIO, for I truly believe that the union has aided thousands of government employees
over the years. Rather, it is to question the appropriateness of government officials being
paid to conduct purely union activities. With that in mind, please consider the following:

In 1980 the Muskogee SSA office had approximately fifty employees, in 1995
there were only twenty-seven, and now in 1996 there are only seventeen. As you can
imagine, the Muskogee office has become overburdened with an increased workload and
a decreased staff. This problem, however, is compounded by the fact that one of the
sixteen has been designated a "100% union employee." It is my understanding that this
federal employee is permitted to spend 100% of her time on union activities, not on
Social Security casework. In an already understaffed office, we simply cannot afford to
pay a full-time employee who never handles a single case.

During the year and a half in which I have been in office, my staff has become
aware of numerous instances where the "sixteen actual employees" of the SSA office
were unable to process claims in a reasonable amount of time. Consequently, the SSA is
paying benefits to many unqualified recipients because the Muskogee office simply does
not have the necessary staff to adequately review the applications. But, it is my
contention that before we ever consider hiring additional SSA staff we should verify that
all current employees are actually working to serve the public interest, working to resolve
the problems of Social Security recipients, performing the job we have entrusted to them.

Furthermore, our 100% union employee is using SSA facilities (office, desk,
phone, copiers, fax machines, etc.) to carry out union business. It seems to me that given
the controversial nature of employing a union representative in an SSA office and given
our already stretched resources, it would be a greater service to the citizens of Oklahoma
to pay another full time case worker rather than a full time union representative.

‘These problems are not limited to the Muskogee SSA office. I understand that the
Tulsa, Oklahoma office, which serves many of my constituents, employees two 100%
union representatives and two other individual who spend approximately 25% of their
time on union activities. While the Tulsa office has not experienced the dramatic loss in
staff that the Muskogee office has, it is still reasonable to assume that the Tulsa office,
and the individuals it serves, would also be better off if every employee was devoted to
the activities of the SSA.

‘The fact that both the part-time and full-time union employees are paid, with full
benefits, out of the Social Security Trust Fund is a clear violation of the faith which


155

5. GAO reported in their June 4, 1996 testimony (page 16)
to the committee, using acknowledged understated numbers,
that SSA spends 16.8 union hours per year per dues paying
member. In comparison, the IRS spends 10.3 hours per year
per dues paying member and the Post Office spends only 2.8
hours per year per dues paying employee. Hence, SSA spends
far more per dues paying employee in union support than
either the Post Office or IRS, (a 6:1 ratio in comparison
with the Post Office).

6. GAO's report does not include the millions of dollars
in wages for the management time spent in hundreds of ULPs,
Grievances, union conferences, responding to frivolous
charges, etc.

GAO's report indicated the number of Unfair Labor Practice
complaints and Grievances filed by the union have declined
steadily since 1993. John Gage, AFGE President, testified before
your committee on June 4, 1996, stating that the decline in ULPs
and Grievances is a result of SSA’s new partnership with the
union and $SA’s investment, through trust fund support, in the
union. However, I believe every manager in SSA would disagree
with this premise. Again, I offer the following for your
consideration:

Grievances- We estimate that at least 80% to 90% of the
grievances filed in SSA in the last several years were
related to our old appraisal system. SSA had a five tier
appraisal system which weighed heavily in determining award
amounts and eligibility for promotions. Our previous
Commissioner signed an agreement with the union which
prohibited managers from using numerical standards to
appraise production and quality and from using any hard data
to support the appraisal process. Consequently, management
was forced to use more subjective criteria for determining
the employees appraisal level. Employees frequently grieved
their appraisal. Many who received "Fully Satisfactory"
ratings felt they should be rated "Excellent” and many with
"Excellent" ratings wanted "Outstanding" ratings.

In 1993 and 1994 SSA issued instructions to managers not to
lower any appraisals, but to roll over previous appraisals
which could not be raised, In 1995, we did not issue
appraisals at all, but rather scrapped the five tier system
and installed a "Pass/Fail" appraisal system. In January
1996, SSA issued "Pass" appraisals to about 99% of the
employees. Therefore, beginning in 1993, we basically
removed the main source of grievances for SSA. The decline
in the number of grievances is not an indication of better
cooperation with the union, but simply a result of moving to
an appraisal system under which everyone passes.

VLPs- It is the policy within SSA that ULPs filed by
management against the union can only be filed by Central
Office. Regardless of how outrageous the actions of the
union are against management, Central Office refuses to file
ULPs against the union. There have been many documented
instances in which the union has threatened management,
called them names, refused direct orders, overstepped their
bounds while recruiting, interfered with production, and
abused nearly every privilege SSA affords them. Yet, even
when field managers have begged and pleaded for action,
Central Office refuses to challenge union misbehavior. This
has become a common practice under partnership and the union
uses it to full advantage.

Another unwritten policy, under partnership, is that we do
not say no to the union. Because we do not say no, the
union basically gets everything they request or demand.
Since they are never denied, they have fewer opportunities


CONTENTS

Page
Advisories announcing the hearings ..

WITNESSES

Social Security Administration, Hon. Shirley Sears Chater, Ph.D, Commis-
sioner; accompanied by John R. Dyer, Acting Principal Deputy Commis-
sioner, and Ruth A. Pierce, Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources ...... 65

U.S, General Accounting Office, Jane L. Ross, Director, Income Security 1s-
sues, Health, Education, and Human Services Division; accompanied by
Roland Miller, Assistant Director, Income Security Issues

American Federation of Government Employees, John Gage vcs Al

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Coburn, Hon. Tom A., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oklahoma, statement .........

Ferguson, Carroll D., Austin, TX, statement

Mastriani, James W., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, statement

Mauldin, J. David, Muskogee, OK, statement ..

Nielsen, Maxine, Fair Oaks Ranch, TX, statement and attachments «

Seniors Coalition, Fairfax, VA, Gordon’S. Jones, statement . :

ay


145

Summary Appraisal Information for Full-Time
Union Officials who Received Awards
(Question #18)

FY 1993
Appraisal Category Number of Ratings
Fully Successful 40
Excellent 36
Outstanding 9
FY 1994
Appraisal Category Number of Ratings
Fully Successful 18
Excellent 20

outstanding 12


106

Chairman BUNNING. Well, that is very possible. We have not had
a redesign for a very long time and that is why we have a backup
of 3 million people waiting.

Mrs. Kennelly.

Mrs. KENNELLY. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion here—
[Laughter.]

On the necessity of unions and union activities, but once again,
I want to emphasize for the public, and that is why we do these
things, that Federal unions are permitted to bargain over agency
working conditions, personal practices, some operational issues, by
statute. However, official time may not be used for internal union
business.

The purpose of partnership activities is to make the agency run
more efficiently so that more dollars will go where they belong, to
the public, who give their money to this trust fund and depend

upon it.

And I think the report shows us that these activities and this
partnership has brought forth those efficiencies that make the tax-
payer dollar work better.

And, since we are putting things in the record from public pa-
pers I would like to put a dangerous lack of knowledge from the

‘ederal Times in the record, which has to do with this hearing.

Chairman BUNNING. So ordered, without objection.

(The following was subsequently received:]


66

Now, how have we been able to make the improvements that we
have made? Well, I have to say to you that we have made those
changes and have achieved our results with the assistance and the
support of a labor/management partnership. We have made them
through employee involvement. We have made these changes
through increased communication and information sharing with all
employees and we have created a highly productive work place
because of these initiatives.

We are, as an agency, absolutely determined to improve customer
service and we recognize that every change we make to deliver im-
proved customer service to the American public affects every em-
ployee, for it is the employees who are providing these services on
a daily basis. And it is essential that the employees are involved
in developing policy and procedural changes. Just implementing
them is not enough.

As we downsize and, at the same time, as we face an increasing
workload, the employees and their representatives need to partici-
pate in meetings and the decisions that determine the future of the

agency.

I would like to call your attention to the chart to my left which
lists for you some of the changes that we have been able to make
in the time that I have served as commissioner of Social Security.

With the support of our union colleagues and the employees they
represent, I am proud to say that taxpayers are receiving world
class service at every level.

Mr. Jacobs mentioned the 800-number service, and the fact that
we were selected to receive an award. On the chart you will read
that recent 800-number service busy rates are less than half of
what they were last year.

Second, Social Security has processed 41 percent more hearings
in 1995 than we did in 1993.

Third, the number of continuing disability reviews processed in-
creased from 116,000 in 1993 to 285,000 in 1995.

Fourth, the average time it takes to assign a Social Security
Number was cut in half between 1993 and 1995.

During the same 2 year period, disability claims processing time
also went down by 11 percent.

And, sixth, in fiscal year 1995, Social Security issued 10.7 million
PEBES, the personal earnings and benefit estimates statements in-
forming the public about their benefits, up from 3.7 million in

And, Mr. Bunning, a few months ago you personally asked me
do to something about the Administrative Law Judge’s decisions
that had been made but not written. I personally took your chal-
lenge, to our employees, who worked with management to reduce
the number of decisions waiting to be written. At the time you
asked me to do this, we had 47,000 waiting to be written and
today, in only a few months, we have 27,000 that need to be
written.

Some of our initiatives have been recognized by outside sources.
In 1995, Dalbar, Inc., which is an independent financial services
company, did a survey of the providers of telephone service that the
best one was not a private sector company, but it was, indeed,
Social Security, and our competition were companies like L.L.


52

I have a number of questions. Again, getting back to some of the
questions that I asked the GAO representatives, Mr. Gage, I was
interested in your response to both the Chairman and Mr. Collins.

When you look at these charts and the numbers they have given
us, it shows a dramatic increase starting in 1993. You take great
pains in your testimony to point out that it was not the Clinton
Executive order that has caused these changes. I find three or four
places in your testimony where you talk about that.

You go so far as to say that the relationship today is not so much
the result of a radical notion dreamed up by President Clinton—
I would never say it was radical—but more of a pragmatic evo-
lution, it was not really born with the Executive order, it was
before the emergence, and so on.

What I am really trying to find out is why we have these in-
creased costs and how they are offset. You indicated, or at least
suggested, in response to Mr. Collins, that maybe there are some
savings on the litigation side that would counteract those.

Mr. GAGE. Big savings.

Mr. PorTMAN. I want to give you a chance to put that in the
record. If you have that information, it would be very helpful.

But, to what do you attribute the very steep increase? Just look
at the chart in terms of the numbers. We have some flat years. I
do not know how far that goes back, before 1990, and then a sud-
den increase. To what is that attributable? What would you say the
reason is?

Mr. GAGE. I am not saying that these partnership activities have
not cost more in official time. But, the point I am trying to make
is that the official time is significantly different. It is not the litiga-
tion official time, which then had the added expense of litigation.
It is really working on projects in a much more predecisional way.

You know, employees would have to be pulled up anyway to do
a lot of this work. And we are getting tagged for official time and
expenses through the partnership because employees, some who we
recommend, some might be a union steward who is also very good
in an area of Agency initiative. who will then sit on one of these
groups and working as a collateral duty, and that is being charged
as official time. I am saying it should not be. We have to clarify
that.

Mr. PortMaN. OK. You say some——

Mr. GacE. That is what that——

Mr. PoRTMAN [continuing]. —We may recommend. These were
people all recommended or, in fact, appointed by the union, correct?
I mean, to the extent there is official time charged here.

Mr. GaGE. Well, we represent employees, yes.

Mr. PorTMAN. That is fine. I am just saying let us be clear as
to what it is.

Mr. Gace. Well, the point is——

Mr. PorTMAN. This is not just time that is being spent by
supervisors that ends up on your records.

Mr. GaGE. No.

Mr. PoRTMAN. Nonunion.

Mr. Gace. It is not union activities that are off and away
partisan activities, anything like that.


173

STATEMENT OF GORDON S. JONES
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE SENIORS COALITION
ON
SOCIAL SECURITY-FINANCED UNION ACTIVITIES

DELIVERED TO
THE SOCIAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HONORABLE JIM BUNNING, CHAIRMAN

June 27, 1996
Mr. Chairman:

The Seniors Coalition greatly appreciates the subcommittees attention to the issue of taxpayer-
financed union activity. On behalf of our two million members, 1 would like to thank you for
turning a much-needed spotlight on one more example of the disdain in which the nation’s
retirement program is held.

Two weeks ago, the Social Security/Medicare Trustees issued a report detailing the future
insolvency of the trust funds on which so many senior citizens depend. Barring substantial
changes in the way those trust funds managed, that insolvency is sure and certain.

At about the same time, 53 of your colleagues, led by Representatives Mark Neumann of
Wisconsin and David McIntosh of Indiana, introduced legislation which would protect the year-
to-year surpluses in Social Security taxes from misuse by Congress. Their point was that those
surpluses are currently being used to mask the size of the overall federal deficit, making it easier
to continue spending on projects which otherwise could not stand public scrutiny. Offered a
choice between funding Social Security honestly and paying “volunteers” $28,000 a year, few
elected officials would make the wrong choice. When the surpluses can be used for profligate
spending, and simply replaced with a promise to pay at some point in the future, the choice
doesn’t have to be made.

‘The Seniors Coalition is well aware that the “full faith and credit” of the United States stands
behind those 1OUs. But all that means is that, in the future, taxes will have to be raised or
benefits cut. With all due respect to the intentions of today’s politicians, we at The Seniors
Coalition do not believe that taxes can be raised sufficiently to make those deferred payments,
and we obviously will resist any effort to abrogate the promises made to our retired citizens.

We resist anything which weakens, in any way, the integrity of the Trust Funds. That is why we
support Neumann-Melntosh, and that is why we are horrified by the scandal which is the subject
of your hearing today.

Mr. Chairman, let me make this statement in the strongest terms possible: IT 1S SIMPLY
UNACCEPTABLE TO USE THE FICA CONTRIBUTIONS OF TODAY'S WORKERS
TO FINANCE LABOR UNION ACTIVITY WITHIN THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION.

‘Those contributions have one purpose, and one purpose only: to pay Social Security benefits to
today’s retirees and to pay for the management of those payments, And to the extent there are
surpluses, as | have indicated above. those should be invested in real. interest-bearing securities,
ina real Trust Fund, out of which future retirees will draw their ber

Under no circumstances should they be used to pay for Social Security employees whose only
duty is to conduct union organizing activities.

There are at Jeast two objections to this odious practice. The first is, as I have indicated, that it
weakens the Social Security Trust Funds. Every dollar that goes to pay a union organizer is a
dollar that is not paid to a retiree or set aside to pay a future retiree, To that extent, the Socia}
Security system is, quite simply, the poorer. ‘That alone is unconscionable.


101

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me follow up, if I may, on what I was asking you earlier.
Over the last few months, we have heard from employees in a
number of Social Security Administration offices who do not believe
that the union, in this case, AFGE is representing their interests.
In fact, the employees believe the only interest the union
represents is its own.

I wonder if you could explain how an office can decertify the
union as its repesentative? Is it simple, is it straightforward? Has
it ever occurred?

Ms. CHATER. I will have to turn to Ruth for that.

Ms. PIERCE. Well, it is complex, but the process is established
and laid out by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, sir. I would
have to get that specific information. While it is not easy to decer-
tify the union, it is not impossible. But, I do not recall within the
agency any recent time that we have had decertification of a union.

Mr. JOHNSON. So, to your knowledge, you do not know of any
that have been decertified in recent history?

Ms. PIERCE. No, not recently.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Would the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I apologize. I was looking for that information
myself. Did you say you were going to check and submit to the
Subcommittee the-—

Ms. Pierce. I will submit the process to the Subcommittee
because it is very complex, yes.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I had that very thought in my mind and had
made myself a note that the last question I wanted to ask was on
decertification.

Ms. Pierce. The guidelines are laid out by the Federal Labor
Relations Authority, which we will provide.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. In fact, Ms. Pierce, I have to tell you I read the
process as the employee understood and I will tell you as I read
it, it is easier to impeach the President of the United States than
it is to decertify. [Laughter.]}

Ms. PIERCE. I do not know what you are referring to in terms of
what the employees—is this one of the statements for the record?

Mr. LAUGHLIN. That is why we need it.

Ms. PrERCE. OK. We will be sure and provide it to you according
to the way the FLRA requires it.

{See written questions later submitted by the Subcommittee;
question No. 19, page 146.]

Mr. JOHNSON. Does that comment mean you do not know how to
impeach the President or you do not know how to decertify the
union or both?

Ms. Prerce. I think I will just pass on both questions, Congress-
man. [Laughter.]

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me ask you another question.

Back to our Chairman’s questioning on the awards, I have been
reading this agreement in New York and it is amazing to me that
you are unaware of it. It says, a new article in the national agree-
ment between AFGE and SSA. That would indicate to me that you
made the agreement if it is a national agreement, is that true?


26

Mr. JOHNSON. But, if they are on the payroll of SSA, is it not
true that they have the ability or should have the ability to know,
especially if they are a full time employee, how much time they are
spending on union activity? Is there a report like that?

Ms. Ross. That is what I am describing to you.

Mr. JOHNSON. There is one?

Ms. Ross. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. So you know, Mr. Miller, exactly what the employ-
ees are doing all the time?

Mr. MILLER. SSA’s system gives an idea, how much time is being
reported by both full- and part-time people. We found differences
when we compared what we found and what SSA reported.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have supervisory responsibility over those
individuals?

Mr. MILLER. I am a GAO employee.

Mr. JOHNSON. Does the SSA have responsibility, managerial
responsibility?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. To the extent that you have a supervisor of a
part-time employee—a “part-time employee” meaning they spend
part of their time on SSA work and part of their time on union
work—they have supervisory responsibility, and they sign the
forms of full time and part-time people.

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me quote something out of your report.

SSA managers, both individually and through their managers as-
sociation, have expressed concern—and to the Congress—about
limitations in their ability to effectively manage their operations
and control the use of time spent by their employees under the
current union management arrangement.

Did you find that to be true? Can they control their employees,
especially the part-timers, and use them the way they should be
used?

According to your report, they cannot. Is that true or false?

Ms. Ross. Among the local field office managers we talked to,
some had problems, for instance, a union representative would say
that he or she had union-initiated activities to address, and the
local manager did not feel as if he or she had any right to question
or object, they would just let them go. That is the report we re-
ceived from several people, and I believe it is the same report you
have received from field office managers.

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Did you go into what the union dues were
used to support, seeing as how Federal trust fund money is used
to support their employees?

Ms. Ross. We had limited information on what their funds were
being used for, union-initiated activities, grievance costs, furniture,
and other miscellaneous costs.

Mr. JOHNSON. $4.8 million, according to you, are the dues that
they collect?

Ms. Ross. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is it all used within the SSA itself?

Ms. Ross. My understanding is that part of the money is sent
from the local union to the national union, but we did not have a
detailed accounting of exactly where the moneys went.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Collins.


22

IRS records showed that their union representatives reported
spending 442,000 hours on union activities in fiscal year 1994, the
most recent year for which data are available. we did not attempt
to verify these estimates. Table 2 shows the amount of time
reportedly spent and the bargaining unit size of each organization.
In fiscal year 1995, the Postal Service reported spending $29
million in basic pay on grievance processing and handling for the
1.7 million hours. IRS did not develop cost data for union
operations

Table 2: Fiscal Year 1995 Comparative Union-Related Data

Organization |Bargaining| dues- | Time spent} cost
unit size | paying (hours) | (millions

members o!
dollars)
Postal Service 751,000} 623,000} 1,744, 000° 29.2
IRS 97,000 43,000] 442.000] No data
SSA 52,000 24,000 404,000 11.0

Source: Unverified data provided by agencies.
WHO PAYS UNION COSTS IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY?

Union operations in private industry vary widely. In addition
to bargaining over working conditions as SSA unions do, unions in
private industry bargain over wages, hours, and benefits. In
discussions with National Labor Relations Board officials, we were
told that some private-sector firms do not pay their employees’
salaries for the time they spend performing union activities, and
other firms pay for some or all of the time. For example, during
our review of 10 contracts, we found that 7 provided for company
employees, acting as union representatives, to perform certain
union functions in addition to their company duties, at the expense
of the employer. In a 1992 publication that summarized basic
patterns in private industry union contracts, the Bureau of
National Affairs (BNA) reported that over 50 percent of the 400
labor contracts it analyzed guaranteed pay to employees engaged in
union activity on company time. It also reported that 22 percent
of the contracts specifically prohibit conducting union activities
on company time.

Private-sector employers negotiate company time with pay for
union representatives to handle grievances more frequently than
they do for contract negotiations. Of the contracts reviewed by
BNA, 53 percent guaranteed pay for union representatives to
present, investigate, or handle grievances. This practice was
reported occurring twice as often in manufacturing as in
nonmanufacturing businesses. BNA reported that only 10 percent of
the contracts guaranteed pay for employees to negotiate contracts

Forty-one percent of the private-sector contracts guaranteeing
employees pay when they conduct union activities on company time
place restrictions on representatives. BNA reported that in 19
percent of the cases with such pay guarantees, management limited
the amount of hours that it would pay for. Our review of 1
private-sector contracts submitted to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics found one negotiated contract under which employees were

“This number does not include substantial additional time spent on
union activities and paid for by either the unions or the Postal
Service.

‘This number is based on data from fiscal year 1994, the latest
year for which data are available.


105

force, change the culture in our organization from command and
control to let us participate and do this together.

So, it is important for us to understand, I think, that union ac-
tivities are Social Security Administration related and we would be
doing these whether we had a union or not. Therefore, I think it
is absolutely justified that this money be taken from the only place
we get our administrative budget, and that is trust funds and
general revenue.

Chairman BUNNING. Dr. Chater, it is hard to explain to someone
in Owenton, Kentucky, that they are putting their tax, SSI, FICA
dollars in a trust fund and the money is used to pay union activists
in a Social Security system to do union duties.

I give you an E for effort, but it is impossible to explain it to the
rank and file people that pay their SSA FICA taxes into the trust
fund when they think that trust fund money is going to be used
for their retirement. That is the reason for this hearing.

Ms. CHATER. But, it is not fair to say union activities.

Chairman BUNNING. That is totally incorrect because all of the
activity of those employees at the Social Security Administration
are on union activities, totally and completely.

Ms. CHATER. But, those activities are SSA related to every single
one of our objectives.

Chairman BUNNING. I understand that but the fact of the matter
is they are doing union activity only.

Ms. CHATER. No, they are not.

Chairman BUNNING. Are you telling me now that the 148 or 147
employees are not full time union employees?

Ms. CHaTER. No, I am not telling you that. I am saying to you
the way that we define union activity is SSA-related work and if
we did not have a union——

Chairman BUNNING. I mean you can define it any way you
want——

Ms. CHaTER. But, that is the truth of the matter.

Chairman BUNNING [continuing]. You can define it any way you
want but the fact of the matter is that they have no SSA duties.

Ms. PieRcE. Congressman, can I give you an example of —

Chairman BUNNING. They have no SSA duties, they do union ac-
tivity only and you are paying them out of trust funds.

Ms. PreRCcE. Congressman, if I can give you an example of what
seven of those full time union employees have been doing for the
last year, they are working with the redesign work group, full time,
40 hours a week, 5 days a week, working on suggestions, processes,
reviewing the redesign, but they happen to be the union
repesentatives, so——

Chairman BuNNING. Redesign of what?

Ms. PieERCE. The redesign of the disability system. They are
union representatives and they are doing that full time as union
representatives but they are working on that program.

Chairman BUNNING. But maybe if they were doing CDRs, there
would be less of a CDR backlog. Maybe if they were doing continu-
ing disability reviews, we would not have a continuing disability
review backlog of over 3 million.

Ms. PIERCE. Then you might not have a disability redesign.


162

(3) “OFFICIAL” TIME

(A) Union time in field offices is out of control. The unreported time
is at least four times the amount of reported time. Non-bank hours are
rarely either accounted for or reported to Headquarters.

(B) The managers indicated the telephone bills for union calls
average 30% of the total office monthly statement. A manager of a
district offie with 46 employees has two (2) Claims Representatives who
are 100% union. Another manager with 43 employees in his office has four
(4) 100% union officials.

(C) Numerous managers, supervisors and employees stated when
they are in the vicinity of the 100% union officials work station/area, they
are able to overhear the union officials openly involved in personal
discussions such as football games, both professional and college,
baseball games, basketball games, fishing, dating, marital problems,
movies, television, etc. They indicated the union officials no longer even
make a pretense of conducting union business all of the time. Managers and
supervisors have given up attempting to regulate union time due to the
lack of support from upper management, and Regional Offices and
Headquarters conceding management rights to the union.

(4.) FRONT-LINE MANAGERS HAVE LOST ALL AUTHORITY TO MANAGE

(A) Several managers stated "The only difference in the union and
management is the salary scale, In the Atlanta Region, the union has all
the power."

(B) Pass/Fail Appraisal

Due to the change over to the Pass/Fail appraisal rating system,
management is no longer permitted to reward the “Excellent’* and
"Outstanding" employees. This is another example of the union's
protection of employees who are not performing above an acceptable level
and who would previously have been rated either poor or unsatisfactory.
Under the current system, SSA has no method of rewarding superior work
performance by an employee, which is extremely demoralizing to SSA's
top performers.

(C) Due to union pressure, management is no longer permitted to
adequately review and appraise performance on on-going basis. In the
Teleservice Centers (TSCs), supervisors are only permitted to Service
Observe (SO) five (S) calls per Teleservice Representative (TSR) per
month. The supervisor must obtain permission from the TSR prior to
observing the calls. The average TSR answers 1,500 calls per month and
only observing 5 of the 1,500, with the TSR's permission, is basically
worthless as a supervisory performance appraisal tool. The supervisors
are no longer permitted to evaluate performance based on unannounced SO
of the calls.

