U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–488 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–417 

LABOR–MANAGEMENT FORUMS IN THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 11, 2011 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

LISA M. POWELL, Majority Staff Director 

BRYAN G. POLISUK, Counsel 

RACHEL R. WEAVER, Minority Staff Director 

SEAN KENNEDY, Professional Staff Member 

AARON H. WOOLF, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 35 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011 

Hon. John Berry, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ..................... 4 

Hon. W. Scott Gould, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs . 5 

Pasquale (Pat) M. Tamburrino, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Civilian Personnel Policy, U.S. Department of Defense ............................. 7 

Gregory J. Junemann, President, International Federation of Professional 

& Technical Engineers, AFL–CIO ...................................................................... 19 

William R. Dougan, National President of the National Federation of Federal 

Employees ............................................................................................................. 21 

Patricia Niehaus, President, Federal Managers Association ............................... 23 

George Nesterczuk, President, Nestercsuk and Associates .................................. 24 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Berry, Hon. John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Dougan, William R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Gould, Hon. W. Scott: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Junemann, Gregory J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Nesterczuk, George: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

Niehaus, Patricia: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 

Tamburrino, Pasquale (Pat) M., Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

APPENDIX 

Background .............................................................................................................. 108 

Statement for the Record from: 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ..................... 115 

David J. Holway, National President of National Association of Government Employees. NAGE/SEIU Local 5000 ................................................. 118 

The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) ................... 124 

Carol Bonosaro, President, Senior Executives Association ........................... 128 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

LABOR–MANAGEMENT FORUMS IN THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in Room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka and Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. This hearing will come to order. Aloha and good 

afternoon, everyone. I would like to thank you all for joining us 

today for this hearing examining labor-management partnerships 

in the Federal Government. 

In December 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order 

(EO) to improve government services by creating Federal labormanagement forums. The Executive Order, which was similar to 

my 2007 bill on labor-management partnerships and a previous Executive Order during the Clinton Administration, established the 

National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations Association. It also required Federal agency heads to establish labor-management forums of employee representatives and agency officials. 

President Obama’s Executive Order emphasizes a critical point 

about government performance: That a non-adversarial forum for 

employees, managers, and agency officials to discuss government 

operations will improve the services our government provides. Employees are in the best position to inform executives about the details of operational problems or inefficiencies. In addition, labormanagement partnerships improve employee morale, which also 

helps drive better performance. 

Data has shown that, once established, effective labor-management partnerships will reduce costs. In 1998, the U.S. Customs 

Service obtained an independent cost/benefit analysis of its labormanagement partnership with the National Treasury Employees 

Union (NTEU). This analysis showed that the partnership produced $3 million in net savings between 1993 and 1998. For every 

dollar the Customs Service invested in its labor-management partnership, it received a 25 percent return on its investment. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

More recently, we have seen examples of cost savings and increased government efficiency as a result of labor-management 

partnerships at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard—in my home 

State of Hawaii—and at the United States Forest Service. I look 

forward to hearing about these recent success stories today. As 

labor-management partnerships are re-established throughout the 

Federal Government, I expect that we will learn of many more 

partnerships creating short-and long-term cost savings. 

I have long understood that its employees are the Federal Government’s greatest asset. A fair, efficient, and effective government 

requires that Federal employees have a voice in their workplace. 

I am looking forward to hearing from Director Berry about the 

recent work of the National Council on Federal Labor-Management 

Relations. I know that he has worked hard in his role as co-chair 

of that body, and I commend him for his dedication to this issue. 

I am also excited to learn more about the current efforts at the 

Department of Defense (DOD) where labor and management are 

working together to establish a new performance management system and hiring process. As our Nation’s largest agency—performing 

critical functions—I believe that DOD can serve as an example to 

the rest of the Federal Government on how employees and management can work together to achieve positive results. 

With that, I ask my friend and colleague, Senator Johnson, for 

any opening remarks he may have. Senator Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you and aloha, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Aloha. 

Senator JOHNSON. Just quickly, my own background is in manufacturing and accounting, so I am definitely going to be keying in 

on numbers and looking for metrics. So I appreciate that part of 

your testimony. 

I just want to open up, first of all, by saying that I think it is 

pretty obvious that a good relationship between labor and management is a key to good operational efficiency. There is absolutely no 

doubt about it that the workers on the front line probably have the 

best ideas in terms of how to efficiently and effectively operate and 

either produce products or provide the service that they are required to do. So I think that is pretty well understood now in the 

private sector. I think most successful managers understand that 

and are working hard toward having those good, cooperative relationships with employees. 

I would also say that private unions have played a key role in 

making sure that the balance of power between management and 

employees became a little bit more in balance certainly than what 

it was in the early 20th century. 

But there is a big difference between private sector unions and 

public sector unions. In the private sector you actually have a market discipline. If unions go too far, if they bargain for too high 

wages, too high benefits, they put their business at risk. And if the 

business goes out of business, they lose their jobs. So you have that 

market discipline. 

That same discipline does not operate within public sector 

unions, which is why people like Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

certainly a friend of the labor movement, had the following quote. 

He said, ‘‘All government employees should realize that the process 

of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has distinct and insurmountable 

limitations when applied to public personnel management. The 

very nature and purpose of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in 

mutual discussions with government employee organizations.’’ 

Even the AFL–CIO’s George Meany in 1955 said, ‘‘It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.’’ Let us face it. 

Public sector employees are a reality, and I think we need to figure 

out how we can deal with them effectively so that they actually 

work cooperatively and help our Federal Government become more 

fiscally responsible. 

I would like to just quote a few financial facts here. I do not want 

to turn this into a budget meeting, but I think this really does 

drive our discussion here. 

Ten years ago, under Bill Clinton, his final budget, the Federal Government in total spent $1.8 trillion. Ten years later, this last 

year, we doubled that amount. We spent $3.6 trillion. In President 

Obama’s 2012 budget, he projected out 10 years, and according to 

his budget, we will be spending $5.7 trillion in another 10 years. 

So, again, we are not cutting government. We are just trying to 

limit the growth of government. Our Nation’s debt right now stands at $14.7 trillion, and that would not be a problem if our economy was $100 trillion large. But 

it is about $14.5 trillion large. And just like a family that is in too 

much debt and is having a hard time growing its own personal 

economy because they are just spending all their money servicing 

the debt, they cannot increase consumption, the same exact fiscal 

reality faces our Nation because we have too much in debt. 