(D) It is next to impossible to terminate an employee based on poor
performance . Not only is the documentation time consuming, but also the
union intervenes, alleges either EEO, discrimination or harassment, and
must be dealt with on a continuing basis.

(E) Union involvement on promotion panels for management positions
is another concern. How did SSA get in the situation of having interview
panels, with AFGE members, for the selection of the South Eastern
Program Service Center Director? Is this intended to be precedent setting
for other management positions or vacancies?


165

RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER CHATER'S JUNE 27, 1996 STATEMENT

OFFICIAL TIME

Commissioner Chater stated the law prohibits the granting of official time
for union activities involving internal union business such as soliciting
membership; and “Thus, SSA does not pay for union expenses related to these
activities." This is totally inaccurate. The union ignores the prohibition
and, at will, conducts union business on government time, using government
equipment, telephones, FAX, and facilities. SSA management has been
repeatedly informed by Headquarters and Regional Offices that they have no
control over union activities and “not to rock the boat". Part of Partnership
is management not questioning the actions of union officials. Local
managers who complain to the Regional Office are labeled “non-team players”
and “trouble makers.”

At their discretion, union stewards solicit membership, grievances, Unfair
Labor Practices (ULPs), EEO complaints, etc. during normal working hours.
The word from Headquarters and Regional Offices is "Don't question the
union's use of official time.” The union representative completes the time
reporting form, and the supervisor simply signs it. This is not a control of
the time. It is a self-reporting system with no accountability and which
cannot be verified.

The area union president has the authority to appoint officers for the area
union locals and to allocate bank hours for their use. Field offices that in the
past have not had local representatives have been informed by the area
president that certain employees have been appointed as area officers, and
that time must be approved for union business. In one area of twenty two
field offices, the area president has appointed sixteen area officers, one
each in sixteen of the field offices, and has designated each officer either a
"75%" or "full time" union official. The Area Director and the local managers
were informed by the Regional Office they had no control over union
appointments as long as the union hours were available. The local managers
were also informed they must comply with the union appointments and the
75% union time designation, which in effect, removed these sixteen
employees from doing any Social Security work and from serving the public.

GRIEVANCES ANO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (ULPS)

Commissioner Chater applauds the reduction in the cost of grievances and
ULPs due to the Partnership Agreement. Partnership has absolutely nothing
to do with the reduction in the number of grievances and ULPs. The majority
of the grievances were based on the employees’ annual performance ratings.
In the past three years, the appraisals have either been rolled over,
suspended or postponed. With the implementation of the union supported
Pass/Fail Appraisal System, the basis for almost all grievances was
eliminated. Since there are no “Outstanding " and "Excellent" employees (per
the Pass/Fail system), and few, if any, employees are rated less than “Pass”,
what is there left to grieve? The number of grievances will continue to
decline. The number of ULPs have declined because SSA top management has
informed field managers to “get along with the union." The word is out, loud
and clear, “Don't say NO to the unior so, there is no longer a reason for
the union to file ULPs.



COMPONET/
UNION REP

i
Jefferson, T
Joyner, Brendes
Keillor, Ken
Klemz, Gary

Lawson, Bar

Levine, Howard

Leseano, Lolile

ilecgess Yvonne
doh

Martinez, Carsen
Matthis, Sandra
Mouger, Robert
Norris, Jerald
0°

Poulos, Andrew
Pyle, Rita

Ragoa, Osvaldo
Rasmussen, Vivian
Riordan, John

Roberts, Den
Seuvd att
Se mn, Ros

Skwlerceynski, Witold
Steter, Alice
Southam, Jean
wilson, David

Young, James C.

AFGE LOCAL 18 23

Chand} 1 Berdina
Ches, Henry
Dishong, Pot
Elder, Enna
Ennie, Cynthia

169

LEVEL AMOUNT LESS PRIOR
DUE RECOGNITION

4300

®

Ce er ee et Pee Pe ee ee

xs
x3
xd
x3
x3
xa
x4
x3
xa
xa
x3
2-3)
xa
xd
x2
x3
x3
xa
xs
x3
x3
xs
xa
x2
xs
x?
x3
x2
x3
x3
x3
x2
x2
bay
x3
x3
K2
xs
x.
x3

$250
$140
$690
9680
5x2
4x2 sore
ax? e380
axa 2630
3x3

$2,800
$886
91,220
$1,170
2075


34

to do with other circumstances which changed at SSA, including
downsizing?

Ms. Ross. What we found was this category called “bargaining,”
which was the category that increased—we did not attribute that
to the partnership or not. We do not know in particular what peo-
ple may have put, whether people would have put partnership ac-
tivities in there.

I can tell you that——

Mr. PorTMAN. Let me interrupt you. So even though you have
done, what I consider to be, a very good report, you are not sure
that the 1993 increase—which is significant in terms of dollars, we
go from 1993 to 1995, from $6 million to over $12 million—you are
saying that we are not sure, other than the fact that it is bargain-
ing, what it is attributable to?

Ms. Ross. We did our audit based on what these categories in-
cluded and what employees said they were using as their union ac-
tivities, and bargaining was the category that grew the most. Get-
ting underneath the bargaining category since 1993, there were a
significant number of changes in work processes and major initia-
tives at SSA, all of which could have caused a considerable amount
of bargaining.

Beyond that, our audit would not permit us to guess.

Mr. PoRTMAN. But in your interviews, you were not able to ascer-
tain that. You think it probably is the Executive order, but there
may be other——

Mr. MILLER. Our interviews at the time of verification did not
focus on that. SSA has reported as Ms. Ross has stated that there
were changes in the agency during that time which could have gen-
erated an increase in the time spent, operational changes.

Chairman BUNNING. Would you yield?

Mr. PORTMAN. Yes.

Chairman BUNNING. You are telling me that from 1993 to 1995
when the expenditures for union payment goes from $6 million to
over $12 million—and the fact of the matter is that in 1993 there
was a Partnership Executive order—you see no relationship at all
to the doubling of expenditures for union activity? Is that what you
are telling us?

Ms. Ross. No, it is not. What I am telling you is that when we
tried to put these numbers together, what we used were the time
reports that all the union representatives filled out.

Chairman BUNNING. I understand all the background and all
what is written on the papers, but I am trying to get to the basis
for doubling the expenditures out of trust fund money for union ac-
tivity, and you are telling me that the so-called Partnership had
nothing to do with it?

Ms. Ross. I am not telling you it had nothing to do with it. I am
telling you I do not know the degree to which it is responsible.

Chairman BUNNING. I yield back.

Mr. PorTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding back.

To me, it would be very important to get a better breakdown as
to what the increase was caused by. It is interesting, when you
look at the numbers, they are so flat between 1990 and 1993. So,
this is not only a dramatic increase, but it is, at least in that short


115

how much official time is devoted to work other than that directly
lated to Social Security claii yr nj information servic
ii it? "1 ri ime SSA
S ILits worklos -eSsi ims? _Isn‘
rkloa at_s} 1S?

ni

We have tracked union official time. This information has been made
public for many years in our report to the Appropriations Committees of
both the House and the Senate. As I noted in my response to question 1,
the Agency and the union are working together in an effort to improve
the tracking of official time usage at SSA. These efforts include an
automated system for reporting official time, as well as issuing
agencywide instructions for more consistently capturing partnership time
and capturing time spent by management on labor-relations activities.


17.

Chapter 43 of title 5 of the United States Code provides for recognizing
and rewarding employees whose performance so warrants. A
performance award recognizes individuals who have maintained high
quality performance. No employee who worked full time on union

ies received performance awards for FY 1995 or FY 1996.



58

guarantee success. It is well accepted that this approach
involves employee participation during work time. Support for
this changed approach had been made by many public employer and
governmental associations as well as by labor organizations.

Time does not permit an extensive layout of these
initiatives, but I would direct your attention to jurisdictions
including the states of Ohio and Massachusetts, the cities of
Indianapolis and Portland, Maine, and the counties of Multnomah,
Oregon and Ulster, New York. These and other jurisdictions have
achieved productivity increases, cost reductions, and service
improvements within resource constraints through’ the cooperative,
mployee participation approach. ‘Typical issues tackled by these
committees included lower cost health insurance, lower worker
compensation costs, overtime cost reductions, introduction of new
technologies, organizational changes, new work processes, and the
overall methods and means of improving the manner in which
services were provided to the public.

In New Jersey, the work of a joint labor-management
committee was critical to the success of a dramatic
reorganization of the New Jersey judicial system. Over 6,000
employees were transitioned from County to state government. The
legislative and organizational implications from the
restructuring were successfully resolved by the work of the joint
committee, Bargaining units were reduced by almost 90 percent
and individual task forces created to assist in the
reorganization of the judiciary's work. The most substantial
work of these committees has been performed during work time.

The most essential ingredient in the success of these
programs is the effective use of the joint labor-management
committee. Such groups meet regularly, set agendas, agree upon
areas of activity, and help structure project teams and monitor
progress. The costs associated with these activities, when
balanced against their measurable successes, appear to be a good
deal for all the participants including the public who receives
the services and the taxpayer who pays for them.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear, and I would be
happy to respond to any questions.


paid focus avis GAC vei hat 3.00
S wer i if ri WeVt
GAO's 7 udit w: was vey imi ed in scope. It covered only hal af 1995,
out oat feleservice ce ners (5 percent); | out of 17 hearings wand

U Jess t t): 1 out 1 offic
percent); ] out of 6 program service centers (17 portent) and 3 out af
the many components at Baltimore headquarters. Please provide for the
record the number of components at headquarters.

For official time reporting purposes, SSA headquarters is considered a
single component. Currently, there are seven major components at
headquarters, which are headed by Deputy Commissioners. These
offices are: Human Resources; Systems; Communications; Programs
and Policy; Operations; Legislation and Congressional Affairs; and
Finance, Assessment and Management.


16
Ill. SSA will issue hearing level decisions and send notices to claimants
within 120 days after filing date.

(Results: SSA is off their mark by 89%, and performance has deteriorated by 3%
since 1992.)

Percentage of 120-Day Hearing Dispositions by OHA

Percent Goal 100%

100%

80%

40%

20%

0%
1992 1993 1994 1995

Fiscal Year

Source: SSA Accountability Report For Fiscal Year 1995


28

Mr. MILLER. We went to field offices in Texas, Arizona, and
California, mainly in the San Francisco area. We made telephone
calls to the Chicago and Philadelphia field offices to check to see
if they used primarily the same type of time reporting as the field
offices we verified in California.

Mr. COLLINS. In your visits to those offices, did you find condi-
tions that were unsuitable to workers?

Mr. MILLER. That was not the subject of the work that we did.

Mr. CoL.ins. When you walked in, you did not feel you were in
a hazardous place, did you?

Mr. MILLER. Well, it depended on the office.

Mr. CoLins, I am talking about the actual conditions.

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. English.

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Ross, I very much appreciate your testimony. As a former in-
ternal auditor myself, I can appreciate the time and effort you put
into this audit.

I was wondering, when you commenced your audit, I believe it
was——

Ms. Ross. It was in August.

Mr. ENGLISH. It was in August 1995. I wonder if you could ex-
pand for the Subcommittee on some of the difficulties you encoun-
tered when doing this job.

Ms. Ross. I will begin and let Rod do the other part of it.

We were trying to get a look at both the time that was spent by
the unions and some estimate of cost. So we wanted initially to get
whatever we could from SSA on time and on costs, and then we
wanted to go verify to make sure that what they were reporting to
us was what we found.

I will let Rod tell you a little bit about the verification
procedures.

Mr. ENGLISH. Your audit conformed to GAGUS?

Ms. Ross. It did.

Mr. MILLER. Generally, we did a pretty bottoms-up approach. We
used the source document filled out by each of the union represent-
atives in the locations that we went to, traced the individual docu-
ments, which could have been filled out on a daily or weekly basis
under the automated system, to the biweekly submissions that the
office manager would have made into the automated national sys-
tem.

In cases where there was no automated system, we checked the
individual forms submitted by each representative. The had super-
visory approval, and are submitted only twice a year. We had to
aggregate all of these forms on an individual representative basis
to be able to verify that those times were actually getting into the
national system.

Mr. ENGLISH. Exactly how does SSA track the time used by SSA
employees to do union work?

Mr. MILLER. Just that way. They have to fill out a form, some-
times prospectively, sometimes right after the activity has taken
place; and the information from each form is put into the auto-
mated system, the forms are the signed by the supervisor. The
forms are aggregated on a pay period basis every 2 weeks, and the


94

reported. The union officials are aware that their job is to report
it and that the reports are recorded.

When you look at us compared to other agencies, we have the
best system in place. The GAO report showed it. We have a pretty
good idea of the amount of official time used. GAO did not find offi-
cial time that anybody was failing to report, or was reporting
inaccurately.

So, based on the evidence that we have, we think we are doing
a pretty good job.

Mr. PORTMAN. I guess I read the GAO report a little bit dif-
ferently in terms of the completeness and the accuracy of the data.
I think, in fact, they were concerned about that. And I would just
again ask, if you could just walk through it for an individual em-
ployee, how that employee, the part-time employee, for example, in
the field office, currently report the union activity?

Mr. Dyer. There is a form that the part-time employee in the
field office uses to put in the amount of time that he or she is
spending and, in general, what the union activity is that he is
spending it on. They submit that form to staff in the management
arena where it is automatically put into what we call a YY report.
That is one of our district office reports.

What we are doing to revise our system, Congressman, is to
streamline the report and enhance it so that it better captures the
time, and also so that we will have better accountability for that
time. In other areas outside the field offices, where we have large
processing centers, those reports are handled manually and are ac-
cumulated over time which causes a problem with accuracy. That
is where I believe the GAO indicated that they found inaccuracies,
and that is the area where we have really got to streamline and
improve the process.

There is one point you made that I would like to respond to, if
you do not mind. You talked about us rolling over the contract and
your concern about that.

Mr. PorTMAN. Hmm-hmm.

Mr. Dyer. Actually, the rolling over of the contract is another
area where we are saving money. In 1993, while some of the money
was for some of the activities that we have discussed, much of it
was for the actual negotiation of the contract.

When we renegotiate a contract with the union, we bring in man-
agers throughout the country to go through every article in our
contract to determine what areas they have problems with, what
things we need to enhance, what we need to improve, and it takes
a great deal of time and study. Then, once we get through with the
negotiations, which by their very nature in the past have been ad-
versarial and long, it usually takes 2, 3, sometimes 4 months of
actual negotiation.

Mr. PORTMAN. My concern about rolling over the contract is that
even though it may save some money as compared to renegotiating
an entire contract—although you did have some add-ons, as I un-
derstand it—is that if you do not have a good sense of how much
union activity that is currently going on and how much official time
is being used for union activity when it could be used for processing
claims and so on, and getting into some of these backlogs we talked


9

transportation for union-provided training, the union’s share of
grievance costs, and miscellaneous furniture, supplies, and equip-
ment for some union offices, the salary of the AFGE local presi-
dent, who represents SSA headquarters employees and his staff,
and a share of national union expenses.

SSA’s managers, both individually and through their managers
association have expressed some concern to us and to the Congress
about limitations in their ability to effectively manage their oper-
ations and to control the use of time spent by their employees
under the current union management arrangement. By contract,
the assignment of union representatives and the amount of time
spent on union activities are determined by the union without the
consent of the local managements.

On the other hand, many of the union officials and union rep-
resentatives we talked to felt that it was counterproductive in the
era of partnership to focus on tracking time spent on union activi-
ties. They believed that union representation is an important func-
tion that is authorized by negotiated agreements with SSA that au-
thorizes them to represent the interests of their coworkers.

We tried to do some comparison of the time and costs at SSA
with that at the IRS and the Postal Service. At the Postal Service,
we were unable to get a total estimate of the amount of union time
paid by the service itself. At IRS, records show that their union
representatives spent 442,000 hours on union activities in the most
recent year for which we had data.

We did not try to verify these numbers, as we did for the SSA
numbers, but if you look in table 2 in our written statement, it
shows the amount of time that these two agencies reported with all
the caveats and the bargaining size of each of the organizations.

When you turn from what happens in other agencies to what
happens in the private sector, union operations in private industry
vary widely. First of all, in addition to bargaining over working
conditions, as SSA unions do, unions in private industry bargain
over wages, hours, and benefits. When it comes to payment, we
were told that some private sector firms do in fact pay in the same
way as is paid in the Federal Government, while some firms pay
nothing at all for union representation.

SSA like other Federal agencies and some private firms pays for
approved time spent by their employees on union activities. SSA
has a special fiduciary responsibility to effectively manage and
maintain the integrity of the Social Security Trust Funds from
which most of these expenses are paid. In a time of shrinking
budgets and personnel resources, it is especially important for SSA,
as well as other agencies, to evaluate how resources are being
spent and to have reliable monitoring systems that facilitate this
evaluation.


77

Use of the Social Security Trust Funds for Union Activity at SSA
Overview of the Preliminary Findings of the GAO Audit

te The cost and scope of taxpayer-financed union activity at SSA has risen dramatically
since 1993, while work force size remained flat:

Measures of Union Activity 1993 1995 Increase
Dollars $6,000,000 $12,600,000 110% |
‘Ital SSA Work Force 64,800 65,200] 1%
Total SSA Employees Who 80 146 83%
Are Full Time Union Reps.

Hours of Goverment Time 323,000, 414,000 28%
Used for Union Activities

= Hours spent on taxpayer-financed union activity at SSA is systematically under-reported by
SSA (by almost $2 mi 1995).

= The relative level of taxpayer financed union activity at SSA is disproportionate
compared to that at IRS and the Postal Service:

Organization ‘Hours per represented | Cost per represented
employee employee

Social Security 8 s2u

Postal 23 $39

IRS 45 wa

= Expenditures for union activities at SSA are appropriated from the Social Security
Trust Funds (as are the salaries of all SSA employees and all SSA administrative
expenses).

= The increased activity is the result of the 1993 Clinton Executive Order (#12871) known as
“Partnership.” This made the unions full equal partners with management in the operation
of SSA offices. This means that taxpayers’ Social Security taxes are being used for
meetings about such issues as ergonomic office furniture, the allocation of office space,
the awarding of bonuses, instead of doing their regular Social Security work (processing
Social Security claims, etc.). This trend is expected to increase considerably as.
"Partnership" fully takes hold

= Front-line SSA managers believe that this further drains staffing resources that can be
actually devoted to serving the public, Management cannot question or limit the
amount of time a designated employee devotes to union activities. Front-line managers
strongly believe that since the Clinton "Partnership," no one is looking out for the public
interest -- that is, the taxpayers and beneficiaries.

= The head of the SSA headquarters union, who is regarded as the chief union spokesperson
at SSA, has technically remained an SSA employee by taking leave without pay status,
even though he performs no SSA work. He is paid from the $4.8 million of union dues
collected from the 25,000 dues paying union members (there are 53,000 SSA bargaining
unit employees but only 47% pay dues). SSA pays the administrative costs of withholding
these dues from employee pay and forwarding the funds to the union. All SSA employees
who are full-time union reps should be paid by the union from these dues - NOT
from the Social Security Trust Funds.

= Taxpayer funding for federal union activities was legalized in statute in the Civil Service
Reform Act, signed into law by President Carter in 1978,


83

Ms. CHATER. We have made a commitment to downsize about
4,500 employees over a 5-year period. Some of that downsizing will
take place in 1998, 1999, and so on.

Mr. JOHNSON. None of it has happened to date?

Ms. CHATER. Yes, some of it has happened to date. We have used
buy-outs, we have had some people take early outs, we have had
not only a downsizing plan in place but a redeployment plan in
place where we are making efforts to move people from head-
quarters into direct service positions in the field and elsewhere.

Mr. JOHNSON. How do you account for the downsizing of your
employees, when the union workers doubled in the same period of
time?

Ms. CHATER. Well, when we downsize and when we make plans
to redeploy our employees, trying to move them out into customer
service direct positions, we need to consult with the union about
how to do that, when to do it, and we have been doing that.

Mr. JOHNSON. So, you do not have management responsibility,
you are allowing the union to control your decisionmaking process?

Ms. Cuater. Absolutely not.

Mr. JOHNSON. You just said that.

Ms. CHATER. No. I do not believe I said that. I said to you that
we consult with and work through partnership to solve our mutu-
ally established problems and we do it together. And, as I said, we
have a long history in the Social Security Administration of em-
ployee involvement.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am told that only at headquarters can there be

‘ievances filed against the union, is that true or can you get them
rom your field offices in your outlying areas?

Ms. CHATER. I would like to have Ms. Pierce answer that
question.

Mr. JOHNSON. Because you do not know it or what?

Ms. CHATER. We have grievances filed in every part of the agen-
cy. We have committees that sit together to see if we can solve the
problem before it actually becomes a filed grievance.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you personally work with the union, yourself,
and union leaders?

Ms. CHaTER. I personally work with the union leadership, yes. I
am a member of the Partnership council.

Mr. JOHNSON. Which means that you are not in total manage-
ment control, which you said earlier. And, I think we’re misusing
taxpayer money if that is the case. Don’t you have a fiduciary
responsibility over that trust fund?

Ms. CuatTeRr. I certainly do have a fiduciary responsibility for the
trust fund and I take it very seriously. But my point to you today,
Mr. Johnson, is even without a union we would want to involve our
employees in a problem solving approach so that employees know
what we are doing, that we do what is best for the American pub-
lic, and that we do it together.

It is sort of the wave of the future for employee involvement, for
employee cooperation.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand all that but when you abrogate your
authority to a union, I do not think that is what is happening.

Lam out of time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


5

Chairman BUNNING. The Subcommittee will come to order.

Today’s hearing has been called as a result of discussions I had
early last year with a number of the Social Security Administra-
tion’s field managers from all over the country. These dedicated
frontline managers told me they were concerned about a 1993
Executive order issued by President Clinton creating what is
known as “Partnership.” This so-called “Partnership,” they said,
hindered their ability to run the agency and provide quality service
in the best interest of our Nation’s taxpayers.

As a result, in July 1995—and I stress July 1995—I asked the
GAO to audit the use of money from the Social Security Trust
Fund to pay people who work at SSA, not serving the taxpayers
and beneficiaries, but doing full time union work. I am deeply trou-
bled by the results of the GAO’s audit.

While it has been a longstanding and legal practice for the gov-
ernment to pay full time SSA union workers out of the Social
Security Trust Funds, there has been a surge since 1993 in the
amount of money going to full time union work at SSA. There has
also been a sharp jump in the number of SSA employees who work
full time as union representatives, but whose salaries, health bene-
fits, and pensions come from the money set aside for the Social
Security benefits of our elderly and disabled citizens.

Let’s be clear about what is going on here. The money that pays
these Social Security employees to do full time union work comes
from payroll taxes taken out of the paychecks of every American
worker. Under current law, working Americans have no say in this
and, worse, they may not even know it is being done.

But, that is not all. Senior citizens count on the trust fund money
to pay for their benefits, and I think they would be outraged to
learn that part of the trust funds are going to pay the salaries of
Social Security employees to do full time union work. Although
SSA says $12.6 million is only a small amount compared to their
total budget, I doubt American seniors would see it that way.

Today, I have invited the GAO to report their findings to us. I
also invited the head of the Social Security Administration, Shirley
Chater, to join us. Unfortunately, Commissioner Chater is unable
to come today, so I intend to continue this hearing on a date when
she is available. Her response to this audit is important and I look
forward to hearing from her.

This is a very serious matter. The Social Security Trust Funds
face a long-term funding crisis and Congress has the responsibility
to protect the trust funds. Working people have a right to know
that their Social Security taxes go toward their intended purpose.

I am grateful for the hard work of the GAO in bringing the facts
of this matter to light, and I look forward to hearing their findings.
I am sorry that the Ranking Member, Andy Jacobs, could not be
here today. I do not believe he and I have ever missed a hearing
together since we have been on this Subcommittee. There is no one
present on the other side to make a statement, but I invite all
Members to submit opening statements for the record.

(The opening statement follows:]


1

As I noted in my testimony and in comments to the General Accounting
Office, tracking the use of official time is important to both SSA

management and the American Federation of Government Employees
(AFGE). To improve tracking of official time usage, SSA, in concert
with AFGE, is piloting a system called the Official Union Time
Tracking System, which will allow better tracking of time spent on
union activities. SSA's new system will be piloted and tested in field
offices and teleservice centers. The first phase is a limited test, being
conducted in several offices in one region. The test started in the later
part of 1996 and will run for 4-6 months. The results of the test will be
evaluated and the system phased in or fully implemented in the field
office structure. If the system proves to be successful, we will expand it
Agencywide. At the same time, we will be issuing agencywide
instructions in the very near future for tracking time spent on partnership
activities, as well as time spent by management in carrying out its labor-
management responsibilities. These efforts will likely result in the
showing of a significant increase in time reported for union activities
because there has been inconsistent tracking of partnership activities
throughout the Agency, and, for the first time, we will be tracking
management time. In addition, as partnership continues to mature since
its inception in FY 1994 and FY 1995, we will likely see increases in
this area in the short term.



81

Ms. Pierce, that 400,000-hour figure, can you tell us or can you
even give us a ballpark figure of what percent that would be of all
the man and woman hours worked at SSA for the relevant period?

Ms. Pierce. I guess the man and woman hours worked in the
Social Security Administration for the relevant period of over 1
year, quickly calculating in my head, would be approximately 115
million hours, give or take a few, and, given 400,000, I guess that
is a pretty minuscule amount. It probably comes out, Congressman,
to maybe one hour of one week’s time for all of our installations
across the country.