So we are faced with financial realities here that are pretty ugly, 

and, again, that is why it is very important that we work cooperatively with the Federal workforce to make sure that we have an efficient government sector. 

I think with that I will stop. I will probably have some other 

comments a little bit later on, but, again, I have a very open mind 

coming in here. Again, I think it is exactly important to have a 

good, cooperative relationship with the Federal workforce. And I 

am going to be looking forward to the testimony to see what some 

of those examples are. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. 

On our first panel, it is my pleasure to welcome the Honorable 

John Berry, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM); the Honorable Scott Gould, the Deputy Secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); and Pat Tamburrino, Jr., the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civilian Personnel Policy at the Department of Defense. 

It is the custom of the Subcommittee to swear in the witnesses, 

and I ask you to stand and raise your right hands. Do you solemnly 

swear that the testimony you are about to give this Subcommittee 

is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you, God? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Berry appears in the appendix on page 37. 

Mr. BERRY. I do. 

Mr. GOULD. I do. 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

I want you to know that although your remarks are limited to 

5 minutes, your full statements will be included in the record. 

Director Berry, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN BERRY,1 DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE 

OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be 

here with you and the Ranking Member today. It is an honor to 

be here with you, and it is also an honor to be here with Deputy 

Secretary Gould and Pat, who have been great partners in this effort, along with many other efforts to make our government better 

and more efficient. 

As the President stated when he signed this Executive Order, 

Federal employees and their union representatives are an essential 

source, as Senator Johnson said, of front-line ideas. The Administration believes that a strong partnership between the Federal 

Government and our employee unions is critical to delivering better 

results for the American people. 

Our labor partners are an essential source of ideas and information. They provide valuable insight to improve working conditions 

for all employees, and they provide innovative ideas for delivering 

services to the American taxpayer in a more efficient and cost-effective way. 

The National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations 

includes representatives of our major large departments throughout the agency from the management side, usually the Deputy Secretary level, like Secretary Gould. It also includes representatives 

from our management associations, senior executives associations, 

front-line supervisors, and all of our national labor unions. 

In the first year, we focused on getting the process of labor-management discussions set up. To date, thanks to the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation 

Service (FMCS), more than 350 training sessions have been held, 

reaching over 10,000 managers and union representatives. Labormanagement forums are now up and running; 769 have been established, covering approximately 770,000 bargaining unit employees. 

At OPM, for instance, our partnership with our unions is 

strengthened by an open table where we allow any issue to come 

for pre-decisional discussions before we have to reach the mandatory bargaining table, and that collaboration has allowed us to improve speed and efficiency of our mission. It allowed us to reorganize ourselves so that we could streamline, and control costs, while 

still providing better services. It also allowed us to increase our 

training for our employees, and working with our employees, we 

developed some very innovative training and mentorship programs 

that have been of great assistance to us. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Gould appears in the appendix on page 42. 

Another thing is we survey each year throughout the Federal 

Government our employees. When I got here, the Office of Personnel Management was not in the top 10. In the 2011 Employee 

Viewpoint Survey, amongst all the agencies OPM is now ranked in 

the top 10 in all of the category areas: Ninth in leadership and 

knowledge management, seventh in results-oriented performance 

culture, tenth in talent management, and fifth in job satisfaction. 

Let me point out again, the year before we were not in the top 

10 in any of those areas. I would credit our strong partnership with 

our unions for the dramatic improvements that we have been able 

to achieve in a very fast period of time together. 

Improving performance management is something I think both 

parties and all parties can come to agree on, and that is, making 

sure that we are getting the most out of our employees. 

Over the last decade, we have spent millions of dollars implementing different performance personnel systems, and most of 

them have largely failed because they did not have the buy-in of 

the employee groups that were working—they were developed without their effective partnership. The No. 1 lesson of those experiences is that employee engagement for performance management 

reforms is essential for their success. 

To that end, the National Council took on a work group with our 

Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council, Mr. Chairman, that 

you and Senator Voinovich formed to improve Federal employee 

performance accountability, and just at our last meeting we received the work product from that group. And I have to tell you, 

it is very impressive. 

The Council is now looking to roll this out in pilot form. The Department of Defense is using it to inform their efforts on performance management review. And I believe it is going to achieve greater accountability for our employees and the American public. 

By working with our labor unions who represent our front-line 

employees, we believe that we can be successful in improving delivery of those results to the American people. 

Even with the progress that has been made, there is still much 

to do. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and will be 

ready to answer and discuss any questions that you might have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Director Berry. 

Secretary Gould, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. W. SCOTT GOULD,1 DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. GOULD. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Johnson, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear here today alongside my good 

friend and colleague John Berry and Pat Tamburrino to discuss implementation of Executive Order 13522. It is a privilege for me to 

be here today to represent Secretary Eric Shinseki and the hardworking VA workforce, over 300,000 good people who each and 

every day provide veterans and their families with care and benefits. 

Our mission at VA is to provide the best possible health care and 

services to veterans wherever they reside. To accomplish that comH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

mon mission, both labor and management must work together as 

collaborative members of the same team. 

VA has a long history of working jointly with its labor partners. 

For the past 15 years, we have maintained a successful VA Partnership Council, which has been key to our progress in implementing the Executive Order. To date, we have successfully stood 

up over 150 of the 200 labor-management forums we expect to have 

at the local and network levels within the next couple of years. 

We are doing what leading private sector firms in America are 

doing today to improve performance and achieve positive results for 

their shareholders. And we are recognizing what good leaders and 

managers have always known: That employees have more to contribute to the mission when they are asked for their ideas. The result is greater pride, positive morale, and better quality. 

Our greatest challenge in getting started at VA was making sure 

that everyone shared the same understanding of the Executive 

Order. To address concerns of both labor and management, we developed mandatory Web-based training for managers and supervisors, 25,000 of whom have completed this requirement. We have 

also had over 820 labor and management employees attend joint 

training outside of VA, which has helped build trust between them. 

In consultation with our labor partners, VA has also developed 

metrics to track changes in customer, employee, and manager satisfaction, as well as organizational outcomes that can be linked 

back to the work of our labor-management forums. Our metrics 

have been approved by the National Council on Federal LaborManagement Relations and will be included in our progress report 

to the Council in December. 

Our bottom line is whether improved labor-management relationships have a positive, measurable impact on the delivery of government services—in this case, our Nation’s veterans. 