Mr. JAcoss. And Dr. Chater, you testified that the amount of
taxpayer money involved in compensating the union people in rep-
resenting the people and dealing with management was about, was
it three-tenths of 1 percent of the income to the system?

Ms. CHaTER. Yes. Two- or three-tenths of 1 percent of our admin-
istrative budget.

Mr. JAcoss. So, when you give that figure, maybe like a little
chemotherapy for the mountain, it becomes a little more like a
mole hill. The figure of 400,000, when compared to the number of
hours actually worked is less dramatic. At first glance 400,000
hours sounds like a long time to me. It would take me a long time
to get 400,000 hours behind me, although I may have been in
Congress longer than that, I do not know.

I just wanted to put in perspective what percentage it is of the
hours worked.

Thank you.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Johnson will inquire.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to point out, Mr. Jacobs, that I do not think it makes
any difference whether it is one-half of 1 percent or 1 one-tenth of
1 percent, if it is millions of dollars—and that is what it is—of tax-
payer dollars, if it is one penny of taxpayer dollars that is wrongly
spent, it is wrong.

Mr. Jacoss. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure.

Mr. Jacoss. If it produces what the witnesses have said, under
oath, if it produces that, I do not think it was wrongly spent.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me reclaim the balance of my time.

Are you aware of reports coming to you as to use of union time
by your employees?

Ms. CHATER. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you, personally, see them?

Ms. CHATER. I see the calculations, of course, that we make on
how many people are doing how many hours of work, yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. It has been said in testimony here and by some
of your ex-employees that you have an unwritten policy that under
the Partnership, “We do not say no to the union.”

Is that true or false?

Ms. CHATER. Oh, that is false.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, do you have some example of saying, no, to
the union?

Ms. CHATER. Yes, of course.


107

grou og pinom Aout
Apia ‘ys seye Puy “GLAD
35 TPO au TORO YeHTS oF
somod O47
Yup 08 7,ulou0m be
mysu uojun Jo: BussyeANy WONG
-woaiBuog 0 payed om oucouios Su

sua) ToPYyO Uo InYIOM OU 199]
fee quouraSouvut 3,uEo AY
“oun TPO
uo 320m s20Kojdu YoIyR Aor
© S398 uorun og Aye ynoqa
wonsanb szoquiow esai3u0)
uo sea Az00p [891 OMY NEL

“39qUy 40 JoorgOd UO ION Oy OU

Tepoygo saen worun oys poFozye WYN
suoyjeanb aim Suygnory omy
*gsdiquuoijeyes soqu(quaurade

4, “eur J97}9q CAB OF, Syuajdppex

syyouog pur sefedxey om
+ Kowads atp Jo yeouayuy yp Ut
{9204 woRseuucD eyt Salo “eH,
-ousg fed 0} posn Asuow sefedxby

uo]

*suoneja
pue sme} soge} ui saiseq

awos jo jUeL0U3} seadde asnoy
aly yo Suaquialy aos pavanal

Buyeay tH joudeg yuacas y

ayy — spur iors 50 yyBres0A0 € Ap
“nag [spog Jo pide oy aqElOGA
pypasiqaed 5 wom O41)
‘suoryepo pun eave] 20qe] Uy £918
eq, euros jo quus0Usy svadde aenogy

> Of} JO EXOquOUI ewloy polsanas
58 uoKUN fete

wopeururexa seynaned. ey yH
“Koper QhT 91 O66T UT omNY [BIT
~Jo uo Avp £10n9 Buyyiom aqdood og
‘sogy Juam uoreayeURUPY 41
jeneg “een Sumoyy poder 0:
Hurjunovy jerduep ¥ uy eso) ©»
SISHBS qooge AoE 04 WYSE Aree
easy eiequiow epeifuey puy

“yo, JO es oY; ynoge
uorun pus ougSe
&yunaeg [890g wo
-qne euvoyy pue aay, sonoyy
oy) jo susquew ueoyqnd
“OH "WH 011deD vo Buyreoy @ uy
“waqguede [ezope; uy stop mor
dogs] jogs eipajaouy Jo 421
quioddeetp w perexysuourep
Ayyuaoes exoquious eeasBu0g
$0 taypureg w “xporeumzoqt

aspajmouy {0 49e7] snoesueg

Rel Teor aaa wT


92

Mrs. KENNELLY. Doctor, I noticed as we were preparing for this
meeting that in this GAO report they complimented you on a new
system they were currently testing to gauge how much time is
being spent on union activities. Evidently you have a pilot
program?

Ms. CHaTER. Yes, we do. We will be implementing a pilot pro-
gram in the Chicago region very shortly, I believe. Ms. Pierce has
been working very closely with the people who are doing that.

Would you like to expand?

Ms. PIERCE. Yes. What that system will do, Congresswoman
Kennelly, will be to better track the information on individual offi-
cial time spent in the offices. The system will improve on what the
GAO report showed, although we were planning the system far in
advance of the GAO audit. It will enable us to more precisely deter-
mine the exact hours and time spent and define the areas in which
individuals are working, as well.

I might add, as a result of some of the GAO recommendations,
we will be looking to expand that automation after the results of
the pilot to establish precisely what time is spent on partnership
and to ensure that we expand this automated system to other units
in the agency, as well.

Mrs. KENNELLY. Thank you.

So, that means it is going to go throughout the system eventu-
ally?

Ms. PIERCE. Yes.

Mrs. KENNELLY. Doctor, obviously knowing your background and
your expertise, I would imagine you have looked at private indus-
try and their use of partnership activities. It is my understanding
that a recent study suggested roughly 50 percent of private indus-
try uses partnership activities such as the Executive order has
asked you to carry out?

Ms. CHATER. I understand that on the Internet one can now re-
ceive a list of 75 major private companies that are involved in some
sort of partnership arrangement, yes.

It is the wave of the future. It is a good way to proceed, and a
wonderful way to try to change the culture of the Federal Govern-
ment. We are working very hard to change the culture from a com-
mand and control idea to one of participatory management, of
cooperation, of mutual problem solving.

Mrs. KENNELLY. Thank you, doctor.

Dr. Chater, often when we are in a hearing like this, we go home
and we talk about it at our town meetings or radio show.

If you were answering questions on this hearing, how would you
respond? You were asked to come testify before us concerning the
partnership and I heard your lengthy testimony which I thought
was excellent. But if you were me, going home, what would you say
to the people I represent about why this hearing was called and
how you answered the concerns? Short, like in a timeframe that I
usually get to explain it.

Ms. CHATER. Well, first of all, we have been invited to come and
respond to the GAO report. And, second, the main question that
has been asked of us is to justify the expenditure of trust fund
money on union Social Security-related activity. In answer to the
latter, we are doing nothing that is not authorized by Federal stat-




56

their checks on time, getting their questions answered on time and
correctly. I think the whole demeanor of SSA, the public service
there, we contribute to that. All our activities are directly
connected.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. You are not answering my question. I would like
you to take the question for the record and go back and bring us
any record that shows—and this will be part of the record if the
Chairman would permit—that shows an increase in constituent
Social Security beneficiary benefits, services benefits, or—and it is
really “and”—a record of any increase or decrease in complaints by
Social Security beneficiaries.

Mr. GaGE. Be glad to.

[The information was not available at the time of printing.]

Chairman BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Gage for appearing; we
appreciate it.

We had another gentleman scheduled to testify, Mr. Mastriani.
Would you please submit your testimony for the record, or would
you like to come up and give us 5. Then I have some conclusions
I would like to draw.

Mr. MastTRIANI. I have a statement in writing that I have sub-
mitted for the record. If the Subcommittee is interested in my
waiving oral testimony, I would be happy to do that and, instead,
submit my written statement for the record for your review and an-
swer any questions in writing for you if you have any questions.

Chairman BUNNING. We deeply appreciate that and we thank
you for staying.

(The prepared statement follows:]


Cases Heard
90

80

70 -

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Calendar Year

Source: SSA Office of Labor Management Relations.

SSA is currently developing a new system to better track and
account for time spent on union activities in its field offices and
teleservice centers. SSA says the purpose of this system is to
provide management and the union with a more accurate and up-to-
date accounting of time spent and the number of employees working
on union activities and to ensure that time expended on certain
activities does not exceed time allotted to the unions by the
contracts. SSA, however, has no current plans to apply this new
system to headquarters, the Program Service Centers, the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, or other components using the manual system
and did not explain why the agency made this decision

SSA has no system for routinely calculating and reporting the
cost of union activity, although it does provide annual estimates
of the expenses for union activities to the Congress. Figure 6
shows that SSA's estimates of union costs increased from $6 million
in fiscal year 1993 to $11 million in fiscal year 1995. SSA's
total administrative expense budget estimate for fiscal year 1995
was §5.5 billion.



AT

are going on now, and we are really trying to build our work force
to be much more versatile. And the union, I think, is a big player
in that.

Mr. JOHNSON. But, why did the costs go up double plus?

Mr. GaGE. Our accounting system is probably the strongest in
the government for union time. But, we have not built in partner-
ship time. For instance, the GAO said, well, this is all bargaining.

It is not bargaining.

Sometimes in partnership settings we do accomplish the labor/
management bargaining obligation. Many times it is much more in-
formal. It is certainly not adversarial. It is done on the front end.

The form does not take in account now for these bargaining ac-
tivities—for these partnership activities, and our representatives
will simply put down “bargaining” because that is the closest cat-
egory on the form. But, the accountability also on partnership is a
lot more direct.

There is no question of abuse because we are actually there
working on task teams face to face, so management clearly knows
what the union representatives are doing, how much time they are
using, because they are working on the project together.

Mr. JOHNSON. Why does the union pick those representatives
and not the management?

Mr. GaGE. Well, we need employee representatives. Management
needs input from employees on many of these things. And we
represent the employees.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is the management not capable of picking employ-
ees from their own work force?

Mr. GAGE. Well, this is a long—you know, this is a——

Mr. JoHNSON. OK. Let us not pursue that question. Let me ask
you another question.

You said in your testimony that any time there was an abuse by
an employee, such as stepping over the line doing union activity or
something else when they are supposed to be doing work, was
challenged.

Have you ever challenged an employee on that for an abuse?

Mr. GAGE. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. What kind of action did you take?

Mr. GaGE. Fired them as a steward.

Mr. JOHNSON. As a what?

Mr. GaGE. As a steward. We call our union representatives
“stewards.”

Mr. JOHNSON. So, they are out of the union, but are still working
for Social Security; is that true?

Mr. GAGE. Yes, they would no longer be in an official time posi-
tion. Most of our representatives are very dedicated. But, when
there is a problem with official time, where management might al-
lege abuse or we catch an abuse, we take quick action to remove
the person.

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. We are running out of time, so let me ask you
one more question.

You indicate that it is not a partisan thing, you are not Repub-
lican or Democrat. Does your union take extra dues from your peo-
ple for political purposes as the unions across the Nation have said
they are doing now?


51

Mr. GaGE. Yes.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. All right. In 1993, when President Clinton an-
nounced he was going to lay off 272,000 Federal employees, do you
know of any pronouncements of disagreement with the President’s
statement of laying off 272,000 Federal employees by any Federal
union representing Federal employees?

Mr. GaGE. Oh, yes. We were quite concerned about it. It was one
of those things where you did not take an all-or-nothing approach.
We had quite a bit of internal consternation about that, but we
looked and saw what was trying to be done with the Federal
Government and hoped to minimize those losses. So, that was a
very tough policy for AFGE to work with.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Could you Mr. Gage, for the record, provide any
press release that your union issued attacking or strongly criticiz-
ing the President of the United States’ statement that he was going
to lay off, fire, discharge, remove from Federal employment 272,000
employees?

Mr. GaGE. I probably could.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. OK. And if you can, if you will just submit it to
the Chairman.

(The information was not available at the time of printing.]

We have a statement submitted for the record by Dr. Shirley
Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, in which she says that by
1999 the SSA is to be streamlined, downsized by 4,500 employees.

Do you know of any organizational plan—have you seen any plan
to reach that number?

Mr. GaGE. Yes. We are doing it almost daily. We are—basically
what we are doing now is getting down in supervisory and person-
nel and administrative workers, converting many of them to direct
service, and then attritioning down to those numbers.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. My time is about to expire with the amber, and
I will quickly ask this question; On page 2, subparagraph 2 of the
President’s October 1, 1993, Executive order, it says that there will
be legislation proposed to the President by January 1994 laying out
the statutory changes necessary to achieve the objectives of this
order, including legislation, consistent with the National Perform-
ance Review's recommendation. Has anyone shown you that
proposed statutory change, statutory language?

Mr. GacE. I believe I am somewhat familiar with it.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Do you know what the status is, whether it has
been released to the public, or is it something that the unions are
still negotiating with management?

Mr. GaGE. I am sorry. That is more of our national office area.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Above your pay grade, J take it, to use your
words.

Mr. Gace. I am just a little local president.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. You have not seen the language. You just know
it is in the works?

Mr. GAGE. Yes.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. OK.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Portman.

Mr. PoRTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


80

Chairman BUNNING. The important part is that GAO took actual
figures from your records.

Ms. PIERCE. They extrapolated the numbers on an annual basis,
a calendar year basis and ours were for the fiscal year.

Chairman BUNNING. No, they were not. I mean read the report.

When Mr. Gage appeared before this Subcommittee on June 4,
he stated that SSA partnership with the unions is, “Paying big
dividends through better service to the American taxpayer.”

In your testimony, Commissioner Chater, you state that SSA
partnership with the unions has made us a better agency and a
better provider to the American public.

What quantifiable proof can you cite supporting these state-
ments?

Ms. CHATER. I can cite for you some of the examples that we
have on the chart that I presented in my oral testimony. Some of
the progress that we have made is definitely due to employee in-
volvement, to bringing people in at the front end, to having them
buy into the initiatives that we feel are important. I would say that
the fact that we are redesigning our business processes means that
we need to communicate and involve our employees so that they
understand what we want to do.

We utilize those employee comments and suggestions for the re-
design material that we are currently working to put into place.
We can show you that we have made progress by citing the actual
successes that we have had in carrying out our objectives.

As I said, we are dedicated to improving customer service and we
are working very hard on two issues, primarily, the 800 number,
to which we have devoted a lot of time, and the redesign for our
disability claims process.

Chairman BUNNING. Let me not get into a hassle but the Social
Security Administration accountability report for fiscal year 1995
shows that service to the American taxpayer in the area of disabil-
ity does not seem to have changed since 1993.

As a matter of fact, the number of hearing decisions made within
120 days is actually down over 20 percent since 1992, before part-
nership, from about 15 percent in 1992 to about 12 percent in 1995.

Those are your numbers, they are not mine.

Ms. CHATER. Yes, I believe you are quoting from the accountabil-
ity report that we submitted, but I would remind you that these
are our goals for a long-term period. The achievement of the goals
that we have put into our accountability report very much depend
upon our success with the reengineering proposal to reexamine our
disability claims process.

We know that we are not where we ought to be, we know we
have a lot of work to do, but we have made progress and will con-
tinue making that progress over the next years to bear out our ob-
jectives that we have set forward. Our objectives are very ambi-
tious, we know that, but we have made progress, Mr. Bunning.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Jacobs.

Mr. Jacoss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just one question and then I would like to reserve the bal-
ance of my time.


142

San Francisco Duggins, Dana C.
Egerman, Howard D.
Lopez, Katrina R.
Mack, David C.
Martinez, Carmen 8.
Matthis, Sandra S,
Perkins, Jeanette C.
‘Thompson Aaron |
Weich Jr., Ivan E.
‘Campbell, Nelson C.

Seattle DelaCruz, Yvette |
Powell, David H.
Thomas, Kiltie A.

Head
Chandler, Berdina G
Comish, Reginald E.
Gordan, Noreen E.
Lowery, Rhonda V.
Smith, John A.
Tumminello, Vincent

Falls Church Atkinson, Betty J

OHA

* Represents Union Representatives who spent 75%
‘or more of their time on union business.

Redding, D0
Foothill, BO
Oakland, BO
WNPSC
Compton, 80
‘San Diego, DO
Downey, BO
Inglewood, DO
‘San Diego TSC
Mesa, DO

‘Aubum TSC
Auburn TSC
‘Auburn TSC

Woodlawn HAs
Woodlawn HOs
Woodlawn HOs
Woodlawn HOs
Woodlawn Hs
Woodlawn Hs

Falls Church OHA,

(1994-2)

$1110

50
150
400
125
100
100

50
100
100

$ 830
$ 220
$ 200

ewan


As I noted in my testimony, under law, SSA pays for official union time
from general revenues and trust fund moneys. SSA is fully in
compliance with the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute, the Social Security Act, and the Internal Revenue Code.
Working in partnership with our employees and their representatives
assures the delivery of quality customer service.

It is important to note that all of SSA's administrative expenses are paid
for from a combination of funds derived from the trust funds and from
general revenues. In full compliance with the law, allocation of union
official time is distributed between the trust funds and general revenues
in the same proportion as al] SSA administrative expenses derived from
Section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act and Section 9704 throngh
706 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SSA in bound by case law developed by the Federal Labor Relations
Authority and the courts and its own collective bargaining agreements to
pay certain union expenses. The Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute codified a series of Executive Orders which began in
the early 1960s, and allows the use of Federal funds to pay for these
expenses.


13

spent on union activities in fiscal year 1995 related to
grievances. This Postal Service estimate does not include
substantial additional time spent on other types of union
activities and paid for by either the unions or the Postal Service

With regard to union activity in private industry, some
employers pay some or all of the salaries and expenses of union
representatives, as the federal government does, while others do
not

BACKGRGRID

Labor unions are groups of employees organized to bargain with
employers over such issues as wages, hours, benefits, and working
conditions. The current federal labor/management program differs
from nonfederal programs in three important ways: (1) federal
unions bargain on a limited number of issues--bargaining over pay
and other economic benefits is generally prohibited,’ (2) strikes
and lockouts are prohibited, and (3) federal employees cannot be
compelled to join, or pay dues to, the unions that represent them.
At SSA, employees are represented by three unions: the American
Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents over 95
percent of SSA employees who are represented by a union; the
National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU); and the National
Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). Of SSA's 65,000 employees,
about 52.000 nonsupervisory employees are represented by the
unions, and about 47 percent of those represented are dues-paying
union members. Union operations at SSA are governed by a national
AFGE contract and six other union contracts with individual NTEU
and NFFE components.

At the other federal organizations we visited, five unions had
national collective bargaining agreements--four at the Postal
Service and one at IRS. There were 751,000 employees represented
by unions at the Postal Service and 97,000 at IRS. Although other
unions without national collective bargaining agreements
represented Postal Service employees, the number of employees
represented by these unions is less than one percent of all
represented employees

There are two main categories of official time, or government
paid time spent on union activities, at SSA. The category known as
“bank time" in field offices, and equivalent categories of official
time in other components, refers to time that is negotiated and
limited by SSA contracts with its unions. Bank time includes time
spent on union- or employee-initiated grievances (complaints
regarding any matter related to employment) as well as on union-
initiated activities, such as training or representational duties.
The category known as “nonbank time: in field offices, and
equivalent categories in other components, generally refers to time
spent on management-initiated activities; bargaining over changes
to work assignments and working conditions (such as disallowed
leave, employee work space, and equipment); management-initiated
grievances; and any other time not specifically designated as bank
time

HISTORY OF UNION ACTIVITY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

In 1912, the Lloyd-Lafollette Act established the right of
postal employees to join a union and set a precedent for other
federal employees to join unions, The government did little to
provide agencies with guidance on labor relations until the early
1960s.

In 1962, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988,
establishing in the executive branch a framework for federal

>postal unions, however, can bargain over wages and other economic
benefits


The requested information is attached.

Attachment


55

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I wouldn’t suggest you shouldn’t be, but the point
is, as reported in the Federal Times, your union made a $300,000
commitment to that political fund, is that not true?

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentlemen yield?

You told me you did not donate any money.

Mr. Gace. I did not say we did. He is asking me if there was
a commitment made. I am saying we have not made donations. We
do it through our PAC, our national office does. If they are making
that contribution, I am sure it will be done under the law.

Mr. JOHNSON. But, it is your money and you do not know where
it goes.

Str. GacE. It is our money and money from people who are con-
tributing especially for that fund.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Don’t they do that through their dues?

Mr. Gace. Not necessarily, sir. You know the hard money, soft
money situation.

Chairman BUNNING. Would you mind explaining that to me? I
would like to know how a union has soft money to donate to a
campaign.

Mr. GAGE. You know more about this than me, and I am not an
expert on it, but I know you can contribute dues money for certain
activities of a national party, but hard money for political cam-
paigns has to be direct contributions. Direct contributions cannot
be taken out of dues money.

Chairman BUNNING. In other words, if you sponsor a commercial
on television that does not advocate a candidacy, that would be
considered soft money.

Mr. GAGE. There are parameters there, and within those param-
eters, if it would be educational, it is soft money.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. At any rate, we understand political money is
being used.

Mr. GaGE. I am sure you do.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I really do and I am sure that is why the people
who are absent are not here when we see the increase in union
time and trust money being spent on the increase from 1993 until
today.

Did your union keep any record demonstrating an increase or
decrease in constituent taxpayer benefits or complaints?

Mr. GaGE. Could you repeat that, sir?

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Sure. If you will look at the chart over there,
since 1993, GAO tells us, there has been an increase in time spent
on union activities by the SSA employees. They have also told us
that there has been a substantial increase in the Social Security
Trust Fund money being spent on union time.

Mr. GaGE. We have extensive records on the issues that we
handle and bargaining—

Mr. LAUGHLIN. That is not my question. Looking at the increase
in union time and the increase in taxpayer Social Security Trust
money going to union time, union activities, does your union have
any records demonstrating either an increase in Social Security
beneficiary services or an increase or decrease in Social Security
beneficiary complaints?

Mr. Gace. Yes. I think we can clearly establish a record showing
how activities that we participated in contributed to people getting


ADVISORY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225-9263
May 28, 1996
No. SS-4
Bunning Announces Oversight Hearing on
Use of Social Security Trust Fund Money
to Finance Union Activities at the
Social Security Administration

‘Congressman Jim Bunning (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of
the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing
10 examine use of Social Security Trust Fund money to finance union activity at the Social
Security Administration (SSA). The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, in
room B-318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 2:00 p.m.

In view of the limited time available, oral testimony will be heard from invited witnesses
only, However, any individual or organization may submit a written statement for consideration
by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.

A OUND:

‘The Federal Government's labor-management relations policies have evolved gradually in
the last three decades. A 1962 Executive Order by President Kennedy formally recognized unions
to represent Federal employees, mandated Federal agencies to periodically consult with unions
over working conditions and personnel practices, and permitted Federal agencies to provide unions
with support services at agency expense. In the case of SSA unions, most support services are
paid for from the Social Security Trust Funds.

in 1970, an Executive Order issued by President Nixon created the Federal Labor Relations
Council (FLRC), a central authority charged with administering Federal labor-management
relations, and established a third-party process for negotiating labor-management impasses.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed into law by President Carter, vastly
‘expanded the scope of collective bargaining and codified the existing authority for Federal
agencies to use Federal funds to pay the cost of union facilities and support services (such as
telephones, fax machines, and computers) within the agencies, and to pay the salaries and travel
‘expenses of Federal employees to perform union activities for part or all of their work week. In
the case of SSA unions, most of the cost of union facilities, support services, and salaries for SSA.
employees is paid for from the Social Security Trust Funds. The 1978 Act also created the
independent Federal Labor Relations Authority, which replaced the-FLRC.

In 1993, President Clinton issued an Executive Order making unions full, participating
partners in the management decision-making process at Federal agencies. This order further
expanded the rights of unions in the management of Federal agencies by requiring Federal
agencies to bargain with unions over organizational issues, including work methods, technology,

asd viyatticaitvnal siaiTinng paiiesns

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Bunning stated: “I am very concerned about funding
union activity at SSA from the Social Security Trust Funds. Hard-working Americans deserve to
know that millions of dollars of their Social Security taxes are being spent from the Social
Security Trust Funds each year to pay the salaries of Social Security employees, who do union
‘work, sometimes full time, instead of serving the public. This is especially troubling, given the
fact that SSA field offices have lost over 10,000 employees, or 25 percent of their staff, in the last
10 years. As a result, it is getting more and more difficult for dedicated front-line employees to
serve the public. Allowing Social Security employees to work full time on union activities at the
expense of serving the public strikes me as a case of misplaced priorities. I have asked the
General Accounting Office (GAO) to thoroughly investigate the situation at SSA, and to report its
findings at the hearing.”


174

‘The second objection derives from the unfaimess of forcing anyone to subsidize activities of
which he does not approve. Many of those paying FICA taxes are obviously union workers. Just
as obviously, many are not. Those who are already subsidize umon activities through their union
dues. They should not be forced to subsidize the activities of some other union through a
diversion of a portion of their FICA taxes.

More importantly, those who do not belong to unions (or union members who object to union
activities) should not be forced to subsidize union organizing activity with which they do not
agree. The matter is just that simple. Using FICA taxes for these purposes is absolutely
unacceplable.

The Seniors Coalition urges immediate legislative action to correct a situation which cannot be
allowed to continue.


163

(F) Hardship transfers have become very difficult to obtain for
employees who are not union members since the union has a say in their
authorization. Employees who are not union members have, in some
instances, been forced to join the union in order to obtain the union's
approval of the hardship transfer.

(G) The union manufactures work in the DOs, BOs and TSCs in order to
justify upgrades. An example given was the work items transferred to
SRs and TSRs following their upgrade in 1994.

(H) Workmen's Compensation (W/C) is a severe problem in all Regions.
The employee is permitted to remain on the job, and management must
make “Reasonable Accommodations" until the W/C claim is either approved
‘or denied. The union actively solicits W/C cases. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
and Temporomandibular Joint Syndrome (TMJ) have become "prime
projects" of the union,

(I!) Because of union pressure, so-called "Reasonable Accommodations"
for employees who either can't or don't feel like performing their assigned
duties is another major problem for many managers. Management is
obligated to assign different duties to employees who don't feel well
enough to perform their normal duties but who come to work, generally
because of poor sick leave balances, in order to receive their salaries.
Examples are an employee with a sore throat who can't/doesn't feel well
enough to interview the public or speak to callers over the telephone and
an employee with a bad back who can't sit at the desk but must either lie
down or be moving around all day.

Three current, union-initiated activities are of special concern to
managers | contacted: award panels, the promotion plan work-group, and
the bi-lingual pay demonstration plan.

AWARD PANELS

Because of union involvement in the 1996 employee award panels, the
SSA-wide cost of processing the awards has exceeded 30% of the total
awards budget of $23,400,000 - a cost to the taxpayers of over
$7,040,000. This figure does not include loss of service to the public,
efficiency and production due to union and employee involvement in the
awards panels.

One Area Director stated the cost of processing the $250,000 in awards in
his area has exceeded $100,000 in salary expenses alone. This is not
taking into consideration loss of public service, efficiency and production
in the local district and branch offices. A San Francisco Regional Office
official stated the region has used in excess of 4,000 employee hours in
processing awards, and the project had not been completed when ! spoke
with him. He indicated the average employee's salary in the San Francisco
Region is in excess of $39,000 per year.

NATIONAL PROMOTION- PLAN WORKGROUP

Nine SSA personnel, 4 management, 4 union and 1 union facilitator, were
selected to negotiate national SSA promotion plans for thirty-nine (39)
different positions. Earlier this year, the workgroup met for two weeks, 1
week in San Francisco and | week in San Diego. During the first two weeks
of negotiations, they were unable to reach agreement on the promotion
criterion for one single position.


12

Limitation on Administrative expen: ecoun
Union Expenditures
(S$ in millions:

Salary $5.7 ss.e | ss.s | s5.2 | saa | su =
Travel and Per

Diem a 2 2 3 4 6
Office Space

and Telephones 3 3 4 4 5 5
Arbitration - a wl 1 a 2
Total $6.2 g6.3 | s6.2 | $6.0 | $9.1 |sii.0



27

Mr. COLLINS. Ms. Ross, following up on that line of questioning,
could you tell by the forms the actual activities that the individual
who requested time from official time for union time, what activi-
ties they were actually conducting?

Ms. Ross. The forms are categorized, so the union representative
checks the appropriate category. We tried to aggregate those, add
them up as best we could. Sometimes union representatives would
report 8 hours, and would not say how they used the time.

Mr. Couiins. Can you give me some examples of those activities?

Ms. Ross. Yes. Some of it is for union representation. They are
categorized as union, bank time for union-initiated grievances,
nonbank time for bargaining, and nonbank time for other activities.

I do not have the detailed list of six or eight categories at this
time, but I can get it for you.

(The following was subsequently received:]

Time spent on union activities by union representatives is

recorded in the following six categories.

1. Bargaining.

2. FLRA, Federal Labor Relations Authority and MSPB, Merit Systems Protection
Board proceedings.

3. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proceedings.

4. Management filed grievances.

5. Travel time for any of the above.

6. Union initiated grievances and other on-going labor relations activities.

Mr. COLLINS. But, the purpose of the Partnership by Executive
order was actually so that the union would work in partnership
with the SSA management in improving the system to better serv-
ice those who are recipients of Social Security; is that not true? Is
that the understanding of the Partnership?

Ms. Ross. That is my understanding of the Partnership.

Mr. COLLINS. I understand the increase in costs and hours dedi-
cated to union activities worked more for the benefit of the union
instead of actually establishing better methods of operation; is that
what I am hearing?

Ms. Ross. I would say it differently from that.

What we found was that some of the kinds of more adversarial
relationships, such as arbitration hearings and unfair labor prac-
tices, those categories of time actually decreased in the last couple
of years. So, the kinds of things that are more adversarial seem to
have gone down, and we show that in a couple of charts in our
testimony.

The place that the union time grew was in the category that we
are calling “bargaining,” negotiating working conditions.

Mr. COLLINS. Just what can the union bargain for with the Social
Security Administration, with reference to their job? What can they
bargain for?

Mr. MILLER. It is not wages and benefits. It is working conditions
and personnel practices.

Mr. CoLLins. Unsafe working conditions?

Mr. MILLER. It could be that, or it could be sizes of cubicles, it
could be air-conditioning, ergonomic furniture, anything that
affects the conditions under which you work.

Mr. CoLuins. In your view, during your report, did you actually
stay inside the Beltway or did you actually go to field offices?


10

with the unions, we involve our empl
things that need to be done and how we will do th
‘The National Performance Review (NPR

formation of “labor-management partn: su
government. In October 1993, Svesident Clinton issued Executive
Order 12871, which created the National Partnership va

team of senior union, neutral, and management leaders in support

of the NPR's goal of encouraging labor-management cooperation and
partnership throughout the Federal Government. SSA and the
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which
represents about 50,000 SSA employees, signed an agreement on
June 21, 1994, for the purpose of implementing and maintaining
such a cooperative working relationship between labor and
management in order to identify and solve problems, and to
improve the day-to-day operations of SSA, especially those
affecting service to the public. In this respect, it is in SSA's
best interest to support the union's continued participation by
funding certain activities, since the ultimate success of ou
efforts to improve our operations rests with the employees who
put them into practice every business day

In past years, official time has traditionally been used in
litigious, adversarial, costly third party matters such as
arbitrations and unfair labor practice complaints. Under ou
partnership agreement, our relationship with the union has
shifted away from such litigation to more joint activities, such
as involving union representatives in the decision making process
to help craft solutions to better serve our customers and
creating labor-management partnership councils and committees at
the national and local levels of SSA, including health and safety
and security committees. We believe that this shift has made us
a better Agency and a better provider to the American public.

We recently engaged in interest-based bargaining on certain
initiatives to quickly reduce the Office of Hearings and Appeals
disability decision writing backlogs, which resulted in some
9,000 decisions being written in about a month's time.

Aside from the official time which is used for partnership
agreement activities, congressionally mandated initiatives to
streamline and downsize government have increased the need for
official time to be used to bargain over the impact these changes
have on employees and working conditions

I would like to turn now to the question you asked in your
letter of invitation concerning our expenditures for union
activities at SSA.

SSA has three unions, AFGH, the National Treasury Employees
Union, and the National Federation of Federal Employees, which
represent SSA's bargaining unit employees. There are about 1,900
union representatives nationwide representing $2,000 SSA
bargaining unit employees in most of our field and headquarters
facilities. Of that number, approximately 145 employees are
union representatives who spend the majority of their time on
union activities, and are considered to be performing union
activities full-time. The remaining employees work only part-
time on union activities, averaging about 40 to 60 hours a year

In fiscal year 1996, we estimate that we will pay for a
total of $11.7 million in union-related expenses, which equals
about 0.2 percent of our total administrative budget. The vast
majority of this amount--$10.4 million--is for salaries. The



since you became Commissioner? In the last 10 years?

SSA provided this information to GAO and, subsequently, on September
9, 1996 to the Committee on Ways and Means.

§7105 of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute vests
the Federal Labor Relations Authority (not SSA) with the "power" and
"duty" to determine the appropriateness of units for labor organization
tepresentation.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority Regulations in
CFR §2422.2(b)(2) states:

A petition by any employee or employees or an individual acting
on behalf of any employee(s) . . .

accompanied by a showing of interest of not less than thirty
percent (30%) of the employees in the unit indicating that the
employees no longer desire representation by the currently
recognized or certified labor organization and an alphabetical list
of names constituting such showing.

Detailed information on this matter may be obtained from the Federal
Labor Relations Authority.

No SSA office has been decertified since the SSA/AFGE National
Consolidated Unit was certified by the Federal Labor Relations
Authority in 1979.

Attachment


63

And I assume that the dramatic improvement in productivity at
Social Security, in terms of the person who picks up the phone and
wants to know what his or her situation is with regard to the gov-
ernment, must be a consequence of that effort.

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in private, I
have been a Member of this Subcommittee since the day it was
founded in 1975. And I understand that the witness is to be given
the oath and her testimony is to be given under oath. It has never
happened before and I want to say, for the record, that when all
this started, when Dr. Chater, who happens to be a nurse—when
Dr. Chater was appointed as Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration the rumor I heard was that she was too nice and
too honest to run such a vast organization.

I have never heard the slightest suggestion from anybody that
Dr. Chater is anything less than an absolutely honorable person or,
in the case of Texas where she was a university admistratrix, that
her word was her bond and a handshake was sufficient. So, I just
want to make clear that there is nothing wrong with it, nothing
wrong with taking the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, nothing
wrong with taking the pledge that you will tell the truth, but I
want to say, for the record, that that should not be taken as an in-
ference that there is any question whatsoever about Dr. Chater’s
character. Or, to put it another way, that swearing her in is not
tantamount to cursing her out.

Thank you.

Chairman BUNNING. You put it very well. I would like to, for the
record, submit an article by James K. Glassman of the Washington
Post dated Tuesday, June 25, and I would like to put that in the
record without objection.

[The following was subsequently received:]


20

Table 1: 1996 Salary Ranges of Union Representatives Spending 7
Salary ranges Number of
representatives
0-$10, 000 a
10,001-20, 000 0
20, 001-30, 000 16
30, 001-40, 000 36
40,001-50,000 79
50, 001-60.000 9
60,001-70, 000 5
70..001-80,.000 a
80,001-90, 000 1
Over $90,000 o
Total 146

Source: SSA Office of Labor Management Relations and SSA personnel
records

We estimate that the total cost to SSA for union activities of
all representatives was about $12.6 million in 1995. We calculated
the 1995 persennel cost to be $11.4 million by multiplying the
average hourly salary of union representatives (about $27.64,
including benefits) by the 413,000 hours we estimated the
representatives spent on union activities.

The remaining $1.2 million in total SSA costs for union
activities includes related travel expenses; SSA‘s share of
arbitration costs; and support costs, such as supplies, office
space, and telephone use. More specifically, in accordance with
the union contracts, SSA pays for travel related to contract
negotiations and grievance cases. In addition, it pays the travel
and per-diem costs of all union representatives, whenever meetings
are held at management's initiative. Union representation at major
SSA initiatives, such as the reengineering of its disability
programs, the National Partnership Council, and Partnership
training, has added to travel and per-diem costs. In 1995, SSA
estimated that it spent about $600,000 on travel-related expenses
for union representatives. Union representatives told us that the
union pays travel costs for union-sponsored training, internal
union activities, and some local travel

Under the national contract agreements, arbitration fees and
related expenses are shared equally between the union and SSA. SSA
reported that its share of arbitration costs was $54,000 for the 38
cases heard in 1995.

SSA also incurs other costs for telephones, computers, fax
machines, furniture, space and supplies used by union
representatives. In 1995, SSA estimated this cost at $500,000

Regarding the amount of dues collected from union members, we
determined that about $4.8 million was collected in 1995, mainly
through payroll deduction. The unions use these funds for their
internal expenses, which include the cost of lodging and
transportation for union-provided training; the union's share of
grievance costs; miscellaneous furniture, supplies, and equipment
for some union offices; the salaries of the AFGE local president
and his staff, who represent SSA headquarters employees; and a
share of national union expenses.


37

Ms. Ross. I am sorry. Of this $4.8 million——

Chairman BUNNING. Are any of the people full time employees
paid out of the union dues?

Ms. Ross. One AFGE——

Chairman BUNNING. One employee.

Ms. Ross. One AFGE President, Mr. Gage, is paid that way, and
some of his staff are paid—they are full time employees paid from
union dues.

Chairman BUNNING. How many of the SSA employees who do
full time union work are paid out of union dues?

Ms. Ross. We were talking about the 146 who were full time
SSA employees.

Chairman BUNNING. That is what I am talking about.

Ms. Ross. None of those are paid by the union.

Chairman BUNNING. None, zero?

Ms. Ross. Right.

Chairman BUNNING. Is there any breakdown or do you know of
any breakdown of the union money that is paid by the union mem-
bers that does not go to the national union? Or do you have any
breakdown of the union money in your audit?

Mr. MILLER. No, we do not.

Ms. Ross. We have no information like that.

Chairman BUNNING. All right.

Mr. MILLER. We know the types of categories and that is all.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Let me just ask a quick question. Are there any reimbursements
from the union for their work to the Social Security Fund out of
union dues?

Ms. Ross. When you say, “their work,” you mean for things like
collecting the dues or something?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Ms. Ross. No, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. So, the Social Security Administration collects the
dues and that administrative cost is borne totally by them?

Ms. Ross. Yes. It is a part of their payroll deduction.

Mr. JOHNSON. Even though a portion of the employees belong to
the union?

Ms. Ross. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. You indicated that about a half million dollars was
spent on office space and furniture. Is that true? So, we are
furnishing the union all of this space and equipment.

Mr. MILLER. Not 100 percent. The space, yes. Some of the fur-
niture was contributed. It was excess furniture no longer being
used by the agency. The union was providing some—I cannot give
you a percentage, but some of its own fax machines. They were not
providing telephone service; SSA was. They were providing some
computers.

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I do not have any more questions.

Thank you.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Collins.

Mr. CoLLins. Ms. Ross, on the page for 1993 in your report, it
shows bank union-initiated grievances, and in 1993, it looks like a
little over 200—maybe 220,000 hours, roughly. And then in 1995,



157

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, I am not asking the committee to do away with
federal unions at SSA. Rather, I ask the committee to help
restore balance in the process. In SSA today, there are 146 full
time union employees, plus over 1,800 designated part time union
employees, plus well over 1000 union stewards. There are over
3,000 front-line production employees, such as claims
representatives, spending all or part of their workdays doing
union business.

I believe this can be brought back into balance simply by
requiring the union to pay the salaries, benefite and office
expenses for every employee who is doing union business. This
will not stifle the union’s ability to represent employees. The
union stewards could still represent employees in addition to
their assigned tasks. SSA has always agreed to allow union
stewards to take time away from their duties for representational
purposes only. But, this would end the practice of taking an
ever-increasing number of people out of production and
designating them as full time and part time union employees.

Mr. Chairman, during the last 15 years, SSA has reduced its work
force by over 20,000 employees. Yet, during this same period, in
spite of a declining bargaining unit, AFGE has increased its
union employees radically from a few dozen in 1980 to thousands
in 1996. While SSA was losing production employees to downsizing,
we were also losing production employees to the union.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask your committee to initiate
legislation which would stop trust fund support of the union and
require the union to use the money they collect in dues to pay
for their operating expenses and the salaries of employees for
the time they spend on union only work. Furthermore, I request
that you instruct the agency to scrap the concept of "Bank Time"
and implement a new system which clearly defines a limited number
employees who can be involved in union activities for
representational purposes only. No SSA employee should spend time
on internal union business and recruiting for the union, as the
146 full timers and 1,800+ part timers do currently. Those
activities should be performed by employees of the union which
are paid by the union from funds they collect in dues, not trust
funds.

Mr. Chairman, please let me end by expressing my gratitude to you
and the committee for the responsibility you have shown to the
American public and the trust they place in Congress for calling
this hearing and requesting GAO to research this issue. We
depend on you for the good stewardship needed to keep Social
Security alive and well into the next century. The questions you
have raised in this hearing will help assure the working
taxpayers that Social Security will make the right choices in
both protecting their FICA investment and in using that FICA
investment to achieve its mission, which is to serve the public.

I again thank you for hearing me out, and would be happy to
answer any questions by mail or phone, since the precarious
health of my parents prevents me from appearing in person as I
would have liked.


57

‘STATEMENT OF JAMES W. MASTRIANI
LECTURER, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND LABOR RELATIONS
RUTGER ? UNIVERSITY
NEW BRUNSV/ICK, NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman and ienbers of committee: Good
afternoon. My name is James W. Mastriani. I am currently a
lecturer at the School of Management and Labor Relations at
Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. 1 also work in
2 private dispute settlement capacity in both the public and
private sectors. 1 formerly served as Chairman of the New Jersey
Public Employment Relations Conmission for 16 years. In 1987, 1
served as President of the Association of Lobor Relations Agency
(ALR), a professional organization with membership consisting of
state, federal, and international labor relations agencies. 1
have been a professional neutral in the field of labor relations
and dispute settlement for almost thirty years. My comments
reflect my personal professional experience and knowledge,
particularly with state and local governments over this period of
time.

In general, it is common for public employers and employee
organizations to engage in processes and procedures involving
paid union time. Some are provided by law and others are
governed by provisions in collectively negotiated agreements.
Such provisions in negotiated agreements are normally found in
larger bargaining units where the issues in contract negotiations
and administration are more complex and where the organizational
needs of the employer and the employee organization require a
greater mutual Commitment to creating and preserving a stable
work environment.

Provisions in these agreements typically refer to the types
of activities which are authorized and to the amount of time or
number of employees who are involved in these activities.

Traditionally, paid employee organization time was reserved
mainly for negotiations and grievance processing. Other common
activities included committee participation on issues such as job
safety or employment related training programs.

In New Jersey, I have been personally involved with public
employers and employee organizations who have benefitted from
negotiations, grievance resolution, and jointly sponsored
programs involving paid union time. A productivity and
efficiency agreement on a major toll road involving scheduling
and the deployment of a part-time work force saved several
million dollars during a three year contract with guaranteed
future savings. In a large urban school district, a site based
management agreement created a more effective learning
environment with greater parental involvement in the functioning
of the schools. At a community college, a relationship building
program involving all levels of management and employees helped
reshape attitudes resulting in the sharp reduction of conflict
and hostility. A positive and productive relationship was formed
and led to creative long-term labor agreements. In each of these
cases, both the employer and the union derived benefits from
these joint activities held, in substantial part, during work
time.

More recently, state and local governments have followed the
lead of the private sector and begun to engage in workplace
innovations with their labor organizations based upon defined
employee participation and cooperative labor-management
approaches. The common thread is the desire to improve the
delivery and quality of services recognizing the demands of the
public for cost effectiveness. Jurisdictions experiencing
success with these models have, in fact, improved services,
reduced costs, and helped reform bureaucracies.

The success of these programs is well documented and not
Limited by geography or political affiliation. Ironically, some
of them have occurred in jurisdictions which appeared to be
headed toward confrontation but instead chose to pursue a
structured, cooperative relationship with payoffs for the public
as well as for the employer and the employees. "Buying in* to
this approach is not easy, not without risks, and does not


23

Limited to 6 hours a day of company time for union representation
and another under which they were limited to 8 hours per week of
company time for processing grievances.

‘CONCLUSIONS

SSA, like other federal agencies and some private firms. pays
for approved time spent by their employees on union activities
SSA has a special fiduciary responsibility to effectively manage
and maintain the integrity of the Social Security trust funds from
which most of these expenses are paid. In a time of shrinking
budgets and personnel resources, it is especially important for
SSA, as well as other agencies, to evaluate how resources are being
spent and to have reliable monitoring systems that facilitate this
evaluation.

To ensure accurate tracking of time spent on union activities
and the staff conducting these activities, SSA has developed and is
testing a new time-reporting system for its field offices and
teleservice centers. We agree that these are valuable goals for a
time-reporting system and believe that it should be implemented
agencywide, including at headquarters, Program Service Centers, the
Office of Hearings and Appeals, and other components currently
using the less reliable manual reporting system. With an improved
agencywide system, SSA management should have better information on
where its resources are being spent.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks. I would be
happy to answer any questions from you or other members of the
Subcommittee. ‘Thank you.


144

Compensation Over and Above Salaries
to Union Representatives’
1996

There were no awards given for Fiscal Year 1996.

1

Represents Union Representatives who spent 75%
or more of their time on union business.


90

The Honorable Barbara Kennelly
June 27, 1996

Mr. Chairmen, following are a few of the examples
provided to me by the American Federation of Government
Employees of their participation in activities designed
to enhance the operation of the Social Security
Administration. The two examples below include the
redesign of the disability determination process and
security at local Social Security offices.

UNION PARTICIPATION AT SSA
EXAMPLES OF USE OF "OFFICIAL TIME"

REDESIGNING DISABILITY

© SSA is redesigning the disability system from the
ground up to streamline the process, reduce delays
and backlogs and improve customer service. The
union -- through the Partnership -- has participated
extensively in redesign.

© The agency established a redesign team. After many
months of work and consultation, the agency issued a
plan for a new claims process in September, 1994.

© The union participated through a disability Redesign
Advisory Group which submitted written comments on
the plan. The union engaged in a comprehensive
effort to solicit employee input through surveys and
established nearly full-time committees to analyze
the proposals and provide comments from employees.

o After the plan was issued, the agency established a
Disability Process Redesign Team to implement the
plan. The union provided 6 members for the Team.
They worked full time on implementation along with
SSA managers and other SSA employees.

© The union established a redesign committee of 13
members to familiarize themselves with the issue and
provide communication and advice to employees and
management .


172
(2)

6. The parties agree that for F¥ 1995 and, thoresfter, the iccue
of union representatives’ entitlement and recognition shall be
addresced through a process created under the 8SA/AFGE
National Partnership Council.

Ox haw. ZL:

Foy THE AGENCY TON THE UNION

DATE. Gass LILY onk Zz 9 Z 99: ¥

j-


44

should know that union activities have gone a long way to make
that the best in the world.

And, we also renovated a creaky performance management sys-
tem that took up huge amounts of time and money with little value
added.

Clearly union activities at SSA are not separate mysterious uses
of resources but an integral part of the Agency’s business geared
toward better fulfilling its mission and wholly within the public
interest.

I would be happy to respond to some questions.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Gage, before I begin questioning you, I
want to let you know that we will be sending you some written
questions for the record in addition to the ones that we ask you
today.

Mz. GaGE. We welcome them, sir.

Chairman BUNNING. Thank you

I understand that SSA bargaining unit employees are organized
into six councils.

Mr. Gace. Correct.

Chairman BUNNING. And that you are the president of the Head-
quarters Council, which covers about 10,000 employees; is that
correct?

Mr. Gace. Yes, but I also represent, in my local, the Philadelphia
region of field offices.

Chairman BUNNING. So, how many more people would that be?

Mr. GaGE. Another almost 2,000 bargaining units.

Chairman BUNNING. So, it would be 12,000 altogether?

Mr. GAGE. Right.

Chairman BUNNING. Are you an official SSA employee or a union
employee?

Mr. GaGE. I am on leave without pay from Social Security. I am
paid by the union.

Chairman BUNNING. What does that mean, that you are an
official SSA employee?

Mr. Gace. I am officially on the books as an SSA employee, but
I am not paid.

Chairman BUNNING. Your salary is paid by?

Mr. GAGE. By the local.

Chairman BUNNING. By your local union. Why is that?

Mr. Gace. Well, because we have a number of bargaining units
in our local, and my activities are not just spent on SSA activities.
So, we would not—some of my activities also are internal union
business. It would not be proper under our contract for me to
receive official time and a government salary.

Chairman BUNNING. Do you receive federally subsidized health
care?

Mr. GaGE. No.

Chairman BUNNING. You do not?

Mr. Gace. I have the Federal health plan, but I pay for it with-
out government contribution.

Chairman BUNNING. In other words, you pay it out of your own
pocket, or the union pays it for you?

Mr. GaGE. That is correct. I pay both sides of it, the govern-
ment-——


85

while it improves morale and involves the employees in joint
problem solving.

Mr. NEAL. Has the litigation of grievances increased or
decreased?

Ms. CHATER. Decreased.

Mr. NEAL. Significantly?

Ms. CHATER. Yes.

Mr. NEAL. What would you offer as a potential savings or a num-
ber to me?

Ms. CHATER. Well, GAO has suggested that for every charge of
an unfair labor practice, the cost was about $28,000. If we use that
and multiply the number of unfair labor practice charges by which
we decreased, we estimate that we are saving about $7 million a
year.

Mr. NEAL. And that does not mean that you end up doing what
the union wants, it means that you listen to what the union has
to say and then you make a decision after carefully analyzing their
suggestion, right?

Ms. CuaTER. That is correct.

The whole idea of collective bargaining in the past, became
adversarial.

Mr. NEAL. Exactly.

Ms. CHATER. Two groups came together and they had to do con-
flict resolution. What we are trying to do now is to sit at the same
table, share information, identify the problems that we have and
mutually solve them, in ways that will decrease the number of
grievances and litigations.

Mr. NEAL. And grievances are not only demoralizing but they
really are terribly time consuming, are they not?

Ms. CHATER. They are very time consuming.

Mr. NEAL. And once it builds the anger grows and confrontation
comes about, polarization and the level of trust is diminished?

Ms. CHATER. Yes, and morale is low.

Mr. NEAL. Exactly. So, the idea, it seems to me, that you are at-
tempting to implement is to have a good working relationship, not
to give up your management responsibilities or obligations, but at
the same time to include employees in the final product which is
as much theirs as well.

Ms. CHATER. Well said, thank you.

Mr. NEAL. Thank you.

Ms. Pierce. And, Congressman, if I could add, as evidence of the
fact that we are not giving up any management responsibilities, we
recently issued a memorandum in April 1996 to clarify to any field
manager who may have had a different understanding that it is es-
sential that public service be achieved, and the union representa-
tive had to do public service before their union duties. And, that
is clarified for all managers to follow.

Mr. NEAL. Let me just close on this note—and I thank the panel-
ists very much—when I ran for Congress in 1988 the business com-
munity and the chamber of commerce endorsed me as well as the
AFL-CIO.

Chairman BUNNING. And? There has got to be a closing line to
that.