The logic is inescapable. Good two-way communication with 

front-line employees helps managers make better decisions, and 

the early engagement boosts employee buy-in, which eases implementation of VA transformation initiatives and avoids unnecessary 

litigation. 

In sum, Executive Order 13522 has already contributed directly 

to stronger labor-management relations at VA. There is still work 

to be done, but working with our labor partners will improve mission outcomes for our veterans by creating a more efficient and effective environment for all employees. 

Finally, we expect the overall improvement in the labor-management climate to lead to less conflict, fewer grievances, and smoother, speedier negotiations of needed changes in the Department. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my 

remarks. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I will be 

happy to answer questions at a later point in time. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Secretary Gould, for your 

statement. 

And now please proceed, Mr. Tamburrino. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Tamburrino appears in the appendix on page 46. 

TESTIMONY OF PASQUALE (PAT) M. TAMBURRINO, JR.,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Johnson, 

thank you for inviting the Department of Defense to appear at this 

hearing today to discuss our efforts to implement Executive Order 

13522. We have involved our labor partners in the development of 

recommendations for the design of a new performance management 

system and discussion of methods to improve the Federal hiring 

process called ‘‘New Beginnings.’’ I am pleased to share with you 

DOD’s progress, the challenges and rewards of pre-decisional involvement (PDI), and our way ahead. 

The Department of Defense embraces the provisions of the Executive Order as a means of facilitating the success of our labor-management objectives. We have established over 450 labor-management forums and are engaging in pre-decisional involvement at all 

levels of the Department. DOD has approximately 450,000 bargaining unit employees in 1,500 bargaining units. 

As I am sure you can appreciate, implementing any program, especially in an organization as complex as DOD, is a daunting task. 

Nonetheless, as DOD follows the Executive Order’s mandate to establish labor-management forums, we are experiencing measurable 

success. The 450 forums established in the Department of Defense 

represent approximately 60 percent of all the forums established in 

the Federal Government. 

DOD has been engaged with the unions that represent DOD bargaining unit employees over the past 18 months in the New Beginnings process. At the outset, the Department recognized that it 

needed to rebuild relations with the unions following the dissolution of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). DOD leadership engaged with the unions who enjoy national consultation 

rights to repair relationships before embarking on creating alternative solutions. 

Working with the unions, DOD hosted its first New Beginnings 

conference in September 2010, bringing together a broad representation of diverse stakeholder groups. The conference was a free-flow 

of ideas, with participants generating over 800 recommendations 

with respect to performance management and over 600 suggestions 

for the hiring process. 

DOD hosted a second New Beginnings conference in February 

2011 to launch the design team effort. Following the conference, 

three teams—Performance Management, Hiring Flexibilities, and 

the Civilian Work Incentive Fund—began their work in earnest. 

Each team had approximately 25 members, all DOD employees, 

equally represented by labor and management. Labor and DOD 

leadership designated their team members, with a view toward ensuring a diverse group, reflective of all skill levels and seniorities. 

In September of this year, the teams completed their final recommendations for delivery to DOD leadership. We expect to deliver 

a comprehensive report by year’s end. While the pre-decisional 

process used with our design team has worked well, I think it is 

fair to say that the process is challenging for both management and 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

labor. We need to do more to identify topics that are worthy of discussion at all levels so that trends and common best practices can 

be identified and shared. 

Training is also critical to the success of forum implementation. 

We have taken advantage of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Executive Order Train-the-Trainer program. In fiscal 

year (FY) 2012, we will continue to leverage training opportunities, 

particularly those delivered by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 

We should be supportive of the time required to allow for meaningful pre-decisional involvement. This includes time for both training as well as the actual time to conduct pre-decisional involvement 

discussions. However, my experience is effective engagement between labor and management significantly contributes to the successful execution of DOD’s mission. 

The time in pre-decisional discussion may reduce the time required for formal negotiations. Traditionally, collective bargaining 

has involved significant amounts of time required by labor officials 

to obtain information relative to the issues at hand. Involving labor 

in the development of the solutions from the onset reduces the time 

on information gathering, typically found at the back end of the 

traditional bargaining model. 

As the Department moves forward, we plan to continue our collaborative effort. The Executive Order requires each agency to conduct a baseline assessment of the state of labor relations. The preliminary results of our assessment indicates that when joint labormanagement forums exist and meet regularly, all parties see the 

relationship as more positive and results-oriented. 

Thank you again for your interest in this critical area and for the 

opportunity to speak with you today. I am pleased to take your 

questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Tamburrino. 

Director Berry, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I would 

like to commend you on all of your hard work on this issue. I know 

that you believe in effective partnerships between employees and 

management in the Federal workforce. Now that the National 

Council has been meeting for well over a year, what do you believe 

is its most important accomplishment to date as well as its greatest 

challenge moving forward? 

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, you will remember at my confirmation hearing we discussed two things that had stymied human resources for the past 50 years. The first was a hiring system that 

was as broken as broke could be. And second was we did not have 

strong performance accountability in the Federal Government. I 

promised you I would work hard on both of those issues. 

The first one we are moving in the right direction on every front. 

Time to hire is down and all of those issues. But I think the best 

hope—and it is one that we have just started, but the one that I 

believe is going to have the farthest reach and the greatest impact 

is the joint effort that we have taken at the national partnership 

table between our unions and our managers on performance management and accountability in that it will create a new framework 

for doing this from top to bottom, from our senior executives to our 

front-line workers where we will have accountability, mission alignH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

ment, and strong communication on a regular basis. It sounds so 

simple but some of the great reforms are those that are such strong 

common sense that you wonder why they have not been done before. 

But the essence of this program being developed from the bottom 

up gives it its greatest chance of success, and so I think, Mr. Chairman, the greatest hope I have is it will allow us to make solid 

progress toward an issue that has stymied—and as we all know, 

NSPS, Pat could tell you the amount of money that was spent 

standing it up and then taking it down. 

Homeland Security did the exact same thing. They put in place 

a performance management system. They stood it up, and they had 

to take it down. A lot of money was wasted. 

By doing this and focusing on the performance system in the 

right way and building it from the bottom up, we are saving those 

millions of dollars, and I believe are going to be doing it right. And 

so that is going to be the longest-run investment. 

The second I would say, Mr. Chairman, is innovation, and it 

goes, Senator Johnson, to your point. We had a hearing. Pat and 

Scott will remember this. We had a gentleman from Pearl Harbor, 

from the shipyard in Pearl Harbor, and he said that the people 

came to him and said, ‘‘How do we save money?’’ to his workers. 