62

Just because it’s common practice and legal for SSA to pay full
time union representatives from the trust funds does not mean this
Subcommittee should turn a blind eye when spending for union
activity doubles in 3 years.

The sharp jump in both the cost of union activity and the num-
ber of SSA employees who work full time as union representatives
demands that this Subcommittee find out the policy changes that
caused these increases.

Working Americans have every right to know how their Social
Security payroll taxes are being used, and seniors have an equal
right to know what the trust funds are being spent for.

Commissioner Chater is simply here to respond to the GAO audit
and to tell us what policies have caused the cost of SSA union ac-
tivity to double under her commissionership. Having made this
clear, let us proceed.

In the interest of time, it is our practice to dispense with opening
statements, except from the Ranking Democrat Member, Mr.

jacobs.

All Members are welcome to submit statements for the record
and I yield to Congressman Jacobs for any statement he may wish
to make.

Mr. Jacoss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I think it is proper to conduct this hearing. On the face of
it, a question is raised about the increase in expenditures for union
activities at the Social Security Administration. It is not unique.
The practice, spans many administrations and is found in private
industry. So, the fact that it exists is not exactly shocking and I
believe not only legal but required by law.

I think I would take exception to the GAO assertion that the con-
sequence of the so-called partnership between the union and the
management people has led to a degradation of service. USA Today
reported a few months ago that a survey conducted by Dalbar, Inc.,
showed that the long troubled 800 number telephonic service to the
public of the Social Security Administration had not only improved
but had improved to the point that it was more efficient than sev-
eral leading private firms, whose principal activities involved serv-
ing the public through telephones—that is fewer busy signals, fast-
er answers, and all the rest.

So, as they say, they must be doing something right and this is
a change.

Now, it is generally perceived by Americans that we learned this
from the Japanese, that if companies would develop better relation-
ships with their workers and listen to the workers, they could also
development better management techniques and greater productiv-
ity. That is not true.

Dr. Demming, an American, taught the Japanese that. You
might say that he tried to teach the concept to American industry
but, to use a Biblical term, he came unto his own and his own re-
ceived him not. So, he took a trip across the Pacific and they have
a big statute to him, I believe, in Tokyo now. He is sort of the
George Washington of modern industry in Japan. But, that’s where
American business has taken its cue, indirectly from an American,
to have these worker relationships and more cooperation.


86

Mr. NEAL. My point, Mr. Chairman, is this, that if management
and labor both seek to find common ground and there is a trusting
relationship, that in the long run not only does it benefit the em-
ployees and management but, most importantly, it benefits the
consumer and the public and it can be done every day. And we are
headed down a road, I think, to even more changes in this arena.

I think that we have to get past the notion that one side ought
to have the upper hand, that there ought to be a trusting relation-
ship. And I think in the long run, the individual who comes in for
the service, the citizen and the taxpayer, benefits enormously from
that relationship.

Chairman BUNNING. That is not the subject for this hearing, but
I understand your philosophy.

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BuUNNING. Mr. Laughlin will inquire.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Chater, I think the goals and objectives that you have told
us about in your leadership as commissioner are commendable.
They are certainly the ones I try to implement with my office. I
have fewer employees than you do. I ran a law firm and tried to
do it there. And I happened to be company commander of a field
intelligence in the army that had over 100 people, and one time
they were scattered in three countries, and in none of those in-
stances did I have to deal with a labor union to make sure I met
those objectives.

I say that to say to you, and I do not think the presence of the
Jabor union is necessarily the problem that we are trying to ad-
dress today. What we are trying to address is the use of taxpayers’
hard earned money going into a trust fund and being used for other
things when they expect that money to be available when they
reach their retirement years.

And since this topic has come to my attention, I have discussed
it with a wide range of people and editorial writers in my district
and not one of them was aware that trust fund money went for
union activity.

So, I would like to focus on that.

Since 1993, our information to this Subcommittee is that union
costs have doubled. Would you agree with that?

Ms. CHATER. Yes, that is true.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. And you are telling us that you are trying to
downsize and have downsized? My question to you is are the man-
agers—and the leadership appointed from the President of the
United States down through the various levels—the mangers who
are accountable to the people of this country, are they making the
decisions on downsizing or is it that the managers are relying upon
the union advisors to tell them how to downsize?

Ms. CHaTER. Well, first, 1 would comment on the fact that we are
using trust funds. We are using both trust funds and general reve-
nues, as our administrative budget is apportioned between the
various categories.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. And which percent of trust fund money versus
general revenue money are you using for union activities?

Ms. CuateR. It is about 65 percent, including Medicare, for trust
fund expenditures. I also want to say to you that, no, managers are


iC Ww; 1 eC ny “al
log Isn't it Vi Vi ren
ieved in_spue of efforts by the union to bl rational
proposed by SSA?

We believe that union involvement has had a positive effect on our
efforts to increase efficiency and improve our service.

As I stated in my testimony and in comments to GAO, the National
Performance Review (NPR) recommended the formation of “labor-
management partnerships for success" across government. In October
1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12781, which created
the National Partnership Council, a team of senior union and
management leaders, in support of the NPR's goal of encouraging labor-
management cooperation and partnership throughout the Federal
Government. SSA and AFGE, which represents about 50,000 SSA
employees, signed an agreement on June 21, 1994, for the purpose of
implementing and maintaining such a cooperative working relationship
between labor and management in order to identify and solve problems,
and to improve day-to-day operations of SSA, especially those affecting
service to the public. We believe Partnership has made us a better
agency and a better provider of service to the American public.



124

Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal
Labor Relations Authority), grievances, union-management
committee and workgroup meetings, formal
management/employee meetings, and some types of training.

In accordance with 5 USC 7131(b) of the Federal Service Labor-
Management Relations Act, official time is not granted for
internal union business such as soliciting membership, conducting
union elections and collecting dues.

Unless otherwise arranged, union representatives are required to
request and arrange with appropriate management officials in
advance for their usage of official time. Supervisors need to
receive sufficient general information to assure the activity is one
for which official time would be authorized. Union
representatives ordinarily are not required to discuss the substance
of the activity. However, supervisors may question unexplained
requests for time or what appears to be excessive amounts.
Further, in situations where union official time is requested while
serious operational concerns exist, the official time may be
rescheduled for the earliest convenient time when the situation has
passed.

If abuse of official time is suspected, we require that it be brought
to the attention of appropriate management and union officials for
resolution.


31

Ms. Ross. I think you would be better off asking SSA employees,
with one exception. I think this new partnership era, where em-
ployees and managers are talking together trying to resolve issues,
I think there is some confusion there among union members and
local managers as to whether that is considered union time.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. In trying to resolve beneficiary problems?

Ms. Ross. That is clearly an agency activity.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Who verifies that an employee is actually away
from the SSA job of providing services to taxpayers and Social Se-
curity beneficiaries and is actually off on union time? Who verifies
that? Who is the watchdog?

Ms. Ross. There is no verification of that action. The employee
tells his supervisor and writes it down. He or she indicates the
number of hours being used for union activity. It is no ones job to
monitor and make sure that all hours were spent were spent as
designated.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. So, there is no accountability on what actual
union activity is taking place at taxpayer expense and trust fund
money expense?

Ms. Ross. I think that is an accurate statement. What we were
trying to do was tell you about the system starting with what peo-
ple reported, assuming most people would try to report to the best
of their ability.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Well, in that case, the specific language of the
President’s Executive order, 12-871, was not complied with in sec-
tion 2 where it requires the members of the council to propose to
the President of the United States by January 1994 statutory
changes necessary to achieve the objectives of this order, and it
goes on.

You know the paragraph I am talking about; it looks like it is
on the second page of this agreement. You do not want me to read
all that, do you?

Ms. Ross. Well, I can tell you honestly, I do not know it.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Subparagraph 2 on the second page.

Chairman BUNNING. Would you submit it for the record?

[The information follows:]

PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDER, 12-871, SECTION 2, SECOND PAGE.

No. 706.

In January 1994 the National Partnership Council issued “A Report to the
President on Implementing recommendations of the National Performance Review.”
The report outlined the following types of statutory changes necessary to achieve
the objectives of the Executive order:

1. Create a flexible and responsive system.

2, Reform the general schedule classification and basic pay system.

3. Authorize agencies to develop programs for improvement of individual and
organizational performance.

4, Authorize agencies to develop incentive award and bonus systems to improve
individual and organizational performance.

5. Strengthen systems to support management in dealing with poor performers.

6. Clearly define the objective of training as the improvement of individual and
organizational performance,

. Eliminate excessive red tape and automate functions and information.

8, Form labor-management partnerships for success,

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Did you find that agreement, did you find the

proposed statutory changes so that the objectives of this Executive
order were met? Did anyone show that to you?


156

to file ULPs. SSA managers strongly believe that the
decline in the number of ULPS does not reflect better
cooperation with the union. Nor does it reflect a better
process. It simply is a result of an agency giving in and
letting the union have everything they demand, regardless of
the expense to the beneficiary and the taxpayer.

Thus, the so called partnership is a farce. The union will not
file ULPs or encourage mass grievances so long as SSA’s
leadership in Central Office gives them what they want.

I realize that the use of trust fund money to support union
activities is based on law and is legal. But, I do not believe
the good people who framed the law allowing fiscal support of the
union ever in their wildest imaginations, dreamed that the cost
of union support would grow so dramatically with no ceiling in
sight. Furthermore, while the law provided the basis for union
support, the Social Security Administration created the concept
of "Bank Hours" and the poorly designed system for capturing
union time which have worked together to allow the union to move
people out of production and into union work at will.

The many managers with whom I worked for nearly four decades and
I strongly believe that taxpayers are not aware of and would not
condone the use of trust fund money to support union activity.
As an agency, we boast of our frugal record to the public,
telling them that we operate the agency on less than 1% of the
FICA taxes deducted from their hard-earned money. Most of those
taxpayers still believe that their FICA taxes are going into a
trust fund to pay benefits for themselves and other workers. They
would be furious to learn that we pay a couple thousand people
$42,000 per year not to work on their claims and their parents’
claims, but to work on behalf of the union

Mr. Chairman, as a federal manager I was frustrated by this abuse
of trust fund monies. As a taxpayer I am outraged, and I know
the American public would share my view if they were fully aware
of the fact that trust fund dollars are used to pay for salaries
awards and retirement benefits, as well as health and life
insurance benefits of people who work for the union and not the
taxpayer. The union is a big business, collecting millions of
dolla: ch year in dues. Yet, SSA pays all of its operating
expenses using trust fund dollars. These expenses include
besides full salaries and benefits for the union’s employees, the
full cost of space (rent), utilities, telephone equipment and
costs, including unlimited long distance service, and
photocopiers, fax machines and supplies, computers, envelopes and
postage -- virtually any expense needed for the union to operate
its business.

Since SSA pays nearly 100% of the union's expenses, the dues they
collect can be used for other purposes having nothing to do with
agency business. While federal managers grow more frustrated
witnessing this, we are also seeing more and more political
involvement by the unions, using the dues they accrued while
receiving federal subsidies for their operating expenses

While AFGE and their parent organization are buying favor with
the current administration, federal managers are questioning the
continued trust fund support of the union. We ask, "Would they
be able to afford such a high political contribution if they had
to pay for their own expenses and employee salaries?" Because the
se of trust fund dollars frees the union to spend their dues
revenues on things other than operating expenses, SSA is, in
effect, using trust fund money to subsidize APGE‘s political
activity.



7

And now I would like the GAO to come forward and begin their
testimony. Ms. Ross, Mr. Miller. If you would begin, please.

Let me introduce Jane Ross, Director, Income Security Issues,
Health, Education, and Human Services Division, accompanied by
Roland Miller, Assistant Director, Income Security Issues.

For the benefit of our guests, GAO is an arm of Congress that
does its audit and investigative work. Ten months ago I asked
them to conduct an audit of time spent on union activity. They
have done a considerable amount of work in a relatively short
period of time, considering that this was a tremendous task.

We look forward to hearing your findings. Welcome. Ms. Ross,
would you please begin?

STATEMENT OF JANE L. ROSS, DIRECTOR, INCOME SECURITY
ISSUES, HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVI-
SION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED
BY ROLAND MILLER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INCOME
SECURITY ISSUES

Ms. Ross. I will summarize my written statement.

I would like to talk to you a little bit today about the work we
have been doing on time spent on union activities at the Social
Security Administration. Given the budget constraints facing
Federal agencies this Subcommittee expressed concern about the
amount of time and expense devoted to union activities and paid
for by the Federal Government. More specifically with regard to
SSA, you were concerned about the use of the Social Security Trust
Funds to pay for union activities.

We began our work on this assignment last August. Our focus
today is on the statutory basis for the Federal Government to pay
employee salaries and expenses for union activities, the amount of
time spent on, and costs associated with union activities at SSA
and at other agencies, and I will provide a limited amount of infor-
mation about union activity in the private sector.

Let me begin with some brief background. Federal labor-manage-
ment relations were formalized by Executive order in the early six-
ties. Since that time, labor-management relations have evolved so
that today Federal unions are involved in a broad range of oper-
ational decisions. The current arrangement is referred to as
“partnership.”

A 1962 Executive order permitted Federal agencies to grant time
away from assigned duties so that union representatives could par-
ticipate in certain meetings with management. This is called
“official time.” Use of official time for union activities has become
a routine method of union operations in the Federal Government.

While SSA employees are represented by three unions, AFGE,
the American Federation of government Employees represents over
95 percent of the employees who are represented by a union. Of
SSA’s 65,000 employees, about 52,000 of them are nonsupervisory
employees and they are represented by the unions. About 47 per-
cent of those, or about 25,000 people, are actually dues-paying
union members.

SSA has a national system for reporting time spent on union ac-
tivities by union representatives. The system is partly automated
and partly a manual system. This union recordkeeping system is


Kansas Ci

Denver

‘San Francisco

Campana, Jim
Davis, Sheron S.
Joseph, Agatha J.
Keillor, Kenneth L.
‘O'Connor, Wiliam
‘Schumann, Gary R.
Seaman, Rose
Skwierezynski, Witold
Tucker, Ear P.

Lambert, Deloris
Lucas, Rose M.
March, Patricia A.
Smith, Robert R.

None
None

Brant, Daniel C.
Campbell, Neison C.
Codon, Michael B.
german, Howard D.
Estudillo, Charles R.
Fehner, Carol
Klemz, Gary P.
Mack, David C.
Martinez, Carmen B.
Matthis, Sandra S.
Perkins, Jeanette C.
Young, Jim

DelaCnuz, Yvette |
Kirshner, Joan
Kofahl, Stephen

Ennis, Cynthia
Lowery, Rhonda V.
Rusk Jr., Harold D.
‘Shpiegeiman, Jan
‘Slebzak, James
Spivak, Amold
Tumminetio, Vincent
‘Whelan, John

189

Lansing, DO
Indianapolis - East, BO
GLPSC

Grand Rapids, DO
Chicago Southwest, BO
Milwaukee - North, DO.
‘Akron, DO

‘Chicago- Northwest, OO
Chicago ROPIR

Dallas ROPIR
Alburquere TSC
McAlester OHA
Tulsa, DO

‘San Diego TSC

Santa Rosa, 00

Oceanside, DO

Santa Cruz, DO

WNPSC

‘Compton, BO

‘San Diego, DO

Downey, BO

San Francisco - Civic Cntr, OO

‘Aubum TSC
Seattle OHA
Portland - East, DO
Seattle ROPIR’
Seattle - West, BO

Woodlawn HOs

(1993 -2)

$ 800
$ 720
$ 575
$ 325
$ 325
$725
$ 800
$325
$325

$ 800
$ 500
$ 750
$ 500


147

Section 2422.32 of Chapter 5 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Chapter XIV (Federal Labor Relations Authority),
states the process of decertification. The section follows.

$2422.32

tion, examine the record in evaluating
the ‘application. An application must
specify the matters and rulings to
which exception(s) 1s taken, include a.
summary of evidence relating to any
issue raised in the application, and
make specific reference to page clta-
tions in the transcript if a hearing was
held. An application may not raise any
Issue or rely on any facts not timely
resented to the Hearing Officer or Re-
ional Director.

(e) Review. The Authority may grant
‘an application for review only when
the application demonstrates that re-
view is warranted on one or more of
‘the following grounds:

() ‘The dectsion raises an issue for
which there is an absence of precedent;

(2) Established aw or policy war-
rants reconsideration: of,

(@) ‘There is a genuine issue over
whether the Regional Director has:

(® Failed to apply established law;
iil, Committed a prejudicial proce:

(il) Committed a clear and preju-
Aicial error concerning a substantial
factual matter.

(4) Opposition. A party may file with
the Authority an opposition to an ap-
plication for review within ten (10)
days after the party is served with the
application A copy must be served on
the Regional Director and all other
parties and a statement of service must
be filed with the Authority.

(e) Regional Director Decision and
Order becomes the Authority's action. A
Decision and Order of a Regional Direc-
tor becomes the action of the Author-
sty wher

‘(Q) No application for review is filed
with the Authority within sixty (60)
days after the date of the Regional Di-
rector’s Decision and Order: or

(2) A timely application for review is
filed with the Authority and the Au-
thority does not undertake to grant re-
view of the Regional Director's Deci-
sion and Order within sixty (60) days of
{he filing of the application; or

(@) The Authority denies an applica.
ton for review of the Regional Direc-
tor's Decision and Order.

(0 Authority grant of review and stay.
‘The Authority may rule on the issue(s)
in an application for review In its order
ranting the application for review.

‘5 CFR Ch. XIV (1-1-96 Edition)

Neither filing nor granting an applica-
tion for review shall stay any action
ordered by the Regional Director un-
less specifically ordered by the Author-

ity.

(G) Briefs if review is granted. If the
Authority does not rule on the issue(s)
in the application for review in its
order granting review. the Authority
may, in its discretion, afford the par-
ties ‘an opportunity to file briefs. ‘The
briefs will be limited to the issue(s) ref-
erenced in the Authority's order grant-
ing review.

$2422.32 Certifications and revoce-

(a) Certifications. ‘The Regional Direc-
tor will issue an appropriate certifi-
cation when:
() After an election, runoff, or rerun,
(i) No objections are filed or chal:
Jenged ballots are not determinative,

(i) Objections and determinative
challenged ballots are decided and re-
solved: or

(2) The Regional Director tssues a De-
cision and Order requiring a certifi-
cation and the Decision and Order be-
comes the action of the Authority
tunder §2422:91(e) or the Authority oth-
erwise directs the issuance of a certift-
cation.

(b) Revocations. Without prejudice to
any rights and obligations which may
exist under the Statute, the Regional
Director will revoke a recognition or
certification, as appropriate, and pro-
vide a written statement of reasons
when:

GQ) An incumbent exclusive rep-
resentative files, during & representa-
tion proceeding, a disclaimer of any
Fepresentational interest in the unit;
or

() Due to « substantial change in the
character and scope of the unit, the
unit is no longer appropriate and an
election ts not warranted.

$2422 33. Rellef obtalnable under part
2423

Remedial relief that was or could
have been obtained as a result of a mo-
tion, objection, or challenge filed or
raised under this subpart, may not be
‘the basis for similar relief If filed or
raised a3 an unfair labor practice under

336


153

STATEMENT OF CARROLL D. FERGUSON
RETIRED SOCIAL SECURITY DISTRICT MANAGER
AUSTIN, TEXAS.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Social Security Subcommitte:

In 1998, I completed a 35-year career with the Social Security
Administration and retired as District Manager of the Austin,
Texas, Social Security Office, a position I held for eight years.
Austin Texas is incidentally the oldest SSA Field Office in the
country, and is a large, or "Class 1" office. Before going to
Austin, I held a number of top-level positions throughout the SSA
organization, including Assistant Regional Commissioner for
Assessment (Dallas Region); Assistant Regional Commissioner for
Field Operations (Kansas City Region); Regional Field
Commissioner (Seattle Region); Area Director (Chicago Region) ;
and Executive Assistant to the Director of District Office
Operations, SSA Headquarters, Baltimore, MD. I mention this only
as a way of illustrating that I have had wide experience within
SSA throughout my career, and have seen the agency in operation
in many parts of the country, and at many levels.

Members of the Committee may be wondering why a retired SSA
manager like myself would have an interest in making a statement
for the record on use of the Social Security trust funds for
union activities at SSA. There are several reasons. First, like
thousands of front-line SSA managers and employees across the
country, I am extremely proud to have been a part of SSA’s unique
public-Service tradition, and I care deeply about both what is
happening to SSA now, and what SSA‘s future may be. In my view,
there was no finer public service agency in the country, or maybe
even the world, than the SSA that existed in the first 50 years
of its operation. However, I am growing ever more disturbed
about what has happened to'SSA, especially in the last decade,
and I am convinced that if action is not taken, SSA is in danger
of self destruction. I realize that these are strong sentiments,
but I believe that the situation at SSA is so dire that perhaps
only Congress, through further legislative action, can save SSA
from itself. And so, my remarks are made with the most
constructive intent, based on my deep desire to help SSA, and on
my deep belief that someone has to tell Congress the truth!

I am submitting this statement because of the particular concern
I share with my colleagues who still work for the agency, as well
as my peers who have also left the organization, over the
direction SSA is taking in the area of Labor-Management
Relations, As you can imagine, because many of my colleagues are
still working managers far from retirement, it is difficult for
them to contradict the "party line” without putting their careers
at risk. Specifically, I and the other managers in SSA are
concerned about the future of SSA because of the forced
mismanagement of the agency and our trust funds through tolerazed
union abuses, allowing AFGE to misuse both the public’s trust and
monies. These abuses have been especially prevalent since the
1993 "Partnership" Executive Order, issued by President Clintex,
which has created an atmosphere resulting in near total
abrogation of authority of front-line managers to manage their
offices in the interests of the public. The result of
“Partnership” has been to protect and expand the interests,
first, of union officials, and second, of SSA employees, at the
expense of service to the public. In short, because of
"Partnership," no one is looking out for the interests of the
taxpayers and beneficiaries. 1 will state for the record =hat
this played in my decision te retire from goverr.~ent serv-7e.

The purpose of my statement is not to take issue with the
American Federation of Govern-ent Employees or the union’s ric
to exist. However, I believe it is inappropriate for any
federal employee to receive full government pay and benefits
from American taxpayers’ hard earned tax dollars while working
full time for the union and doing no productive work for the



46

Mr. Gace. Well, If you are asking me how the Agency paid for
awards, out of what budget, I am not qualified to say.

Chairman BUNNING. The Social Security Administration came to
us and asked for money for a specific purpose. We gave SSA the
money out of a supplemental appropriation. SSA used it for a dif-
ferent purpose. And all I am asking is if your union employees
were paid a bonus?

Mr. GaGE. Yes. We received a bonus last year, 65 percent of our
employees did, and they were well-deserved bonuses.

Chairman BUNNING. Whether the bonuses were deserved or not
is not the point. It is the ability to attract from Congress money
for one purpose and use it for another. That is the only thing I was
trying to discuss.

Mr. Gace. I am not the man to discuss that one.

Chairman BUNNING. OK.

Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me follow up on that. Did any of your full time union employ-
ees get a bonus?

Mr. GAGE. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Why?

Mr. GAGE. Because many of their activities are certainly in the
best interest of the Agency.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, wait a minute. They are not dealing directly
with SSA matters. They are dealing with union matters.

Mr. GAGE. That is not true, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. What do they do then?

Mr. GAGE. Well, union activities are not off and away somewhere
or out of sight, out of mind in some mysterious type of activity.
These are working on task teams. We are almost collateral duties,
where the union will be providing its input up front, in a work
group, with other employees and managers, to come up with solu-
tions to work through problems, to do a whole range of things.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, tell me about one specifically.

Mr. GaGE. Well, we could talk about moving work from OHA into
other components. Our backlogs are terrible. We have recruited
people from other parts of the Agency to quickly assist OHA, Office
of Hearings and Appeals.

Mr. JOHNSON. So, how much has the backlog gone down since
you started dealing with this in 1993?

Mr. GAGE. Well, we did not start in 1993 on that one, but we
knocked off about 9,000 a month using other employees,
staffpeople, to go into the OHA backlogs, moving that work to other
components, training the people quickly and getting them up to
write decisions. Yes. That is one area. We could go on into——.

Mr. JOHNSON. But, I mean, that sounds like management correc-
Hon activity to me. Why do you get a bonus for that? That is your
job.
Mr. Gace. Well, coming up with it and getting employee—I
mean, there is a lot—there is a lot of things to it, moving the work
to other components, getting employees to leave other jobs, volun-
teer to go in there and pitch in to work on jobs that are out of their
experience. And the union was a big part in facilitating how that
was done, and that is not the only issue. Many types of work shifts


Opening Statement
Chairman Jim Bunning
June 4, 1996 Hearing before the Social Security Subcommittee

Today's hearing has been called as a result of discussions | had early last year with a number
of the Social Security Administration's field managers from all over the country.

These dedicated front-line managers told me they were concerned about a 1993 executive order
issued by President Clinton creating what is known as "partnership".

This so-called “partnership", they said, hindered their ability to run the agency and provide
‘quality service in the best interest of our nation’s taxpayers.

As a result, in July of 1995, I asked the General Accounting Office to audit the use of money
from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay people who work at SSA, not serving the taxpayers and
beneficiaries, but doing full-time union work.

J am deeply troubled by the results of GAO's audit.

While it has been a long-standing and legal practice for the government to pay full-time SSA
‘union workers out of the Social Security Trust Funds, there has been a surge since 1993 in the amount
of money going to full-time union work at SSA.

‘There has also been a sharp jump in the number of SSA employees who work full-time as
union representatives, but whose salaries, health benefits, and pensions come from the money set aside
for the social security benefits of our elderly and disabled citizens.