He said, ‘‘Well, fire my supervisor.’’ They said, ‘‘How do I save 

time?’’ He says, ‘‘Then my union members will give you a hundred 

different ways to do it faster and better.’’ 

Well, of course, time is money, and no one had spent the time 

to ask them, ‘‘Do you have a way to do this faster?’’ And when we 

did at that table, it is amazing what they have done. Pat can go 

into more examples of this, but they shaved the time of which you 

could turn around a submarine, and every day in dry dock that you 

can save translates into millions of dollars saved for the taxpayer. 

By going to the front line, we have been able to do that, and I 

think that opening that spirit of innovation, Mr. Chairman, is 

going to produce great fruit for the taxpayers for years to come. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Director Berry. 

Pat Tamburrino, I would like to thank you for your nearly already 30 years of military and civilian Federal service. Thank you. 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. I believe that the National Security Personnel 

System ultimately failed because it was imposed on employees who 

had very little input into the system that it designed. I appreciate 

the attention DOD is paying to rebuilding strong labor-management relationships. 

Do you believe costs could have been saved had DOD engaged 

employees in the design of NSPS from the outset? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In hindsight, absolutely. When I reflect on the past 18 months of New Beginnings, 

where we have had at points in time more than 70 labor and management people working in those three design teams together, they 

have come to a common understanding of what that performance 

management system should look like and the principles that it 

should embrace. And you will find that detailed in our report. 

If we had done that in NSPS to begin with, in hindsight, we 

would have had the buy-in of both sides of the table, and we would 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

not have had to spend those resources to go into the system, train 

people, only to bring the same 226,000-plus people back out of the 

system. 

So I find that people as a result of this New Beginnings process 

on both sides understand what performance management is about 

better. They understand the concerns of both labor and management. And I can tell you the recommendations we will bring forward to the Congress are truly joint recommendations of both parties. And I think based on that alone, we will be very successful. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Secretary Gould, first, I want to thank you. Through my service 

on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I know how hard you 

work to improve the lives of our Nation’s veterans. One of the most 

important roles of the National Council is to ensure that forums 

develop metrics to evaluate their effectiveness and report on 

progress. 

Please discuss the concept of metrics, their value, and what recommendations you have for any agency that is struggling with how 

to evaluate the effectiveness of their forums. 

Mr. GOULD. Mr. Chairman, thank you. As a prior businessman, 

well, a former executive at the International Business Machines 

(IBM), I really appreciate the value of getting your metrics right 

and deciding what it is you are going to measure your success 

against. 

One of the strongest aspects of the Executive Order is its focus 

on metrics, and there is a hierarchy of metrics that is laid out for 

us. The most important is mission accomplishment. Are we making 

a difference for the taxpayers that we serve? And those things at 

my own agency include the care and well-being of the veterans that 

we serve, and the quality of the benefits that we deliver. 

Next most important is the well being of all employees that are 

involved in public service. Better morale and better employee satisfaction, I think generally translate into an organization with 

stronger esprit de corps, morale, and pride. 

And, last, the third measure that we are focused on is the quality 

of the labor-management relations itself. We have all seen where 

union-management relationships do not work effectively, and I personally believe that a lot of time and effort can be attenuated in 

a confrontational process. Our goal is to move that to more of a collaborative and cooperative effort. 

So our performance measures are focused on the mission, on 

achieving results for taxpayers, and then the people who make the 

organizations go, and, last, the labor-management relations itself. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

We will have a second round, but at this time we will hear from 

Senator Johnson with his questions. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like 

to thank all of you for your service. 

As I was reading through the written testimony, there were a 

couple of questions that popped into my brain. First of all, it 

sounds great. As I said in my opening statement it is just true that 

working with the people who work with you is going to improve 

your effectiveness and efficiency. But the question I kept coming 

back to is where can it go wrong. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

There was something similar instituted under Bill Clinton, and 

President Bush rescinded that Executive Order. Now President 

Obama has reissued an even more wide sweeping order. Why is 

that? Can you just kind of address the shift? What was the thinking? 

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Johnson, I think I will take a crack at that. I 

think the President took the approach—it was building on—not 

creating something new but building on what was actually in existence in the law. And bargaining in the Federal Government is established under the law, and it is very different from the private 

sector in that Federal employees cannot bargain over pay and benefits like they can in the private sector. They do not have the right 

strike as they do in the private sector. So it is a very different labor 

statute that governs Federal standards. 

But what the President said is, what will make our bargaining 

table more productive is the notion of talking beforehand. And it 

is certainly something I have found works well at OPM, that predecisional engagement where you can talk about ideas before you 

have fleshed them out, before you have gotten into it, and it gets 

to just what Pat was saying. You can identify where the weak spots 

are, and you can work together on them rather than sort of crafting 

it all in management’s mind and then unfurling it and saying this 

is the road. 

And so the gist of the Executive Order is to drive that predecisional discussion and to create forums where that kind of conversation could happen. So it builds on the law. It does not change 

the bargaining table. It does not change any of the legal standard. 

It just says before you get to the bargaining table, have an open 

conversation. And that was the spirit that drove the Executive 

Order. 

Senator JOHNSON. As I was reading through the materials here, 

that seems to be the crux of one of the concerns, the pre-decision 

involvement. You said that Federal employees cannot strike, but 

they could certainly in that process do something that is almost 

similar to a strike and just simply not allow good ideas to move forward if they have an objection to them. 

Mr. BERRY. But, again, Senator, that I think is exactly why we 

might actually get somewhere with this new performance management system, is because they were brought in on the shaping of it 

and the understanding of it and helped to design the structure on 

which it will be built. 

Senator JOHNSON. They will now be involved in decisions that 

are basically outside their bargaining rights, correct? They are 

going to be brought in pre-decision in terms of budget preparation, 

in terms of potentially taking a look at what the size of the workforce might be. Isn’t that a potential inherent conflict of interest? 

And I think that was one of the concerns of the people as I was 

reading through the testimony. 

Mr. BERRY. Well, the law is pretty clear in that they cannot bargain over pay and benefits. What you are talking about is bargaining over the technology that might affect numbers and how 

that might be implemented. 

For example, at OPM we installed a new phone system. We had 

a phone system when I got there, they told me the day I arrived 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

on the job, ‘‘Your phone system could fail at any minute.’’ Well, we, 

management, could have just gone out and picked one, but we went 

and instead met with our employees at the table about this. And 

we looked at it as an opportunity to expand telework, and it could 

use technology more effectively so that people could work and have 

distant conferences and we would save money on travel so that 

people would not necessarily have to fly to an area. They could use 

the technology. In fact, that has happened, and we have saved about $1.5 million 

a year by putting in this new phone system. The union would have 

had the right to slow that down if we had not talked to them. They 

could have taken the approach you said of filing suits and other 

things that could have slowed things down. But because we worked 

it out at the table with them, they instead were supportive of it. 

We got the thing installed on time, under budget, and it is saving 

us money each year for the taxpayers. 

So I think it is a great example of the other thing we have done 

which is we have controlled the cost on this. We have been very 

mindful that people were going to be looking at how much money 

we are spending on this. We are spending—the National Partnership Council (NPC) costs have been almost half of what they were 

during the Clinton years. And so we have been very careful on conserving these resources, spending them wisely, and using them effectively. 

Senator JOHNSON. We will come back to costs. 

Mr. Tamburrino, one of the things, I think, in your testimony you 

talked about is Project Moonshine or Moonshine Initiative. That 

was prior to these labor-management forums, correct? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. The first instance we cite, yes, sir, it was, approximately 5 years ago. But that project continues today. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Again, so I guess my question is: Why did 

we need a sweeping Executive Order to encourage a best practice 

where it was already occurring? And why wouldn’t other people in 

the Federal Government take a look at that example and say, 

‘‘That makes sense. Let us start implementing it the way we would 

like to do it in our agency’’ ? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. I think you are right Senator. What we face in 

the Department of Defense is we have to come up with efficiencies. 

We are under as much budget pressure as any other Executive 

Agency, and we find things like the ‘‘Moonshine Project’’, which has 

had multiple ideas, are a great way for us to attack those efficiencies. 

If only management thinks of the efficiencies, then labor may or 

may not be inclined to adopt them. But if I get some of the ideas 

from the shop floor or the depot floor, I am much better off, because the amount of efficiencies we have to come up with are enormous. 

So things like the ‘‘Moonshine Project’’ just institutionalize this 

partnership, and I think the pre-decisional involvement allows a lot 

earlier identification of the challenges that both labor and management face. I think it helps us provide a structure to attack the 

problem. 

Senator JOHNSON. I think that in your written testimony you 

talked about one of the concerns was cost. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. Correct, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. But you said it was outweighed by the benefits. But what concerns you about the cost? Do we actually know 

the cost of this within the Department of Defense? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. We are not collecting those metrics right now, 

but your questions cause me to pause: Do I need to do that? 

But what we find and what has been relayed to me by my labor 

partners is if we wait to talk about the problems that face us both 

in the execution of the DOD mission, labor spends a lot of time trying to find out the facts. And in the pre-decisional involvement, we 

expose them to all the facts we understand a lot earlier, so we get 

to the substance of how do we solve this problem as opposed to let 

us spend hours in fact finding where guarding the information too 

closely is not in anyone’s best interest. 

But I think to your concern at the end of the day, I think everybody appreciates, at least in the Department of Defense, the commander, the commanding officer, the responsibility at the end of 

the day rests with that individual. And this pre-decisional involvement does not change that. It helps inform that. I think it may 

help us make better decisions at the end of the day. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

Director Berry, telework and work-life programs have been priorities for the labor-management forums as well as for OPM more 

broadly. Would you please discuss how improving labor-management cooperation is helping to advance OPM’s telework and worklife initiatives? 

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would say that the partnership table has allowed us to move much faster and more effectively in implementing the law that you all passed, the Telework 

Enhancement Act. And I believe that as we implement that and get 

that stood up and get the technologies in place and have the employees designated, that is another place where we are just going 

to save money and be smarter. People, rather than having to spend 

2 hours each way commuting, can now spend that time with their 

families and still deliver 8 hours to the taxpayer and do it effectively, securely, at their home location. 

So it is a great law that you all put in place, and the Partnership 

Council has allowed us to stand it up more quickly, and I think 

that had we not had the Partnership Council, it certainly would 

have been one you would have had to almost informally create 

something like it to allow us to get the standards in place and to 

put in place what the law required us to do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Secretary Gould, I am a long-time supporter of investing in workforce training and, in particular, the training of supervisors. As a 

result of joint efforts between the FLRA and the FMCS and the Department of Veterans Affairs, thousands of labor-management officials have been trained on the Executive Order. They are not represented here today, but for the record, I want to commend FLRA 

for its extensive work on training with very limited resources. 

I would like to hear more about these training efforts and your 

agency’s role in providing such training. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

Mr. GOULD. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I share your view that the 

two most important things that a leader can do in an agency is develop and train the next generation of leaders behind them. And 

the reason why that training is important is directly related to 

business value: a more efficient, more effective organization, and 

the elimination of waste. It comes from people who really know 

their jobs and have gone that extra mile to learn in the community 

and draw lessons from the private sector and other agencies that 

are doing it well. And that happens on the job, it happens in a 

classroom, but it has to happen. 

It is also true that in the environments that we’re working in 

today, complexity is increasing, and taxpayer demand to deliver 

new results is not shrinking. So we have to train our people to do 

that. 

So it was very natural for us together in the Labor-Management 

Council to go figure out a way where we could leverage training assets across the government, and the first place that we went to find 

the richest content, the deepest expertise, was at FLRA and FMCS. 

There is no question that these are the folks that have a lot of the 

insight, the professionalism, and the knowledge to make that happen. And we at VA volunteered to leverage our ability to create 

Web-based training using their expertise together. And what we 

have done is to create a number of Web-based training courses that 

really are an effort for us to work as colleagues in a community 

and to support the provision of those training assets that all 51 

agencies can now draw upon, and they are posted on the Web and 

available for everyone to use. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Director Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, if I could just also shout out a thanks 

not only to those two great organizations but also to Scott and Secretary Shinseki. This is being done within budget, this entire operation. There are no separate appropriations for any of this that is 

provided. And without the assistance of the VA to stand up and 

help us to put these training programs on the Web, we would not 

have had the resources to do that. 

It was a great partnership in terms of using both the capacity 

and the resources to get the job done so we could reach it out, and 

then Scott has made that available to all the agencies of the Federal Government. So rather than having to have Pat pay twice or 

someone else to have to pay for the same thing, we have shared 

it. And so I think we have been very careful, and I just want to 

express my deep thanks to Scott for his leadership on this important issue, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Tamburrino, I would like to hear from you on this as well. 