Let's be clear about what's going on here. The money that pays these social security
employees to do full-time union work comes from the payroll taxes taken out of the paychecks of
every American worker.

Under current law, working Americans have no say in this, and worse, they may not even
know it’s being done. But that's not all.

Senior citizens count on Trust Fund money to pay for their benefits, and 1 think they would be
outraged to learn that part of the Trust Funds are going to pay the salaries of social security employees
to do full-time union work.

Although SSA says 12.6 million dollars is only a small amount compared to their total budget,
I doubt American seniors would see it that way.

Today, | have invited the GAO to report their findings to us. { had also invited the head of the
Social Security Administration, Shirley Chater, to join us. Unfortunately, Commissioner Chater is
‘unable to come today, so I intend 10 continue this hearing on a date when she is available. Her
response to this audit is important, and I Took forward to hearing it.

This is a very serious matter. The Social Security Trust Funds face a long-term funding crisis
and Congress has a responsibility to protect the Trust Funds.

Working people have a right to know that their social security taxes go toward their intended
purpose.

I'm grateful for the hard work of the GAO in bringing the facts of this matter to light, and I
ook forward to hearing their findings.

I'm sorry that Andy Jacobs couldn't be here today. If there is no one who wishes to make a
statement in his place, I invite all members to submit statements for the record. And now, I'd like to
ask GAO to come forward and begin.


40

Mr. LAUGHLIN. You did not ask for it. OK.

Now, you indicated earlier in your testimony that you were un-
able to obtain the union time from the U.S. Postal Service when
you were trying to make your comparative analysis between——.

Ms. Ross. Yes.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. —You named another Federal Agency, which I
have forgotten.

Ms. Ross. The IRS.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Yes. You got the IRS but you could not get the
U.S. Postal Service.

Could you tell us why?

Ms. Ross. Not entirely, but I will do my best. They kept very
good records for part of the time spent. It was on certain kinds of
grievances. But, they had a different way of operating than some
other agencies, and I do not think we had enough time to fully
comprehend exactly what we would ask for.

Their method of payment was different from SSA, and we just
were not able to work through it enough to pull all the information
together.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. And in fairness—it would be important to know
this—are the same unions involved at the Postal Service as are
involved at SSA?

Ms. Ross. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I do not know, either.

Ms. Ross. I mean, I do not know if AFGE is there at all. They
are not the major union at the IRS. But I am sorry, you would have
to ask them. I do not think there is any overlap.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. OK.

I see the yellow light on.

Thank you very much for your time.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Portman.

Mr. PoRTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief because I know we
have other witnesses we want to hear from. But, I want to make
a quick statement.

I thank them, both of our witnesses, for their testimony.

I read the GAO report. And the conclusion, I think, is right on
target. We do need an accurate tracking of time. We need to more
carefully evaluate how resources are being spent.

We need some additional information and that would include,
within this more accurate tracking of time, a breakdown of the
time in order to properly analyze it. And second, with regard to
carefully evaluating how resources are being spent, I think we need
to understand its impact on management, not so much the money,
but service.

I know we will hear later from Mr. Gage on that topic, and I look
forward to it, but I think there are some questions that are brought
up by the report which we now need to find more information on
in order to be able to properly analyze it. Again, I appreciate your
good work.

Chairman BUNNING. Just to finish up, you said that the contract
between the SSA and their union runs out this November?

Ms. Ross. Yes, sir.


120

e Disability Initiatives--such as:

* Many or most of these i

Screening Units;

Decision Writing Units;

Adjudication Officer;

Disability Claims Manager;

Third Party Assistance;

Disability Processing Centers;

Early Decision List/Sequential Interviewing;

Disability Models.

jatives are the subject of the Memoranda of

‘Understanding we provided the GAO


19

Eigure 6; SSA Expenditures for Union Activities, 1990-95

16 Millions of Dollars

14
$12.6M
e s11M
10 $9.1
8
¢ 22M $63 $6.2 SEM
EE
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995,
Fiscal Year

— SSA-Estimated Expenditures
= GAO-Estimated Expenditures

Source: SSA Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations
Committees (FY 1990-1995) and GAO cost estimate for 1995.

In order to determine the accuracy of these estimates. we
tried to construct our own estimate of union-related costs

Because the salaries of union representatives make up most of the
cost, we asked SSA for a list of current representatives and the
time they spend on union activities. SSA estimated that there were
about 1,600 union representatives, but the lists they maintained
were outdated and incomplete. We identified about 1,800 union
representatives who are currently authorized by the union to spend
time on SSA union activities. SSA has also reported to the
Congress that the number of full-time representatives--those
spending 75 percent or more of their time on union activities--grew
from 80 to 145 between fiscal years 1993 and 1995. We identified
146 current full-time representatives. The average annual salary
in 1995 for the 146 full-time representatives was $41,970. In
1996, their salaries ranged from $23,092 to $81,217. Table 1 shows
the annual salary ranges of these representatives in 1996.


14

agencies to bargain with unions over working conditions and
personnel practices. The order established a decentralized
labor/management program under which each agency had discretion in
interpreting the order. deciding individual agency policy, and
settling its own contract disputes and grievances

In 1969, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11491, which
established a process for resolving labor disputes in the executive
branch by forming the Federal Labor Relations Council to prescribe
regulations and arbitrate grievances. This order clarified
language to expressly permit bargaining on operational issues for
employees adversely affected by organizational realignments or
technological changes

In 1970, the Postal Reorganization Act brought postal labor
relations under a structure similar to that applicable to companies
in the private sector. Collective bargaining for wages, hours, and
working conditions was authorized subject to regulation by the
National Labor Relations Board. Like other federal employees,
postal employees could not be compelled to join or pay dues to a
union and could not strike

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 provided a statutory
basis for the current federal labor/management relations program
and set up an independent body, the Federal Labor Relations
Authority (FLRA), to administer the program. The act expanded the
scope of collective bargaining--the process under which union
representatives and management bargain over working conditions--to
allow routine negotiation of some operational issues, such as the
use of technology and the means for conducting agency operations

In 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12871, which
articulated a new vision of labor/management relations, called
"Partnership." Partnership required agencies to involve labor
organizations as full partners with management in identifying
problems and crafting solutions to better fulfill the agency
mission. It also expanded the scope of bargainable issues. This
new arrangement was intended to end the sometimes adversarial
relationship between federal unions and management and to help
facilitate implementation of National Performance Review
initiatives, which were intended to improve public service and
reduce the cost of government

1 PRESENTATIVS

In 1962, Executive Order 10988 permstted federal agencies to
grant official time, which is authorized paid time off from
assigned government duties, for meetings between management and
union representatives for contract negotiation, at the discretion
of the agency. In 1971, Executive Order 11491’was amended to
prohibit the use of official time for contract negotiation unless
the agency and union agreed to certain arrangements. Specifically,
the agency could authorize either (1) up to 40 hours of official
time for negotiation during regular working hours or (2) up to one-
half the time actually spent in negotiations. Over the next 4
years, a series of Federal Labor Relations Council decisions and
regulations continued to liberalize the use of official time by
allowing negotiations for the use of official time for other
purposes

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 authorized official time
for federal agency union representatives in negotiating a
collective bargaining agreement.‘ The act also permitted agencies
and unions to negotiate whether union representatives would be

‘The Postal Service is not governed by this act. The basis for
paying certain union representatives for specified union activities
at the Postal Service is contained in union contracts. Contract
negotiations are carried out at union expense.


WAYS AND MEANS SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
PAGE TWO

FOCUS OF THE HEARING:

The Subcommittee will focus on the preliminary findings of the GAO review about the
scope of union activities at SSA, the extent to which they are subsidized from the Social Security
Trust Funds, and the accuracy and completeness with which this spending is accounted for by
SSA.

DETAILS FOR

M

IN OF. NCO!

Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed record of
the hearing should submit at least six (6) copies of their statement, with their address and date of
hearing noted, by the close of business, Tuesday, June 25, 1996, to Phillip D. Moseley, Chief of
Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements wish to have their
statements distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing, they may deliver
200 additional copies for this purpose to the Subcommittee on Social Security office, room B-316
Raybum House Office Bui atleast two hours before the hearing begins.

FORMATTIN )UIREMENTS
Pry (er peng 1 oy x won, any wma cee fer ts pra recrd any
‘ertcan comments it rerpone oa tua fer widen comments fast coform tote gldalines Ustad Dale, Any eatemeat we DN vot
‘ch mee ent be peat bat wl be ‘ae Ble fer rview and as by the

1. A ataumants and axy accompanying exhib for prating mast be eyed in ingse apace on Lgalan paper and may ut enced 8
‘ota of 10 page acedag azachmeets,

Copia ot wale documents eabminod as eli atrial wl aot be acepted for pring. Instances madara ehuld be
rlervaced and quid o paraphrasod A ahblt maura! wot mesg ioe specication wil be mainaiaed it the Comme Ble fer review
snd ue bye Core

2 nat Pag ewes 9 nay at nodW ae erage me
reget byte ‘aust nade obi taf al can,

a hon mast ae dng nasa, fl address, umber ware ibe wien a te
Aogystropreatave mayb recbed aos al vlos et runmar comer to eemmndatee tu fl anes, TA
‘applameaca sheet wl wat be Inclnde i he pte reer.

Tar ane yey ony o maura ag for peta. and eto
ssbln say teen ov Maer, rar ad he pe ingen a pee bg wn ent oO te

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are now available over the Internet at
GOPHER-HOUSE.GOV, under ‘HOUSE COMMITTEE INFORMATION’.


13.

wi ul i M 7
was Tr i 1 three rs rec!
how can you justify extending the curr: ont re
wi "thay ycture of how 1
iv’ wha z “oft i
actually being spent on?
rw Ww w_yOU elease 146 SSA
wi ctiviti 1
‘ime? we Know: ver 4 =
‘ty work. Ii 7 ili : 2
Vv wi Vi Wi
expense of public service and everything else, just how do you know
at uni o . i would
really require?

As I noted in my testimony, procedures are in place for requesting,
approving, and tracking official time, and those procedures are being
strengthened. The contract does not define the number of full-time
union representatives. Rather, time is requested and approved on a case-
by-case basis, consistent with statutory and contractual requirements.
The preponderance of time requested is for bargaining, approval of
which is mandated by the Federal Service Labor-Management Statute,
and therefore, is outside the purview of the contract. Renegotiating the
contract would have diverted substantial Agency resources from day-to-
day business and ongoing initiatives to improve customer service and,
based on past experiences, likely would have incurred substantial costs.
We believe we have a sound collective bargaining contract in place and
it was in the best interest of our agency to extend it.


110

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chairman BUNNING. Commissioner, thank you for coming and
thank you, Ms. Pierce and Mr. Dyer, as well.

Before we conclude, I would just like to advise you that I will be
sending over a number of questions for you to answer for the
record, on behalf of myself, Congressman Tom Coburn of
Muskogee, Oklahoma, and several other Members who are particu-
larly concerned about taking action to correct the problems that we
have discussed here.

Congressman Coburn has been extremely involved in trying to
address the problems at the Social Security office in Muskogee, and
I appreciate all the help that he and his staff have given this
Subcommittee. Because this Subcommittee intends to give this very
serious problem immediate action, I ask you to give it a top priority
to respond to our questions.

I want to thank you very much for coming.

(The following questions and answers, and attachments were
subsequently received.]


69

The law prohibits the granting of official time £1
activities involving internal union business, such as soliciting
membership, conducting elections of Jaber organization officials,
and collecting dues. Thus, SSA does not pay for union expenses
related to these activities

In concert with the statutory authorization of official
time, SSA and the unions nave negotiated collective bargaining
agreements which set guidelines for the amount of official time
allowable for management- initiated and union-initiated
activities. Union officials and SSA must agree on the amount o
official time and the number of union representatives which are
allowed for lab1-management relations. These agreements are
accomplished tlucugh mutual agreement or negotiations. If the
parties disajr-~ the matter may ultimat-ly be resolved by third
parties such +5 a:bitrators, the Fed2141 *vrvice Impasses Panel
(FSIP}, the Federal Labor Relations Autn ity (PLRA}, ci th=
courts. Thus, either the parties mucu+ll, agree on the numl2¢ o!
full-time representatives or a third party will make th- tina
decision. In fact, it is important to note that such issues as
the amount of official time a union representative may use, the
number of full-time union representatives, and access to agency
facilities have often been decided by third parties.

In addition to the full-time representatives, the part-time
representatives must be identified by the appropriate local union
president or council in order to be granted official time. The
tota? amount of official time authorized for representatives and
the procedures for requesting and documenting time is covered in
the union-management agreement

Union officials are required to document the amount of time
they spend on union activities. Supervisors report each pay
period the amount of time used by representatives under their
immediate supervision, and SSA maintains cumulative records
concerning official time usage by union representatives.

Tracking the use of official time is important to both SSA
management and the American Federation of Government Employees
To improve tracking of official time usage, SSA will be piloting
a systen, called the Official Union Time Tracking System, which
will allow better tracking of tims spent on union activicies.
This pilot will run for 4 to 6 months in the Chicago region and
is expected to begin this summer '- hope to implement these
improvements nationwide within th: ne ¢ year

The bargaining agreements also contain provisions dealing
with the union's use of customary and routine supplies,
materials, and equipment such as bulletin boards, telephones
photucopy equipment, facsimile machines, and mail. This usage is
linked to union representational functions and labor-management
business. Additionally, usage is subject to certain conditions
For example, it may not interfere with Social Security operations
and it may not be related to internal union business

Union-Management Partnerships

I would like to emphasize the importance of the partnership
between SSA and the unions which represent its employees. One of
SSA's three fundamental goals set forth in our Agency Strategic
Plan is to create an environment that ensures a highly skilled
motivated workforce dedicated to meeting the challenges of SSA's
public service mission. We look on our partnership with the
unions as an important means of advancing that goal. By working

union



24

Chairman BUNNING. Thank you, Ms. Ross.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Miller, do you have a statement?

Mr. Miuuer. I will respond to questions.

Chairman BUNNING. I am putting the Subcommittee on notice
that we will be limited to 5 minutes, including myself, so we can
all have time to answer questions.

Let me start by asking, is there any cap on the amount of trust
fund money that the unions can spend for time and expenses
devoted to union activities?

Ms. Ross. The basic answer is no. There is a cap on the amount
of bank time that is part of the negotiation between the unions and

A.

Chairman BUNNING. What time?

Ms. Ross. Bank time. It is time that is used for union-initiated
activities. So, a piece of the union time is controlled, but there is
another piece that is not controlled, so overall, you would have to
say there is no cap.

Chairman BUNNING. Is there a cap on how many SSA union rep-
resentatives can be paid by the trust fund money while working
full time on union activity?

Ms. Ross. Our understanding is, there is no such cap.

Chairman BUNNING. In other words, it is negotiated between the
union and the SSA as far as what can be and what cannot be done?

Ms. Ross. The amount of time for union-initiated activities is
limited, and that would be a controlling factor in how many full
time union representatives there could be. But, there is no other
limitation.

Chairman BUNNING. When does the current agreement between
SSA and the union that represents employees expire?

Ms. Ross. In November of this year.

Chairman BUNNING. How many SSA employees are authorized
and paid to act as union representatives on government time?

Ms. Ross. We put together a list with Seas help, and we have
documented that 1,800 people are currently authorized to charge
time for union activities.

Chairman BUNNING. How many full time?

Ms. Ross. 146.

Chairman BUNNING. And what is the average salary of the full
time employee?

Ms. Ross. $42,000.

The average union employee?

Chairman BUNNING. Yes.

Ms. Ross. $42,000.

Chairman BUNNING. Can you give me the salary range from low
to high? In other words, some people are paid obviously a lot less
and some people are paid more.

Ms. Ross. In our testimony, we gave a salary range for the full
time union representatives.

I will be glad to tell you right now.

Of the 146, there were 16 in a salary range between $20,000 and
$30,000, and most of the full time union representatives were be-
tween the $40,000 and $50,000 range. There was one person who
was in a range of $80,000 to $90,000.


143

Compensation Over and Above Salaries
to Union Representatives‘
1995

There were no awards given for Fiscal Year 1995.

1

Represents Union Representatives who spent 75%
or more of their time on union business.


10

To ensure accurate tracking of time spent on union activities and
the staff conducting these activities, SSA has developed and is test-
ing a new time reporting system for its field offices and teleservice
centers. We agree that these are valuable goals for a timely report-
ing system and we think SSA should consider implementing this
system agencywide.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks. I would be
glad to entertain any questions you

(The prepared statement follows:]


141

Compensation Over and Above Salaries
to Union Representatives'

NAME QFFICE AMOUNT
Boston Sincavage, George E New Haven, 00 $1110
‘New York Comito, Francis G. Camden, DO $ 300
Fahtkman, Charles Bushwick, DO $ 500
Fretwell, Warren C. Syracuse, DO $ 150
Hampton, Barbara A. Brooklyn OHA $ 830
Sheehan, Michael V. Flatbush, DO $ 200
Brantley, Marlene A Philadelphia-Ger, DO $1110
Evans, Richard A. Baltimore TSC $ 60
Flovick, Carolyn €. Suffolk, BO $ 120
Jefferson, Terence L. Baltimore TSC $ 50
Merritt, Frank S. Baltimore TSC $ 400
Rosendale, Patrick S. Baltimore TSC $ 150
Atlanta Adams Jr., William B. ‘Augusta, DO $ 100
Burke, Jacqueline F Hendersonville, BO $ 200
Delong, Sharon L Asheville, DO $ 100
Endsley, Donaid R. Charlotte, DO $ 200
Limoges, Yvonne Y. St. Petersburg, DO $ 200
Mallette, Julius W. Fi. Lauderdale TSC. $ 600
Marsh, Matthew C. Gainsville, OO $ 200
Norris, Jerald C. Birmingham, DO $ 400
Sanders, Gary V. Palm Beach, DO $ 200
Seidel, Doreen M. Ft, Lauderdale TSC $ 150
Young, Anthony SEPSC $ 300
Chicago Davis, Sheron S Indianapolis - East, BO $ 150
Keillor, Kenneth L. Grand Rapids, DO $ 250
Lamotte Jr., John E. Columbia - Downtown, DO § 330
‘Schumann, Gary R Milwaukee - North, 00 $ 100
Dallas Cruz, Raymond E. ‘Atbuquere, DO $1110
Hernanadez, Pabio R. Mcallen, 00 $175
Kansas City Clause, William D. MAMPSC $s 50

Denver None


29

office manager inputs that 2-week aggregation of time spent by
each union representative under his or her control into the national
system.

In the nonautomated system, the completed forms are kept at
the office and only aggregated to the national system every 6
months.

Mr. ENGLISH. From the sound of it, SSA does not appear to have
what I would consider to be normal centralized or automated
records. Were the records complete?

Mr. MILLER. As much as I could tell, particularly for the auto-
mated system, yes. They seemed to track the individuals for all pay
periods. You could see where zero time had been spent in pay peri-
ods and it appeared to be pretty complete. We found a few glitches
in the automated system.

But, in the manual system there was much more of an oppor-
tunity for records to be missed. In previous years, we even found
whole components that were missed for a specified time period, and
we think that is because of less rigid controls over submissions.

Mr. ENGLISH. Did you do a complete audit or did you do a
sampling?

Mr. MILLER. Very small samples. We did the verification only in
the San Francisco region for all types of Social Security facilities
and in headquarters for about half a dozen to a dozen components
there.

Mr. ENGLISH. Were you able to get complete information as per
your request from AFGE?

Mr. MILLER. We asked AFGE for help primarily on trying to
track the number of representatives, both full and part time, and
did not receive a response.

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Christensen.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Historically, the
Social Security Administration has always maintained that it has
a fiduciary responsibility to the Social Security Trust Fund, that
they must protect it. I believe that the GAO has also stressed this
in their 1991 report on the overpayment recovery.

In your view, what is the Social Security Administration’s re-
sponsibility to properly manage and account for spending from its
trust funds?

Ms. Ross. I think that this fiduciary responsibility means that
you monitor spending in all of the places where it occurs so that
you would have a handle on all the cost centers or the cost activi-
ties.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. In your view, does the Partnership Agreement
that President Clinton signed in October 1993 violate the spirit of
that fiduciary responsibility?

Ms. Ross. [ do not think that the Executive order itself violates
anything. What is important at SSA is how they are going to mon-
itor this kind of an activity. At the moment, they have not made
a decision about how they are going to deal with the partnership.

I have an opinion that if you are going to have an important ac-
tivity like this, you would want to capture that time. Maybe you
capture it based on who is an SSA employee and who is a union


166

The union gets what it wants! For the record, an SSA field manager is not
permitted by Headquarters to file a ULP against AFGE.

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS (OHA) - DISABILITY APPEALS DECISIONS
Commissioner Chater stated that interest-based bargaining had reduced the
OHA disability decision writing backlogs by 9,000 in about a month's time.
The partnership had nothing to do with the reduction. Since the Memorandum
‘of Understanding (MOU) was signed with AFGE on May 25, 1995, employees
from Regional Offices, field offices , teleservice centers and program
service centers have been detailed to OHA to assist in the writing of
decisions. The union "fought" the decision to send the employees to OHA to
assist with the backlog. The union was also against management's
involvement in the disability writing process and insisted that only
bargaining unit employees be considered for the detail. | am submitting
seperately to the Subcommittee, for verification, copies of the MOUs and
Memorandum between SSA and AFGE listed below regarding the details to
OHA:

(1.) MOU dated 5/25/95 regarding details to OHA

(2.) Memorandum dated 2/28/96 to Arthur B. Johnson, AFGE

(3.) Memorandum dated 3/20/96 to Arthur B. Johnson, AFGE

(4.) MOU dated 3/27/96 requiring both short-term and long-term initiatives
to provide additional support to OHA

(5.) Settlement Agreement between SSA and AFGE dated 3/27/96.

REDUCTION IN 888 NUMBER BUSY SIGNALS

The reduction of the 800 number busy signal rate was, again, not due to the

Partnership Agreement. The reasons for the reduction of the busy signals

were:

(1.) Additional staff were hired, trained and assigned to work answering the
telephones in the teleservice centers.

(2.) Benefit Authorizers (BAs) from the Program Service Centers (PSCs)

were trained as TSRs and assigned to answer the 800 number during all “peak

periods” and the first quarter of the new year. This resulted in the BAs

being removed from their regular duties and the development of severe

backlogs of their work in the PSCs.

(3.) The method of computing the busy signal rate was changed, thus

reducing the busy signal percentage reported for the 800 number. Currently,

‘overflow calls are answered by a recording asking callers to call back, and

those calls are not recorded and do not count as busy signals.

1994 PERFORMANCE AWARDS FOR 188% UNION OFFICIALS

Attached is information listing the 100% union representatives and the
amount of the 1994 Performance Award received by each. A Headquarters
official stated no union official with a performance rating of less than
“Excellent” received a performance award for 1994. Some of the union
Officials listed received performance ratings of "Fully Satisfactory". All of
the officials listed received performance awards regardless of their
appraisal rating. Julius Mallette, the Ft. Lauderdale Teleservice Center
employee was rated "Fully Satisfactory" and received an award of $975.00.


98

Ms. PIERCE. Because they have been delegated the authority to
approve that as part of our agreement.

Chairman BUNNING. Well, that seems a little unusual, to say the
least.

Just to refresh your memory and for the benefit of those here,
I was the first of many Members of Congress and the Senate to ex-
press outrage when you spent money that Congress gave you to re-
duce disability backlogs and you will remember the amount, $200
million, on employee bonuses.

Ms. CHaTER. I do.

Chairman BUNNING. Particularly egregious was the $9,000 paid
at your recommendation to one of your staffpeople, a deputy——

Ms. CHATER. Yes.

Chairman BUNNING. —I am not going to bring his name up—
which he later returned, and the fact that almost 70 percent of all
Social Security Administration employees got bonuses or awards,
almost twice the percentage of employees in other government
agencies. And, Commissioner, this outrage was not partisan in any
nature

As a matter of fact, I have a fist-full of news clippings expressing
public outrage on this issue as well as an entry from the May 20,
1994, Congressional Record in which the Vice Chairman of this
Subcommittee, who was then Subcommittee Chairman, introduced
legislation that would prohibit that practice. The bill was H.R.
4466.

So, I ask you, Commissioner, is this deja vu all over again or
doesn’t what Congress did in 1994 mean anything? We are having
the same problem with awards to people who do not seem to have
earned them.

Ms. CHATER. First of all, I want to make it very clear, Mr.
Bunning, that we have not spent the $200 million earmarked for
disability on anything but disability.

‘hairman BUNNING. Well, that money is fungible——

Ms. CHATER. And awards did not come out of that fund.

Chairman BUNNING. Madam Commissioner, I am not going to get
into that debate because we know that it was spent. I mean you
can say you spent $200,000 or $200 million here and you did not
spend it there. But, the fact of the matter is, it was specifically des-
ignated for backlog reduction in CDRs, and it was not spent for
that.

Ms. CHATER. I beg to differ with you, for the record, it was spent
exactly as intended. And I am absolutely positive about that.
Nevertheless, your question has to do with the percent of people
who have received awards. It is quite true that when I came to the
Social Security Administration about 70 percent of our employees
received an award. Now, we are under a guideline that no more
than 37 percent of our employees receive awards.

Chairman BUNNING. That is about what the average is for the
rest of the Federal Government.

Ms. CHATER. Well, paid in 1995 for fiscal year 1994, the percent-
age of our employees, overall, who received. a performance award
was 21 percent. So, we have decreased that considerably.

Chairman BUNNING. All right, go right ahead.