I believe that educating and training the DOD workforce, particularly its supervisors, will be critical to the success of a new performance management system. 

What steps are being taken by agency officials and employee representatives to ensure that a strong training program is in place 

when the time comes to implement DOD’s new performance management system? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. 

Currently, DOD has new supervisory training courses for anybody 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

who becomes a supervisor for their very first time. So we offer that 

across the components. 

In the report that we will give you, we emphasize the fact that 

one of the keys to successes for our new performance management 

system is that supervisors have objectives which rate them on their 

ability to supervise; that when we pick new supervisors, we do that 

with some conscious activity that the person that we are about to 

pick has some aptitude to do it; and we equip that person with the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities to become a supervisor through 

some formal training. 

So I think you will see in our final recommendations we have 

current training, but we will bring it to a higher level; and we will 

emphasize that part of the supervisory responsibility is to conduct 

good dialog with your employees every day, make sure they understand what their responsibilities are, and, more importantly, what 

their contribution to the mission is, and enable them to make the 

most effective contribution possible. 

The design teams will write, I believe, at great length on that 

particular item in their report because they found that to be a critical ingredient going forward. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Senator Johnson, do you have any 

questions? 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Berry, why in the top three goals of this effort don’t we list 

cost savings? I understand more effective mission, but with the fact 

that we are bankrupting this Nation, why isn’t that an incredibly 

high-level goal? 

Mr. BERRY. It is, and, in fact, it is married, Senator, exactly with 

the first one. The first metric that we are looking at is both mission 

and service delivery, and service delivery being expressed specifically in metrics of costs, cycle time, error rate cost savings, return 

on investment, so that the breakdown when you get into that, the 

standards of the metrics are under one are very strongly focused 

on time and dollar savings. It is too early—in other words, I do not 

have enough of the reports back in. Those reports are not even due 

until the end of this calendar year, so I will not be able to give you 

a full analysis of this until later. But, the early stuff we are seeing, 

it is definitely showing up on the cost meter. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Again, I realize this is early in the process and we do not have a whole lot of examples to be talking about. 

But, again, I think that the concern is in bringing basically union 

negotiators in some respect early into the decisionmaking process, 

there is an inherent conflict of interest there, where, appropriately 

so, people representing the union really are there to get larger benefits, higher wages, higher benefits. How do you guard against that 

conflict of interest? 

Mr. BERRY. Well, two important things, Senator. 

First, in the Federal place, in terms of at our bargaining table, 

wages and benefits are not negotiable, so that traditional thing 

that is in the private sector is not at play for us. 

Senator JOHNSON. But in the pre-decision involvement, they are 

being brought in on the budgetary preparation, correct? As a matter of fact, isn’t it also true that those discussions are not even 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

1http://www.whitehouse.gov/the—press—office/Freedom—of—Information—Act/ 

open and available under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests? 

Mr. BERRY. Well, sir, the pre-decisional discussions are still governed by the law, and the law requires no pay and benefits, no 

right to strike and no mandatory union dues. So it is very different 

from the private sector negotiations, and management under predecisional waives none of its rights. And so I think it is very important to remember that at that pre-decisional tables, managers still 

reserve all of their rights, which are very strong under Federal law. 

Senator JOHNSON. Why are those discussions confidential and 

not available under Freedom of Information Act requests? 

Mr. BERRY. Senator, I will have to get back to you, if I can, for 

the record on that. As many discussions happen in the Executive 

Branch that are not subject to Freedom of Information Act, not everything in a discussional sense is. 

Senator JOHNSON. That would help allay my fears if those were 

available. 

Mr. BERRY. Yes, sir. 

INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD

In a January 19, 2011 memorandum, the Co-Chairs of the National Council on 

Federal Labor Management Relations reminded heads of departments and agencies 

that Executive Order 13522 requires agencies to allow pre-decisional involvement 

with unions in all workplace matters to the fullest extent practicable, without regard to whether those matters are negotiable subjects to bargaining under 5 U.S.C. 

7106. The memorandum noted that one example of an opportunity for pre-decisional 

involvement is during the budget development phase. If management chooses to solicit input from employee representatives at this stage, the memorandum stresses 

that such input should be limited to high-level discussions of goals and strategies. 

Additionally, employee representatives may provide input on implementation of proposals in the President’s budget and on use of budgetary resources to carry out 

agency missions; however, pre-decisional input does not obligate agency management to make specific decisions or take specific actions. 

Release of information during the budget development period is governed by the 

Freedom of Information Act, including FOIA exemptions; the memorandum issued 

by the President on January 21, 2009 concerning compliance with FOIA1; Justice 

guidance interpreting the President’s memorandum; and section 22 of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A–11, ‘‘Communications with Congress 

and the Public and Clearance Requirements,’’ which sets out longstanding OMB 

policies on preserving the confidentiality of pre-decisional budget deliberations. 

Agency budget documents may be exempt from FOIA depending on the nature of 

the record requested. In particular, the deliberative process privilege incorporated 

within Exemption 5 of the FOIA may protect agency records which are predecisional and deliberative in nature from public release, in order to preserve the 

quality of agency decisionmaking. If the request falls within one of the categories 

that OMB has directed agencies not to produce, the OMB guidance will control. 

Senator JOHNSON. That would help allay my fears if those were 

available. 

Mr. BERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. One thing that surprised me, again, preparing 

for this, is I did not realize the extent that the Federal Government 

and really the taxpayers subsidize union activity. Our figures, 

showing how difficult to get this information is, are between 5,000 

and 10,000 offices are provided to public sector unions at a cost of 

about $250 million. I also did not realize that union representatives 

basically can work and do their union job on Federal pay, and that 

also could be $130 to $25 million worth. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

So I want to throw it open to Mr. Gould here. One of the figures 

I got was that there are 600 full-time union representatives working at the VA for 150 hospitals. That is about four per hospital. 

Why do we need four union representatives basically being paid by 

the taxpayer? Can you explain that to me? 

Mr. GOULD. Senator, obviously, cost is an important part of the 

mission-oriented metrics that we established as the most important 

set of metrics that we are focused on. I think Mr. Berry gave a 

good summary of the operational, financial performance, customer 

satisfaction, and people-related measures that constitute a balanced scorecard, and you are focused in on cost. 