140

Falls Church Atkinson, Betty J.
‘OHA Carrozza, Albert B.
‘Marshall, James E
McKenna, Greg

Represents Union Representatives who spent 75%
‘or more of their time on union business.

Falls Church OHA
Falls Church OHA,
Falls Church OHA.
Falls Church OHA.

(1993 -3)

$1590
3 890
$ 890
$ 325


91

The agency established regional redesign
implementation committees. SSA has 10 regions --
thus 30 members work on this issue nationally to
implement the plan.

Task teams were created on specific portions of the
Plan for a New Disability Process. Two union
employees serve on each task team. Task teams
include, among others:

- streamlining medical evidence
- sequential interviewing

- starter applications

- quality assurance

- role of the medical consultant
disability claims manager

OFFICE SECURITY

°

There is a national Health and Safety Partnership
Committee on Security. Many local offices are in
dangerous inner-city areas. Employees -- who deal
with the mentally ill for example -- have been
regularly threatened with bodily harm.

In addition, the memory of Oklahoma City is never
far from their minds.

The Security Committee is 10 persons and meets
monthly. The Committee has accomplished such
changes as:

- agreement to add 101 security guards at local
offices;

establishing stricter procedures for access to
offices;

national employee awareness training on security;
improving lighting at parking lots.


11

Statement of Jane L. Ross, Director
Income Security Issues
Health, Education, and Human Services Division

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the time spent on
union activities at the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Union activities generally include representing employees in
complaints against management, bargaining over changes in working
conditions and the application of personnel policies, and
negotiating union contracts with management. The federal
government pays its employees’ salaries and expenses for the
portion of time they are allowed to spend on union activities; it
also provides other support, such as space, supplies, equipment,
and some travel expenses.' Federal union members generally cannot
bargain over wages and cannot strike, and federal employees are not
required to join unions and pay union dues in order to be
represented by the union

Given the budget constraints facing federal agencies, the
Subcommittee expressed concern about the amount of time and
expenses devoted to union activities and paid for by the federal
government. The Subcommittee expressed particular concern about
SSA unions regarding the amount of money paid for union activities
out of the Social Security trust funds.

As requested, I will focus my remarks on the history of union
involvement in the federal government, the statutory basis for the
federal government to pay employee salaries and expenses for union
activities, and the amount of time spent on and costs associated
with union activities at SSA and how the agency accounts for it.
The Subcommittee also asked us to comment on how the amount of time
and money spent at SSA on union activities compares with what is
spent at other large federal agencies, such as the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and
how it compares with the amount spent by the U.S. Postal Service,
which operates more like a private-sector company. As requested,
we have also provided information on union activities in the
private sector

In response to your request, we began our work at SSA in
August 1995. To develop this information, we interviewed
management and union officials in SSA headquarters and 4 of SSA's
10 regional offices. We also reviewed union contracts, payroll
records, and time-xeporting forms. To determine the amount of time
spent on union activities, we reviewed yearly reports of time spent
on union activities and verified the time reported by reviewing
source documents at one region and selected headquarters
components. We supplemented our field work with telephone calls to
three additional SSA regions to verify that similar time reporting
procedures were used.

We also met with union and management officials at VA, IRS,
and the Postal Service to compare their union time and costs with
SSA's. VA does not operate a national union time-reporting system
and therefore could not provide data on union activities.
Consequently, we are not providing any information concerning VA.
At IRS and the Postal Service, we obtained available information on
union activity from headquarters and selected field facilities but
did not verify its accuracy. We also discussed the role and
function of unions in the federal government with the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) and discussed the private-sector use of
official time for union activities with labor-relations experts at
various trade associations, colleges, and universities. We also
reviewed a 1992 Bureau of National Affairs publication that
summarized trends in labor/management contracts for private

“The U.S. Postal Service generally does not pay the salaries and
expenses of full-time union representatives. Instead, salaries and
expenses are covered by union dues. The Postal Services does,
however, pay for the time spent on union activities by some part-
time union representatives and for union-occupied space in postal
facilities.


97

Ms. PIERCE. It is because of the fact that we have changed our
appraisal process and also because we have changed our award
process, yes.

Chairman BUNNING. I have a copy of a document entitled,
“AFGE/SSA Region 2 Award Agreement.”

Commissioner, which region is region 2?

Ms. CHATER. New York.

Chairman BUNNING. I assume that you, Ms. Pierce, or Mr. Dyer
is familiar with this agreement since it appears to be well in effect?

Ms. PIERCE. I have not seen the agreement for New York.

Chairman BUNNING. You have not?

Ms. PIERCE. No, I have not.

Chairman BUNNING. Have any of you seen the agreement?

Ms. CHATER. No.

Chairman BUNNING. OK. According to this agreement, which I
have, which applies to 1996 awards, “All current employees in good
standing and who have been on duty for at least 90 days, will re-
ceive a CASA award based upon the following scale. Grades 1
through 4, $200; Grade 5, $266; Grades 6 and 7, $315; Grade 8,
$382; Grades 9 and 10, $436; Grades 11 and 12, $500.”

Are you familiar with that, any of you?

Ms. PIERCE. No. I have not seen that.

Chairman BUNNING. I am a little confused then. First this agree-
ment appears to be saying that all employees, all, are going to re-
ceive a service award, yet, I understand that Social Security
Administration employees now are evaluated on a pass/fail system.

Would you explain to me how Social Security Administration
went about determining what exactly it is that each and every New
York regional employee in good standing did to earn a commend-
able award or a service award?

Ms. PiERCE. Congressman, I can only respond to that by saying
that the negotiated contract and the partnership agreement for
awards calls for each component to work together, union and man-
agement, to determine how their awards would——

Chairman BUNNING. And that would include all employees in-
cluding the SSA employees who do nothing but union work?

Ms. PIERCE. No, it should not. And I do not, as I said——

Chairman BUNNING. You just told me that was excluded.

Ms. PieRCE. I said it was excluded and I do not know what New
York did specifically but I am trying to explain to you that what
each component does is negotiate their own agreement. Now, the
guideline specifically said 100-——

Chairman BUNNING. You said that each region negotiates their
own agreement?

Ms. PIERCE. Yes, they do, working with the union in terms of the
awards. The guidelines are provided and the guidelines did pre-
clude 100 percent union officials from receiving awards.

Now, before I can respond to what New York did I would have
to check because I just do not know.

Chairman BUNNING. Well, they have signed the agreement.

Ms. Pierce. But, I have not seen it.

Chairman BUNNING. How could they sign the agreement without
the approval of the people here that are sitting at this table?


102

Ms. PIERCE. Once again, I have not seen the agreement, but my
assumption is that they are saying that, because we had the na-
tional partnership agreement, which includes the new awards arti-
cle 17, the negotiations in the New York Region then subsequently
developed whatever that product is. But, that does not mean that
we were a part of that.

As I tried to indicate before, the agreement——

Mr. JOHNSON. You do not make the agreements between the-——

Ms. PIERCE. The national agreement provided guidelines for the
regions and components to establish their own process.

Mr. JOHNSON. So, you are saying the president of the union
would know but you would not because he——

Ms. PIERCE. No, that is not what I said at all, sir. What I said
is that the national union partnership with management estab-
lished the guidelines to which I believe the document you are read-
ing is referring, but since I have not seen the document I cannot
say that unequivocally. What the document that we established na-
tionally provides for is for the regions to then work with their man-
agement and union officials to negotiate their local awards process.

Mr. JOHNSON. And Dr. Chater said, unequivocally, that no full
time union employee would get an award.

Ms. PIERCE. Which is part of the national guidelines.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, this thing says, all current employees who
have been on duty for at least 90 days will receive commendable
act or service award. Now, did you restrict those union employees
from just some kind of service award or a whole number of awards.
Do you know how many different awards there are?

Ms. Pierce. Probably about six or seven.

Mr. JOHNSON. OK.

Ms. PieERCcE. And what we are precluding the 100 percent union
officials from are performance awards, specifically.

Mr. JOHNSON. Just one of them. So, you are saying that the other
awards can be given to full time union employees?

Ms. Pierce. That is negotiated with the panel, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. A panel?

Ms. PIERCE. With the panels.

Mr. JOHNSON. Which panels?

Ms. PIERCE. The joint union/management award panels, such as
was done in the New York Region.

Mr. JOHNSON. So, this statement in here that says all current
employees are eligible or will receive, it really says they all will
receive an award.

What we are doing is guaranteeing them extra dollars at the be-
ginning if they work for 90 days or more, is that the way you would
perceive it?

Ms. CuaTER. Mr. Johnson, since we have not seen the memo that
you are reading, I would like very much to explore this to see to
what extent the New York Region is being consistent with our
policies and will let you know.

Chairman BUNNING. We will be glad to provide that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I appreciate that. I am just wondering if this
occurs in New York, does it occur in all your regions? And how
many cash awards are there? I mean she said six or seven. Do
these moneys come of trust fund dollars, as well?


118

AGENCYWIDE INITIATIVES*

e implementation of Executive Order 1287] Partnership
Iniuatives Agencywide--such as:

. National Partnership Council Meetings;

s Component and Regional Partnership Council
Meetings;

. Interest Based Bargaining (IBB)/Alternative Dispute
Resolution Workgroup;

s National Health and Safety Partnership Committee
for Security;

. Physical Security Conferences;

. Headquarters and Regional IBB and Facilitator
Training;

. Component and Regional Award and Merit
Promotion Assessment Workgroups and Panels; and

. Third Party Assistance Team.

Enhancements, such as:

Intelligent Work Station/Local Area Network and
Furniture Installation nationwide;

Headquarters Direct Service Unit;

Expansion of the Baltimore Teleservice Center;

800 Number Expert System;

Remissioning of Western Data Operations Centers to
Teleservice Centers;

Central Office SPIKE Unit; and


65

Chairman BUNNING. Commissioner Chater, I would like to ask
you and Mr. Dyer and Ms. Pierce to please take your seat at the
table.

Commissioner Chater is accompanied by John Dyer, Acting
Principal Deputy Commissioner and Ruth Pierce, Deputy Commis-
sioner for Human Resources.

If you would just remain standing and we will swear you in, just
raise your right hand, and respond. Do you solemnly swear that
the testimony that you will give before the Subcommittee in the
matter now under consideration will be the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Ms. CHATER. I do.

Mr. Dyer. I do.

Ms. PIERCE. I do.

Chairman BUNNING. Thank you, all.

Mr. JacoBs. Would the Chairman yield?

Chairman BUNNING. Yes, sir.

Mr. Jacoss. I would like to be sworn in, too, I solemnly swear
that anything I say today will be the truth, so help me God.

Chairman BUNNING. I never suspected otherwise and I never
suspected any of the witnesses to tell anything but the truth.

Mr. JOHNSON. Would the Chairman yield?

Chairman BUNNING. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would just like to make the statement that you
are elected and approved as an official and Mrs. Chater has not
been confirmed by the Senate at this point.

Mr. JACOBS. Well, we all know why. There is more than one way
to abuse a woman and I know the guy who blocked her confirma-
tion if you want to get into that.

Chairman BUNNING. Well, I do not want to get into that. [Laugh-
ter.

We have other business today, so, we will proceed.

Dr. Chater, you can begin your testimony and thank you all, for
being here today.

TESTIMONY OF HON. SHIRLEY SEARS CHATER, PH.D.,
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION;
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN R. DYER, ACTING PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND RUTH A. PIERCE, DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RESOURCES

Ms. CHATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
you, too, for giving me this opportunity to present some testimony
by honoring my request to do whatever it was on my schedule that
Thad to do when you held the first hearing.

But, for the record, I do want to correct something that I think
Mr. Johnson said. I was confirmed by the Senate October 1993. So,
I am Commissioner of Social Security with all of the responsibil-
ities for managing this Agency.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, I was not aware of that.

Ms. CHATER. In the past 2 years, the Social Security Administra-
tion and its management and all of its employees have, as you well
know, faced many challenges. And we have tried very hard to
respond to these challenges by making improvements throughout
the entire Social Security Administration.


at

rest is spent on travel expenses, office space, telephones, and
arbitration expenses. I have attached to my testimony the
information you requested for fisca years 1990 through 1995

Priv. x Practice:

I might mention that the practice of an employer funding
union activities is not limited to the Federal government alone,
but has long been established in che private sector. The
practice first began in World War II, when the War Labor Board
strongly encouraged companies to pay union representatives
especially those involved in grievance matters, and provide
office space. The practice continued after the war in many
industries. For example, it is quite common among the "Big
Three" automobile manufacturers to provide office space on the
shop floor and pay the salaries of the shop committee. This
results in quicker resolution of grievances and even works to
reduce formal grievances by establishing a mechanism for
resolving disputes before they escalate and possibly lead to
litigation.

The General Motors (GM) labor contract provides fii full-
time union representatives whose salaries are paid by uM = For
the GM plant in Baltimore, 15 representatives serve a ! a.gsining
unit of 3,000 employees

In addition, to General Motors many other private companies
have similar arrangements where the companies pay salaries of
employees participating in official union activities. These
including Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, Inland Steel and Armco
Steel

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, we all agree that SSA's administrative
expenditures should reflect personnel policies and decisions that
are based on efficient use of human resources.

SSA's policies and practices regarding the use of official
time fully comply with applicable labor laws, but we also believe
that union involvement has a positive effect on our reengineering
teams and on other Administration efforts to increase efficiency
and improve our service. Union-management partnership
encourages, and has been successful in achieving, full union
involvement in major Agency initiatives.

The partnership has also helped us reduce the high costs
associated with protracted litigation of grievances. For
example, we have seen a reduction in litigation, specifically
unfair labor practice charges, from 467 charges in FY 1990 to
209 charges in FY 1995, The General Accounting Office previously
estimated the cost to the federal Government to fully process one
unfair labor practice as in excess of $28,000, so that the
reduction represents a potential savings of over $7 million per
year

SSA is committed to design, implement, and maintain within
SSA a constructive working relationship between labor and
management. Our emphasis is on developing an organizational
culture in which labor-management relations are based on trust,
mutual respect, common goals, and shared accountability. while
we realize that this will take time, we must take the long-term
view and make these investments now that are vital to ensure our
future success. The American people deserve no less.

Attachment


16

‘The overall time spent on union activities has grown steadily
from 254,000 hours in 1990 to over 413,000 in 1995. This is the
equivalent of paying the salaries and other expenses of about 200
SSA employees to represent the 52,000 employees in the bargaining
unit in 1995. Figure 2 shows the difference between SSA's national
time reports and our estimated time. SSA reported 254,000 hours of
official time devoted to union activities in 1990, 269,000 in 1991,
272,000 in 1992, 314,000 in 1993, 297,000 in 1994, and 404,000 in
1995

Figure 2: Tams spent on Union Activities by Social Security
Emplovees 1990-95

450,000 Official Hours

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000
1990

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Calendar Year

— SSA-Reported Time

GAO-Determined Time

Note: GAO's verification of time charges was focused on 1995,
Some additional unreported time was discovered in several of the
earlier years.

Source: SSA national time reports and results of GAO verification.

Because of limitations in SSA's reporting system, it is not
possible to estimate actual time spent agencywide for any reporting
period. Although it is likely that the actual time spent
agencywide exceeds our estimates, our verification sample was not
large enough to be statistically valid, so it cannot be
extrapolated to all of SSA.

To determine what contributed to the increase in time spent on
union activities, we developed information on the categories of
time used. Figure 3 shows that bank time has remained relatively
constant between 1990 and 1995, and that most of the increase in
time spent on union activities during this period is attributable
to nonbank time--mainly for bargaining activities.


160

itself! Again, the taxpayers are paying for this. Does anyone doubt that dues
paying membership might increase?

Regarding costs, statements from the commissioner and GAQ indicate that in
SSA taxpayers pay at least 67% of the support of the AFGE, probably more!

The frequent, obligatory reference to improving public service is boilerplate
Service to our clients, the public, is not on the AFGE agendas that | have dealt
with. Bul then, why should it be? That is management's area of concern. The
AFGE is interested in things that affect employee's thal will increase two things
(1) union dues. and (2) union power. In my experience, concern for our clients
the taxpayers, is an afterthought. Field managers watch what the AFGE does,
as well as read what they write

Shirley Chater applauds the partnership as helping reduce the costs for
grievances and charges of unfair labor practices. This is pure deception. and in
my opinion another device to try to make an ugly "Partnership" look better

In the past, the huge majority of all grievances were over annual performance
appraisals, SSA hasn't given an honest appraisal to an employee in three
years. They have been rolled over, suspended or postponed. Now, SSA has
adopted a Pass-Fail annual appraisal system, which the AFGE wanted, and the
number of grievances will continue to be much lower. Yes, the number of
grievances has declined. but Partnership had nothing to do with it

Unfair labor practice charges have declined, Like grievances, these are AFGE
charges against management SSA management doesn't file ULPs. ULPs have
declined since "Partnership, because SSA top management has told field
management, and others, to get along with the union. In effect, DON'T SAY NO
TO THE UNION. The deciine in ULPs has not been due to any shared respect
or newly discovered mutual understanding With compliant managers, the union
has fewer reasons to file ULPs. A social security field manager can not file a
ULP against the AFGE Thal right is reserved by Headquarters. I! is not used,

In conclusion, the nexus between the AFL-CIO pledge of $35 Million to re-elect
the administration and a pro-union congress, and the administration's actions to
financially advantage an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, can not be ignored You are
better able than I to assess that situation

The taxpayers of this country pay for social security. The administration is just a
fiscal agent Taxpayers deserve an objective, even-handed management of the
largest civilian undertaking in our history. In my opinion, we are not getting that!

In my April 19, 1996 letter to Congressman Coburn, | requested the removal of
taxpayer subsidies to federal unions. To that, | add the request for legislation to
guarantee federal employees a right. the right fo elect union representation or
de-certification on an equal basis They deserve and need that right!

Sincerely,

g o the hf ppuilem

© J David Mauidin


99

Ms. CHATER. And, we have guidelines in place now that high per-
centages of people should not receive performance awards because
it dilutes the whole notion of being rewarded for performance.

Chairman BUNNING. Do you know how much interest, Vice
Chairman Jacobs and I have in getting you more money to do your
job better?

Ms. CuaTer. I do and I appreciate it immensely.

Chairman BUNNING. In the earnings limit bill, we insured that
SSA gets CDR money to reduce the over 3 million case backlog now
waiting for a continuing disability review, these were supposed to
have been done in 3 years, they were not. There are other things
that we have tried to accomplish to make sure that you have the
money to do your job properly. That is why we are concerned about
awards for people who are no longer eligible for awards.

Ms. CuaTER. I will say to you that people who work 100 percent
on union Social Security Administration related activities will not
receive performance awards, Mr. Bunning.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Jacobs.

Mr. Jacoss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the interest of lunch, I pass.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Laughlin.

Mr. LauGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, isn’t it true, for the record, that it is most likely
the case that virtually all full time Social Security Administration
union representatives received awards or bonuses in the last
several years?

Ms. CHATER. Yes.

Mr. LauGHLIN. And could you just give us, for the record, later
in a timeframe that, Mr. Chairman, you would agree to, the names
and the amounts of the awards of the full time union employees?

Ms. CHATER. Yes. We can do that for you.

{See written questions later submitted by the Subcommittee;
question No. 18, page 137.]

Mr. LAUGHLIN. OK. Now, who is it that collects the union dues
of the Social Security Administration employees who actually
belong to the union?

Ms. CHATER. The union I presume.

Ms. PIERCE. For those individuals who agree to have their dues
withheld from their pay, it is done in the payroll process. We then
submit a check to the union.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. So, it is not the union who actually collects it, it
is the Social Security Administration through the administrative
process of paying the employee for his or her time.

Ms. PIERCE. Where the employee elects dues checkoff, yes.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I see. And has there been any calculation of the
cost for the withholding process?

Ms. PIERCE. That is part of our administrative budget costs, yes.
I cannot tell you precisely what it is, but it is captured.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Well, how much is collected in dues say in 1995?

Ms. Pierce. I think it was $4.8 million but I cannot say that
unequivocally.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Is there any reason that you know of that this
money could not be used to justly finance union dues, I mean union
activities, to pay the salaries or expenses of the full time or part-


21

‘The recent advent of Partnership activities in SSA will likely
increase the time spent on union activities. The executive order
on Partnership directs agencies to involve unions as the
representatives of employees to work as full partners with
management to design and implement changes necessary to reform
government. Partnership activities at SSA are just starting, and
we found that these limited activities are not routinely designated
by SSA in its union time-reporting system. It is possible that
time spent on Partnership activities is currently being reported in
other activity categories. Consequently, as Partnership activities
increase, we would expect the time devoted to them to also
increase. However, this will be evident only if agency time-
reporting systems adequately designate this time, It should be
noted that many public and private organizations without unions are
involving employees in quality management initiatives similar to
Partnership activities.

‘SSA Management _and Union Views
on Union Time

SSA managers and union officials and representatives have
offered their views about the use of official time for union
activities. SSA managers, both individually and through their
managers’ associations, have expressed concern to us and to the
Congress about limitations in their ability to effectively manage
their operations and control the use of time spent by their
employees under the current union/management arrangement. By
contract, the assignment of union representatives and the amount of
time they spend on union activities are determined by the union
without the consent of local management.

Of the 31 field managers we interviewed, 21 said that it is
more difficult to manage day-to-day office functions because they
have little or no control over when and how union activities are
conducted. They said that they have trouble maintaining adequate
staffing levels in the office to serve walk-in traffic, answer the
telephones, and handle routine office workloads. Additionally, 18
expressed concern about the amount of time they spend responding to
union requests for information regarding bargaining and grievances
We did not verify the accuracy of any of the field managers'
statements. We tried to quantify the time spent by managers on
union related activities, but SSA had no time reporting system to
track it. However, managers would be spending some of their time
interacting with employees about similar issues even if there were
no unions.

Nine out of the 15 union officials and representatives we
talked to felt that it was counterproductive in the Partnership era
to track time spent on union activities. ‘They believe that union
representation is an important function that is authorized by a
negotiated agreement with SSA that authorizes them to represent the
interests of their coworkers. They consider the amount of time
currently allocated for their activities as appropriate and believe
that more attention should be paid to the value of their efforts
than to the time it takes to conduct them.

TIME SPI
S._THi

The Postal Service and IRS provided data to us on time spent
on union activities in their agencies. Postal Service records show
that during fiscal year 1995, union representatives at the Postal
Service reported spending 1.7 million hours of official time on
grievance processing and handling in the early stages. This number
does not include substantial amounts of official time spent on
employee involvement programs similar to SSA's Partnership
activities, which are paid for by the Postal Service. Neither does
this number include official time spent on activities such as
employee involvement training and ULP charges


50

ments of the offices to protect the beneficiary and our workers from
some public situations. You know, Oklahoma City is not far from
our memory, and much of this safety initiative has occurred since
then.

Mr. CoLuins. You had to double your expenditure and double
your hours to talk about that?

Mr. Gacr. I do not think we have doubled expenses, sir. I would
say that our litigation expenses have not been put up there, and
I think they are way down. And I think the official time is higher
because there is more of this involvement on the front end. But, I
would say overall expenses are down.

Mr. CoLLins. My time is up. Thank you.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Laughlin.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gage, just to follow up on Mr. Johnson’s question about
union dues, does any of the union dues go into the union political—
AFL-CIO Political Activity Fund?

Mr. GaGE. Very few of our SSA locals are affiliated with the
AFL-CIO. Mine is. I do pay a per capita tax to the AFL-CIO for
my dues.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. So, for those chapters that are affiliated with
AFL-CIO, some percent, and it’s not important what amount, but
some percent go——

Mr. GacE. It’s pennies a month per member.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. —Goes into the Political Activity Fund?

Mr. GAGE. No, that does not go into political activities. This goes
into the central labor bodies who provide us with various services.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Eventually, it gets into the political fund?

Mr. GaGE. Well, that is above my pay grade there.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I thought you were president of this union.

Mr. GaGE. I am president of my local. But, we pay money into
our central labor bodies for services, and there are laws on what
you can use political money for, and dues money.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. It has been my experience that when a company
announces a layoff of employees, there is generally a standard
practice that the union representing the employees of that company
protests in some form or fashion that we do not need to have this
500 or 2,000 person layoff; if we would just retrain, redo, or reorga-
nize, that we would save all these jobs. Isn’t that your experience?

Mr. GaGE. Well, OK, I would like to hear the rest of it.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Do you agree with me? Historically, doesn’t a
union try to save all the jobs when the management or the presi-
dent of the company announces he or she is going to lay off a cer-
tain number of employees?

Mr. GAGE. We try to represent our people the best way we can.
And, there are a million cuts in between.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Sure.

Mr. GaGE. And we try to get the best deal we can for our
workers.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Every company in every situation has its own
facts, but historically the union tries to save all the jobs, or the
vast majority of them.

Mr. Gace. OK.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. That is fair, in a generality?


95

about earlier, that it seems to me it is not wise to extend a contract
for another 3 years.

Do we know we need 146 full time union employees? Do we know
we need to have another 1,800 people to work part-time? If we do
not have that data—and I understand it is a living contract, so we
can go back into it and I think that is good—but why go ahead and
roll over without getting the information first and figuring out how
to do it?

That is my concern. It is more a matter of having the data to be
able to analyze it so we know whether you need 400,000 hours of
taxpayer paid time.

Mr. Dyer. Let me clarify that that has nothing to do with the
contract. The numbers of union officials are not in that contract.

Mr. PoRTMAN. But, when you renegotiate the contract—that is
the context within which all this goes on, the partnership and all
the activity—I assume with the downsizing, the degree to which
you are interacting with the union, what the requirements are and
so on.

So, my sense, again, is that what the Social Security Administra-
tion ought to be doing is redoubling its efforts not only in terms
of automation, which is important, but also in terms of getting the
actual information so that it is more accurate, more complete, so
that you can tell us at the next hearing how many people are
spending 25 percent of their time, how many people are spending
15 percent of their time, 5 percent of their time, so that we have
this kind of information and we can decide.

Mr. Dyer. And, I think we are in agreement there, Congressman.

Mr. PorRTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BUNNING. Commissioner Chater, I have a copy of a
brief memo, dated June 21, 1996, to GAO from Pat Randall, Direc-
tor of the Social Security Administration’s Office of Labor Manage-
ment relations regarding awards paid to full time Social Security
Administration union employees. It was requested as part of the
audit I asked GAO to do on the use of trust fund moneys for union
activity.

I am sure that you or Ms. Pierce or Mr. Dyer are familiar with
it. Are you familiar with it?

Ms. CHATER. No. I am not familiar with that specific letter.

Chairman BUNNING. All right. It states that in fiscal year 1995
and for fiscal year 1994, $10,080 in performance awards were paid
to SSA employees who spent 100 percent of their work time on
union activities.

To the best of your knowledge, would that be correct?

Ms. CHATER. That is correct, yes.

Chairman BUNNING. To the best of your knowledge, were any
other rewards or incentives paid above and beyond salary made in
full to union representatives in that same period?

Ms. Cuater. I can tell you that the data that you just gave us
was for performance awards.

Chairman BUNNING. That is correct.

Ms. CHATER. There may be other——

Chairman BUNNING. I am asking you if there were any others?

Ms. CHATER. I presume there might have been, yes.


33

to other types of organizations in SSA. So it becomes muddy be-
cause the term “bank” is not used outside the field offices.

Mr. THOMAS. Fine. I was trying to use those terms to separate
the two. I would prefer to use “union activity” and “official time.”

Mr. MILLER. It is all referred to as “union activity” and it is all
referred to as “official time” whether it is bank or nonbank.

Mr. THOMAS. Fine. Then I will use union time and official time,
which is a preferred term.

Mr. MILLER. The form has categories which can be filled out——

Mr. THOMAS, My point is, were the categories negotiated as part
of the union agreement, or are they simply voluntary and they can
fill them out if they want to or not?

Mr. MILLER. No. They are required to fill out the forms.

Mr. THOMAS. Then how do they get authorized for time when
there are simply hours put down and not what they spent their
time on?

Mr. MILLER. The hours go against the bank cap of 300,000 hours.

Mr. Tuomas. But, are they required to explain what they do
when they put in the hours?

Mr. MILLER. In broad categories, yes.

Mr. Tuomas. And if they do not, how do they get the hours?

Mr. MILLER. They are granted the hours by filling out the form
saying that they need —

Mr. THOMAS. No. Let me try it again. I understood you to say
that some people simply put down the hours and not what they did
during the hours.

Mr. MILLER. They always categorize it between “bank” and
“nonbank.”

Mr. THOMAS. Perhaps Mr. Gage can enlighten us. In Mr. Gage’s
written statement he says, union representatives can use official
time only for those activities which are reasonable, necessary, and
in the public interest.

How can the management of SSA determine if that official time
is for activities that are reasonable, necessary, and in the public in-
terest if the only form filled out is for designating hours used?

Mr. MILLER. To the extent to what we verified, they do not con-
trol that. We could not see how a supervisor could make that deter-
mination.

Mr. THomMas. Yet he says that they can only use official time for
that, so there is no ability to determine if the time spent for which
the taxpayers paid is carrying out those responsibilities for which
they can only get official time; is that correct?

Mr. MILLER. I could see no verification.

Mr. THomas. Thank you.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Postman will inquire.

Mr. PorRTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of
questions. First is a general question that may have come up prior
to my getting here.

What do you attribute the huge increase starting in 1992 to? Is
it entirely the Executive order? Starting with 1993, based on your
chart on page 9 of the testimony with regard to hours spent, and
then with regard to the amount of funds coming out of the trust
fund on page 12, which is the second chart we see before us, does
that have to do with the Executive order solely or does it also have


COMPONET/

UNION REP

ROPIR

Kruwen, Stanley
Lambert, Delores
Loesch, Chery!
Nelson, Barry
Tucker, Earl

pocs
Lucas, Roow
Pekarski, Carolyn

Armet, danes
Collender, Herb
Hucy, Reygie

Johnson, Arthur
Joseph, Agatha
Mack, David

Wilmer, Archie

FIELD OFFICE

Angelet, Ane
Bain, Ron
Bailard. Evan
Barkowlts, Sam
Bicelow, Kirk
Weant, Don
Brinner, Judith
Bristow, Cen
Bryant, Sandy
Campana, Jaaes
Cawpbell, Craig
Carruthers, David
Clifton, Jimay
Codon, Mike
Comito, Frank
Concad, Susan
DeJulids, Rolph
DelaCruz, Yvette
Delong Sheron
Edmonds, Jeanette
Egarcan, Moward
Endaley, Regetc
Estudillo, Charles

168

LEVEL = AMOUNT
DUE

3x32 $075
axa 92,400
3x3 9975
axa $978
3x3 $975

3 $2,400
x3 $2,400

$075

ax3

ax3 697s
3x3 $975
9x3 $976
3x3 9978
yx3 OTs
axe $2,400

eR Omen eer ecuneuunusn
DOE HE 9 OE DC OE MEE OE DE OE OE DE HE BE DE OE BE EI BE OE
CUE NEUE EEN EEUU

LESS PRIOR TOTAL
RECOGNITION DUE

4975
$700 $1,670
4978
$975
1975

92,400
$2,400

so1s
$975
6975
9075
3973
3975
9360 0 42,060

$2,400
3075
$2,400
£075
das
$2,400
$1,220 #380
$4,200
$075
$570 81,830
$2,600
3800
$75
$2,400
92,400
1975
$075
£1,400
$1,600
$325
$2,400
e975
$975

Mp


183

14. tes! i i =

We disagree with this assessment of Partnership. As I noted in my
testimony, I would like to again emphasize the importance of the
partnership between SSA and the unions which represent its employees.
‘One of SSA's three fundamental goals set forth in our Agency Strategic
Plan is to create an environment that ensures a highly skilled, motivated
workforce dedicated to meeting the challenges of SSA's public service
mission. We look on our partnership with the unions as an important
means of advancing that goal. By working with the unions, we involve
our employees in discussions about things that need to be done and how
we will do them.

In past years, official time traditionally was used in litigious,
adversarial, costly third-party matters such as arbitrations and unfair
labor practice complaints. Under our partnership agreement, our
relationship with the union has shifted away from such litigation to more
joint activities, such as involving union representatives in the decision
making process to help craft solutions to better serve our customers and
creating labor-management partnership councils and committees at the
national and local levels of SSA, including health and safety and security
committees. We believe that this shift has made us a better Agency and
a better provider of service to the American public.


Calendar Year

1990

199

1992

1993

1995
100,000 200,000 300,000 490,000 ‘500,000
Hours

°

BB Bank/Union-Initiated Grievances C] Nonbank/Other Activities. ll Nonbank/Bargaining

Note: This chart does not include additional unreported hours
found by GAO.

Source: SSA national time reports

Figures 4 and 5 show that the number of other nonbank
activities, such as unfair labor practices (ULP) cases and
arbitration cases (nonbank in the hearing stage), that result from
unsettled grievances, has declined in recent years.

Figure 4: Number of Unfair Labor Practices Cases at SSA, 1990-95

Number of Cases.
450 -

400 X

150 <1 ‘ ‘ 1
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Calendar Year

Source: SSA Office of Labor Management Relations


USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND
MONEY TO FINANCE UNION ACTIVITIES AT
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1996

HOUusE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bunning,
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Chairman BUNNING. The Subcommittee will come to order.

Today’s hearing is a continuation of the Subcommittee’s June 4
hearing on the use of Social Security Trust Funds to support union
activities at SSA. Commissioner Chater’s schedule did not allow
her to testify on June 4, so I held the hearing over until today to
accommodate her schedule.

Before we start, there are a couple of things I would like to make
clear for the record. Back in July 1995—I repeat that—back in July
1995, nearly 1 year ago, I called on the General Accounting Office
to audit the use of taxpayers’ money to pay the salaries and sup-
port services for our SSA employees who work full time on union
activities.

My request for the GAO audit came as a result of discussions
that began early in 1995 and continued over a period of many
months with frontline SSA field office managers from all over the
country. These managers sought me out because they were deeply
concerned about the negative impact President Clinton’s Partner-
ship initiative was having on SSA. In fact, a couple of recently re-
tired field managers have submitted testimony for today’s hearing.

Their statements reflect what field managers were saying to me
over one year ago, that all balance between management and the
unions has been lost at SSA and that union activity has escalated
to the point that workloads and public service are suffering. In
short, under partnership, the interest of the taxpayers and bene-
ficiaries are being forgotten.

If things had gone as I wanted, this hearing would have taken
place in January. But, this was such a labor-intensive job that
GAO was not able to complete its work by then. The GAO audit
and this hearing have nothing to do with an attack on the unions.
They have everything to do with the proper use of Social Security
Trust Funds to pay employees who work at SSA to serve the
public.

(61)


1380

. Expansion of the Program Service Center SPIKE Units.

e Implementation of Legislation Agencywide--such as:

Drug Addiction and Alcoholism;

Welfare Reform: Noncitizens and Childhood
Disability Standard Changes; and

Debt Collection

Initiatives Agencywide--such as:

Payment Cycling;
Focus Groups;
Reengineering/Streamlining; and

World Class Service.

@ ——_ tmplementation of Governmentwide Regulations Agencywide--such as:

Early Retirements/Buyout;

Redeployment Programs;

Travel Regulations;

Mandatory Use of American Express Cards;
Family Friendly Leave Act;

Voluntary Leave Transfer Program;
Voluntary Leave Bank; and

Family and Medical Leave Act.


114

E 9: 4 et wi vi

For 1995, SSA reported that 404,000 employee hours were devoted 10
union activities. How many corresponding hours of management time

processing grievances and unfair labor practice complaints, providing

data and information requesied by the union, responding to frivolous
inion charges, etc,?

At present, SSA does not track management time devoted to discharging
its labor-management responsibilities under the Federal Service Labor-
Management Relations Statute. However, as indicated in my response to
question 1, we will soon be issuing instructions concerning the tracking
of time spent by management on labor relations activities, as well as
time spent on partnership activities.


116

Does SSA ever audit the Paperwork used in reporting “official time" to
determine that the full amount of. Gms used was Feported._and! that the

ime specitied was actual S
full details

We depend on managers to oversee the use of official time. If misuse of
official time is suspected, we require that it be brought to the attention of
appropriate management and union officials for resolution.

As you requested, SSA's Office of the Inspector General will be
initiating work in this area.


ADVISORY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225-9263
June 17, 1996
No, SS-5

Bunning Announces Continuation of Hearing on
Use of Social Security Trust Fund Money to Finance
Union Activities at the Social Security Administration

Congressman Jim Bunning (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the
‘Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will continue with a second
day of a hearing to examine the use of Social Security Trust Fund money to finance union activity at
the Social Security Administration. The hearing will continue on Thuraday, June 27, 1996, in
room B-318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m. ‘The hearing began
on Tuesday, June 4, 1996. (See Subcommittee Advisory No. SS-4, dated May 28, 1996.)

In view of the limited time available, oral testimony will be heard from invited witnesses
only. Witnesses will include officials from the Social Security Administration. However, any
individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for
consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.

DETAILS FOR SUBMI:

IN OF EN COMMI

Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed record of the
hearing should submit at least six (6) legal size copies of their statement, with their address and date
of hearing noted, by the close of business, Thursday, July 18, 1996, to Phillip D. Moseley, Chief of
Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office
,, Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements wish to have their statements
distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing, they may deliver 200 additional copies
for this purpose to the Subcommittee on Social Security, room B-316 Rayburn House Office
Building at least one hour before the hearing begins.

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

A statment and any accompanying sD for prteag mas be ipod ingle spate loglsza pager and may nt asad a
ta 18 pages cudng scachnent

2 Cope of we document ebm as exh masa wil at be scoped fer pring. Insane mle hen be
retraced and used er praphraved let material wot met Cane pwceaens wl be sane ine Comma las fe erow and
peter slant

Atos appearing a pute Nearing outing 4 mausmet fre reer of ple Desig. eubnog wrttan
mame in upon ou pbb rouse fr comments Oye Conan, wart ean ow Asstt er eben © Gat oa len, pron,
sr rputzaos when Dba te wae tgp

<—__Aveplamenat uns must scompany och statement tg nam, fl ures, tlghene somber where the wats
Amiga ervey be rvached 24 » capa) etloe of sammy fe comment td rcomsendadons a fn ful nasemen Tis
‘applmena sew wl nt be nl i he pt roe.

‘Toe above rvtictont and lnlabeos apy ely wo mara being rbd far prting. etaments and exh or spplemeary maura
snbasead sll for ution te Members. egress anda pub aig ecm «pa Mearag may be ee In te farms,
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are now available on the World Wide Web at
“HTTP://WWW.HOUSE.GOV/WAYS_MEANS/ or over the Internet at GOPHER. HOUSE.GOV,
under "HOUSE COMMITTEE INFORMATION’.



93

ute. We see this partnership as a very important part of our ad-
ministrative style and strategy. All of our administrative expenses
are apportioned among the funds that I have already referred to
and that is why we are using trust fund money to make a better
agency and to improve customer service.

Mrs. KENNELLY. Thank you and your staff for the good work you
are doing.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. English will inquire.

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In view of the limitations on time in this hearing, I will simply
pass.

Chairman BUNNING. Mr. Portman.

Mr. PorTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I earlier heard my friend, Mr. Jacobs, talk about relativity and,
you know, the number of hours spent on union activities versus the
number of hours spent on all Social Security activities and in the
interest of relativity, just to get back to that, we have had a dou-
bling since 1993 of the amount of time spent, the amount of money
spent. I think it went from about $6 million to $12.6 million. We
have heard a lot of explanations about that today.

One was that the number of grievances have been reduced. But.
then Mr. Neal said, well, the great thing about that is that griev-
ances are terribly time consuming, which they are, which would
seem to run counter to the notion that somehow with fewer griev-
ances there needs to be more time.

The point which I tried to make in the last hearing when we had
an opportunity to speak with GAO and some of the representatives
of management, was that I am not convinced that we have the ac-
curacy and the completeness of the records we need to be able to
even analyze the situation.

I was interested to hear Ms. Pierce’s response, Dr. Chater,
to the question from Mrs. Kennelly about the pilot program and
the automation. But, I still think we have to focus on the fact that
there has been a doubling of time since 1993, that there does not
seem to be any ability within the Social Security Administration to
tell us, as an oversight panel, exactly how much time is being
spent. The notion of part-time people, how much they are really
spending.

And automation is great, but automation is only as good as the
information you put in. And my biggest concern is this notion of
the completeness and the accuracy of the spending. This is in the
context of your having, just as I understand it, rolled over the con-
tract for another 3 years, so that the union activity would continue
much as it is, I guess until 1999.

And in doing so, I would hope that we would have a better sys-
tem in place. So, if I could get back to that issue, Mr. Dyer, you
talked earlier about a survey that is completed by employees and
that management are given some sense of how much people spend.
But, how precisely do people record their time and how can we im-
prove that system?

I open it up to whoever would like to respond.

Mr. Dyer. Well, I think that we do a pretty good job, manage-
ment and the union, reporting the time. Everywhere I have been
and talked to our managers, they are aware that the time is



38

you have approximately the same number of hours. Am I reading
that right?

Ms. Ross. I did not follow you. Can you tell me where you are?

Mr. COLLINS. The year 1993, the bank—union-initiated griev-
ances, that is the number of hours that was spent on griev-
ances——

Ms. Ross. OK.

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. —Are practically the same in 1993 as
they were in 1995.

Ms. Ross. Yes.

Mr. COLLINS. But, you indicated that the number of grievances
had declined considerably from 1993 to 1995.

Ms. Ross. The numbers we were giving are shown on charts—
figures 4 and 5. It was the unfair labor practices cases and the
arbitrations which we pointed out that went down.

Mr. COLLINS. Well, why would not the hours go down if the num-
ber of grievances went down?

Ms. Ross. Grievances was a different category than this unfair
labor practices and arbitration.

Mr. Co.uins. OK. But they—also in this same period of time,
bargaining went up considerably, the number of hours used for
bargaining?

Ms. Ross. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLLIns. Do you have any record of actually what they were
bargaining?

Ms. Ross. Do we have a record of what they were bargaining?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes.

Ms. Ross. No, we do not. We did talk to people at SSA about the
significant number of initiatives that were underway in that period
of time, major operational changes in the agency.

Mr. COLLINS. Did you discover who they were bargaining with,
what individual or what supervisors or what level of supervision?

Ms. Ross. No, we did not. We cannot tell you whether we are
talking about negotiations at a very local level or at the national
level. Again, it just comes out of this recordkeeping system, and
that is what we were basing this on.

Mr. COLLINS. And to go back to the point that the Chairman was
making, those dollars that go to pay for these hours are coming out.
of not only the Social Security Trust Fund but the Medicare Trust
Fund, part A, and also out of general funds. And, of course, general
funds are used, too, for Medicare, part B, as well as many other
expenditures of the Federal Government.

But, you could not verify the actual hours spent, what they were
bargaining for, how many hours were actually spent for grievances,
what those grievances were or actually what the other activities
were, based on the records that you actually saw, or who they were
bargaining with?

Ms. Ross. Right. In part because of what we were attempting to
do, which was to verify the amount of time spent. And because that
was the question, we went about it by looking at the time records.
If we had been trying to figure out with whom they were bargain-
ing or exactly what had happened, we would have probably done
the study in a different way and then I could have been more
responsive to your question.



158

STATEMENT OF J. DAVID MAULDIN, RETIRED
SUBMITTED BY DR. SHIRLEY CHATERER, COMMISSIONER
‘SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

‘Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

| request that this statement be accepted by the subcommittee, in response to an
earlier written statement by Commissioner Shirley Chater.

‘An earlier letter of mine, addressed to Congressman Tom Coburn, was included
with his written statement to the subcommittee.

{worked almost 37 years for SSA, from 1959 untit this year, when I retired. The
last 22 years were spent as a district manager in Beaumont, Texas and
Muskogee, Oklahoma. | remain in touch with many friends and acquaintances
within SSA. I have met and talked with most SSA Commissioners duting my
career, including Shirley Chater. | think of her as a considerate, energetic and
concemed person. | could not believe the tone of the statement she submitted
to the subcommittee. At best, | would describe it as incomplete.

Many of my colleagues are also disappointed by her statement. To be blunt,
those of us who follow her believe that her submission was written by the AFGE_
It reflects the type of union appeasement that goes on today at the highest
levels in SSA management.

{am no longer obligated to toe the official policy line. can be frank. My
colleagues still with SSA do not have this freedom. | would like to provide the
‘subcommittee with a viewpoint from SSA field management.

In her statement, the commissioner justifies paying full-ime AFGE reps by
comparing SSA with some private companies that do so. At.the-risk of staling
the obvious. federal union representatives in-S8A dé not bargain with SSA
‘managers on wages, salaries, leave policy, health and life insurance, etc.
Federal employees also have substantial job security. Local SSA union
bargaining is limited to the general category of work rules. ‘Consultation’ was
‘once the required norm. Now the AFGE has the right to bargain on the "Impact
‘and Implementation’ of changes in working.conditions... According to the union,
and top SSA management agrees, "anything" is a change in working conditions,
‘even moving @ chair from one place to another. It is hardly accurate to compare
General Motors labor relations with SSA labor relations.

‘The commissioner stated that SSA is bound by law and it's own bargaining
agreement to pay certain union expenses. She is right and that is the problem —
current law and the SSA agreement. For what ever reason, SSA has conceded
issues to the union that have eroded management's control of the organization,
{t started before commissioner Chater arrived on the scene. Let me give you just
‘one example. The de-cartification election acts as a governor of potential union
excesses. A union thal becomes obsessed with its own power, or fails to
Fepresent its members, or both, can be voted out. The law, 5 USC 7111 ©,
Seems deceplively simple. The AFGE has arranged for insurance against that
Possibility, within SSA have been unable to obtain a copy of the AFGE's
Procedures for a de-certiication election. | am advised thal, briefly, the process
‘works like this

An office (employee) that wants to de-certity i's union, must petition each and
‘every other AFGE office in the nation, and get 10% of the units' members to sign
@ petition There were approximately 1.000 such units. If thal is done, the
intiating office sends the stack of petitions to the AFGE for their review! The
AFGE determines the accuracy of the petitions. The AFGE can retum the
Petitions if, in their sole judgment, one or more units were omitted. The AFGE is
‘not required to specity the missing units (and won't)! An election, conducted by
the FLRA, is scheduled by the AFGE, without guidelines on time! It could take
years!

he


ll.

125

Please provide examples and documentation of at least five instances in
the past year where field office managers denied requests for official
i re supporter ronal Offices and/

We do not collect this kind of information because these disputes are
handled and resolved at the local level. However, we provided guidance

to field office managers regarding use of official time (copy attached)

Attachment


100

time Social Security Administration employees who are doing
union activity?

Ms. PIERCE. My understanding is that legislation requires that
we pay it from our administrative expenses.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Now, in the downsizing that has taken place at
the Social Security Administration in recent years, since 1993,
there has been downsizing has there not?

Ms. CHATER. Yes.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Can you give us any idea of the percent or num-
ber of employees who have been reduced from the force who are
union employees versus the percentage or numbers who were
nonunion employees?

Ms. CHATER. No. I do not have that data.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Is it impossible to do that? I mean if you are
withholding the union dues through a check off it would seem that
it would be possible to do it.

Ms. PIERCE. It might be difficult. We will make an effort, but it
might be difficult. I do not know.

Ms. CHATER. Most of the downsizing that we have done to date
has been done through buyouts and early retirements. We have
been able through regular attrition to lose some of our employees
and so we have not particularly captured the data you are inter-
ested in.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. OK. If it is possible if you will submit it to the
gentleman for the record, that will be satisfactory with me.

Ms. CHATER. Yes.

(The following was subsequently received:]

‘There has been a total of 2,448 employees who have attrited from the Social
Security Administration since downsizing began in fiscal year 1994, Of that number,
approximately 55 percent (1,335 employees) were bargaining unit employees (eligi-
ble for union representation, but not necessarily dues paying members), and 45 per-
cent (1,113) were nonbargaining unit employees, such as supervisors or managers,
who are precluded from union representation under Title VII of the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Now, I cannot see your name on the far end, I
believe Ms. Pierce?

Ms. PIERCE. Pierce, that is correct.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. When you were talking about the negotiations
with the union on the contract, you were talking about parts of the
contract that the union had concerns with or problems with, if I am
recalling your words correctly?

Ms. PIERCE. No. What I was talking about was the amount of
time that we spend as an agency, in total, in reviewing the whole
process and the contract, both management and the union.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. OK. But, I understood you to say something
about addressing parts of the contract that the union had problems
with or—

Ms. PiERCE. I do not recall saying that, sir, no.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Well, then I misunderstood.

Ms. PIERCE. OK.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, that is all of the questions I have
at this time.

Chairman BUNNING. I passed over Mr. Johnson and I apologize.

Go ahead.

Mr. JOHNSON. No problem.


41

Chairman BUNNING. Will this be a new contract, the first one
that the independent Social Security Administration negotiates
with their union?

Ms. Ross. Yes, it will be, because they have been independent
only a little over one year.

Chairman BUNNING. The current Acting Commissioner and the
political appointees presently on board at SSA will be the people
negotiating the new contract with the employee unions?

Ms. Ross. I would expect so.

Chairman BUNNING. I want to thank you both for being here.

Thank you for your hard work. It was not an easy task and we
deeply appreciate your testimony.

Thank you.

I would like to ask Mr. John Gage to take a seat at the table.

Mr. Gage is president of local 1923 of the American Federation
of Government Employees. His local represents the 10,000 Social
Security bargaining unit employees who work at the Social
Security Administration headquarters in Baltimore.

Welcome, Mr. Gage. And would you please begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JOHN GAGE, PRESIDENT, LOCAL 1923, AMER-
ICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, BALTI-
MORE, MARYLAND

Mr. GAGE. Thank you, Mr. Bunning.

My local represents employees in the Social Security Administra-
tion, Health Care Financing Administration, Department of
Veteran Affairs and Office of General Counsel. And thank you for
the opportunity to testify and set the record straight on some
things.

The use of official time within the government and specifically
within SSA has a long history. When Congress enacted the Civil
Service Reform Act, a deliberate decision was made to directly sup-
port certain union functions by allowing the use of official time
rather than require nonmembers to pay their fair share of the rep-
resentation and services the union is obligated by law to provide.

Since the Civil Service Reform Act, the parameters of official
time at SSA have been further defined by litigation and more posi-
tively by collective bargaining. A final chapter in SSA’s policies
concerning official time occurred in the late eighties with the com-
bination of arbitration decisions favoring the union and a collective
bargaining agreement which moderated and further defined official
time. This agreement proposed by Commissioner Hardy and final-
ized by Commissioner King set realistic parameters and account-
ability procedures which have served us well.

After the conclusion of the litigation of bargaining there was an
increase in the number of union representatives utilizing most of
their time for union activities. However, this was due mostly to
concentrating time in fewer representatives without an overall in-
crease in the amount of official time usage.

Union representatives can use official time only for those activi-
ties which are reasonable, necessary and in the public interest.
These standards were imposed by law and all of our activities are
within these standards.