What I believe we need to look at is cost and benefit together, 

so when we look at our official time, the time that union managers 

work under government pay, it is a tiny fraction of the total 

amount of labor that is available to our agency. And what we get 

in return for that is better-quality decisions and more streamlined 

implementation. And if you had a moment, I could give you two or 

three examples of where that work, I believe, has created greater 

value for the taxpayer. 

The first is faster review of appeals claims. Our veterans are able 

to appeal claims that they disagree with back to the government, 

and 2 years ago we were stuck. It was taking us too long to process 

those appeals. We sat down in pre-decisional involvement with our 

unions. We came up with a process that doubled the productivity 

of the teams on the ground, No. 1. 

No. 2, we are working together now to create a new certification 

process to ensure the quality of our vocational rehab counselors. 

These are individuals who sit down one-on-one with a veteran and 

you want to know that they are trained, certified, and ready to deliver high-quality service. 

We needed to develop a new training program and certification 

program to do that. We are sitting down with pre-decisional involvement with our unions, and we are quickly moving through 

that. 

The last example I would give—you may be aware that Secretary 

Shinseki has 16 major initiatives to help transform the VA. All 16 

have engaged pre-decisional involvement. I am just going to pick 

one, and it has to do with the implementation of the new GI bill, 

which I am sure affects people in your own home State. That new 

GI bill says that a youngster who has gone down range and served 

3 or more years in the military can come back and go to any public 

or private institution in America, full tuition, with an additional 

stipend for room and board. That system to deliver those benefits 

was just an idea 2 years ago. Today there are over 600,000 people 

who received checks under the new GI bill since it began and $14 

billion worth of tuition has been paid. 

We sat down with our union colleagues. We worked through that 

using pre-decisional involvement, and the result was no attenuation, no limitation on our speed to be able to deliver that new capability. 

So those three examples are just ways of my communicating that 

it is the benefit net of cost that really is important here, and unbelievable value is being created by this initiative. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. I do need to give a shout out 

to the Milwaukee VA hospital I visited a couple of times, really 

highly qualified individuals really working hard to deliver services 

to our veterans. So that is appreciated. 

Mr. GOULD. Thank you, Senator. That means a lot. 

Senator JOHNSON. If I could just beg your indulgence, one more 

question for Mr. Berry. In Ms. Niehaus’ testimony, the representative for the Federal Managers Association (FMA), she was concerned about the fact that the Federal Managers Association is not 

present in some of these labor-management forums on the agency 

level. Can you explain why that would be the case? There seems 

to be some real conflict on that? 

Mr. BERRY. Yes, sir. Essentially, on both sides of the table—we 

have to leave that up to each of the units to decide, because under 

the law it allows clearly for managers and labor to be at the table. 

Associations are not clearly defined in the law, and in some places 

managers are not comfortable having another group representing, 

if you will, management at the table. 

Now, management associations do have the right for consultation 

with management, and so separate from the bargaining process, 

they do have the ability for consultative and pre-decisional engagement and involvement. We leave that sort of to the discretion of 

each agency to follow to their best—as long as they are following 

the law within their units. But at this point in time, the law does 

not mandate for the management associations to be present at the 

table in such a way. 

And so, we do not have the ability, if you will, at the Partnership 

Council to go beyond what the law provides. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. 

I would like to thank our first panel for their testimony and responses. 

I would now like to call up the second panel of witnesses. On our 

second panel this afternoon, we welcome Mr. Greg Junemann, 

President of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE); Mr. William Dougan, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE); Ms. Patricia 

Niehaus, President of the Federal Managers Association; and Mr. 

George Nesterczuk with Nesterczuk and Associates. Mr. 

Nesterczuk also held positions in the Office of Personnel Management during the Reagan and George W. Bush Administrations. 

It is the custom of the Subcommittee to swear in the witnesses, 

so I will ask you to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you 

solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 

so help you, God? 

Mr. DOUGAN. I do. 

Mr. JUNEMANN. I do. 

Ms. NIEHAUS. I do. 

Mr. NESTERCZUK. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let the record show the witnesses 

answered in the affirmative. 

I want you all to know that although your remarks are limited 

to 5 minutes, your full statements will be included in the record. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Junemann appears in the appendix on page 66. 

Mr. Junemann, please proceed with your statement. 

TETIMONY OF GREGORY J. JUNEMANN,1 PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL 

ENGINEERS, AFL–CIO 

Mr. JUNEMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I am 

Gregory Junemann. I am the President of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. I would like to 

thank the Chairman and Ranking Member Johnson for allowing 

me the invitation to testify today. 

Before going further, I would also like to extend my personal appreciation on behalf of my union to Chairman Akaka. At the conclusion of this Congress, Senator Akaka will cap off a distinguished 

career serving the citizens of Hawaii and this Nation, which includes, of course, my local. On behalf of IFPTE Local 121’s Local 

President Jamie Kobayakawa, and IFPTE Executive Vice President 

Ben Toyama, again, I would extend my formal appreciation to you 

for your service to this Nation. 

Of course, the issue before us today deals with labor and management forums in the Federal Government through partnership 

and how effective they have been for taxpayers, workers, and managers alike. IFPTE applauded the President’s Executive Order 

13522 when it was initially announced in December 2009, and we 

continue to stand by our initial support, and we remain firmly committed to Federal Government partnerships. 

At the same time, I would like to say we are not blindly led 

cheerleaders for the Executive Order and its programs; rather, we 

like to see ourselves as critiquingly optimistic as we participate in 

moving the programs forward. 

With the Executive Order, of course, also came the creation of 

the National Council on Partnership for Labor and Management 

Relations. The Council is compromised of both labor and management officials, and as President of IFPTE, I am quite proud to 

serve on this distinguished panel. 

IFPTE represents thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians, 

and other highly educated professional employees, and these are 

the people who essentially run my union. These people basically 

get paid for thinking very deeply. That is what they do. My members are problem solvers, and it is because of that we are so strongly committed to partnership within the Federal Government. 

My written testimony shows concrete examples of where partnership has and continues to produce significant benefits for taxpayers 

and Federal workers alike, and my testimony also points to areas 

that remain essentially behind the times. 

Of course, we all know that the U.S. Government is operating 

under a tremendous financial deficit, and in response to our Nation’s looming financial woes, we believe it is incumbent upon every 

person within the Federal Government, all employees and all managers, union representatives alike, to do everything they can to 

streamline the efficient operations and, to quote from Executive 

Order 13522, ‘‘make a good-faith attempt to resolve issues concerning proposed changes in conditions of employment.’’ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

1The joint letter appears in the appendix on page 115. 

We reject the heavy-handed, top-down, old-school autocratic style 

of management that only pretended to work when it seemed as 

though money was no object. Instead, we embrace the notion that 

a working partnership will much better serve the American people. 

IFPTE remains fully supportive of the Executive Order and the 

Obama Administration’s commitment to making the Executive 

Order work because we believe that there exists concrete evidence 

of benefits to taxpayers. This is particularly true, as has been mentioned, at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, in the Chairman’s 

State of Hawaii, where, again, as has been discussed, the implementation of Moonshine Program has saved tens of millions of dollars for the American taxpayers. The Moonshine Program, which 

was presented to the National Council by IFPTE Executive Vice 

President Ben Toyama, has, again, saved the taxpayers millions of 

dollars and countless man-hours. And this is only one example of 

how well partnership works within the Federal Government. 

Along with this partnership at Pearl Harbor, IFPTE is also 

proud of the newly established partnership within NASA. I have a 

joint letter that is signed by Deputy Director Lori Garver of NASA 

and IFPTE National Council President Lee Stone,1 and I would ask 

to submit that joint letter for the record. It was only signed on Friday. They were, of course, being scientists, working out the language of the letter. But it basically endorses in full their complete 

support for partnership within NASA. 

Again, it is just starting. That program is just underway, and 

cost savings we work will just pile upon themselves as this goes 

forward. 

Mr. JUNEMANN. It would be nearly impossible for me, again, as 

has been discussed, to talk about the benefits of labor-management 

partnership without discussing the issue of training. And, again, 

we do acknowledge the very, very important role that was made by 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Federal Mediation 

Conciliation Service, FLRA and FMCS, in doing joint training for 

labor and management at—I do not know how many facilities, but 

it seems like it is something like 6,000 labor and management employees have been trained. This training goes basically two ways. 

It is done on a person-by-person basis onsite, and also the training 

is offered online. It is a 90-minute training that is available to all 

Federal employees. We not only encourage our members, we have 

actually put the link of the IFPTE Web site to make sure that our 

members have access to it. And, again, I should acknowledge that 

this was apparently partially paid for by the Veterans Administration since FMCS and FLRA and OPM did not have the money to 

put this all together. 

I am getting ahead of myself a little bit here. 

Again, in conclusion, we are strongly grateful to the President for 

his continuation of the Executive Order under partnership. We saw 

how it worked, when it worked under President Clinton. We continued to operate—since President Bush did not exactly prohibit partnership, we continued to operate some levels of partnership within 

some agencies, and then when President Obama reissued the Executive Order, we stood strongly behind it, and we still do today. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Dougan appears in the appendix on page 76. 

That concludes my remarks, and I would be more than happy to 

answer any questions that the Subcommittee has. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Junemann. 

Mr. Dougan, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. DOUGAN,1 PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

Mr. DOUGAN. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member 

Johnson, for inviting me to testify today. I am here on behalf of the 

National Federation of Federal Employees and the 110,000 Federal 

workers we represent at 40 different agencies throughout the government. 

In these lean budget times, downsizing in many agencies is a fact 

of life. Belt tightening has become unavoidable, and accordingly, 

lawmakers have the critical task of scrubbing the budget looking 

for ways to cut costs without adversely impacting critical agency 

missions. 

But let me make one point absolutely clear. If you are serious 

about trimming budgets and finding ways to make government run 

more efficiently, you should make certain that agencies are working with employees to find solutions. It is employees that do the 

work every day, and they know better than anyone how to get the 

work done better, faster, and more economically. 

In order for the know-how of Federal workers to be leveraged 

into government efficiency, they need a legitimate voice in the process. It is through labor-management forums and extension of the 

collective bargaining relationship that Federal workers are provided that essential voice. 

I am pleased to say that the Obama Administration has made 

great strides in establishing labor-management forums. His Executive Order led to a change in policy that is transforming the labormanagement culture throughout the government for the better. 

The re-establishment of labor-management forums has been a 

breath of fresh air in a majority of agencies where forums are established. In these agencies forums are being used to facilitate 

smarter, leaner, and more efficient government by including some 

of the most important stakeholders of all—the employees who actually carry out the missions of the agencies. 

I can say from my 30-year career as a Federal employee that 

labor-management forums do improve agency performance. Regardless of what an agency’s objective is, be it cost savings, faster processing, better workplace safety, et cetera, employees are often the 

best source of information for how to make the agency work better. 

Through forums, employees have a real voice in offering alternatives and ideas on how to better accomplish the work. 

There is no more fertile ground for improved agency performance 

than listening to the ideas and concerns of workers. This is particularly true when unions are engaged early in the decisionmaking 

process through pre-decisional involvement, a key tool that leads to 

better decisionmaking by agency leaders. 

I can also say from my experience that labor-management forums save agencies money. By discussing problems early and alH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

lowing the union to share workers’ concerns and possible solutions, 

it allows management to make better decisions, thereby saving 

time and effort involved in implementation. 

A major component of that increased efficiency is improved buyin from workers. The use of forums can also result in less need to 

bargain once an agency decision is made, resulting in significant 

potential cost savings. Communication through forums allows the 

parties to reach an understanding about why agencies are taking 

certain actions and what it means for employees. 

Forums also allow for plans to be modified to mitigate some adverse impacts on employees when the alternative—failing to hear 

workers’ concerns—could lead to far greater problems associated 

with a workforce that is uninvolved in agency decisions. 

You have heard the saying, ‘‘An ounce of prevention is worth a 

pound of cure.’’ The same concept applies to labor-management relations. Labor-management forums are very effective at preventing 

far greater costs that agencies might incur by not involving employees. 

I would like to talk about one specific example of how the Forest 

Service labor-management forum improved agency performance 

and saved millions of dollars per year. In partnership, the Forest 

Service and NFFE collaborated on a firefighting workforce succession planning process. As a result of a decision to reclassify many 

firefighter jobs into a different job series, the current firefighting 

workforce faced the need to be retrained in subjects completely unrelated to their firefighting duties in order to qualify for their jobs 

they had been performing for years. 

The union identified that the agency faced spending $15 million 

per year for the sole purpose of retraining the workforce to address 

the unintended technical glitch. This became a key item for partnership meetings between the NFFE, Forest Service Council, and 

the agency. In the end, the agency realized the tremendous negative impact this was going to have and wisely committed to changing course. Union and agency leadership collaborated on an alternative plan that avoids these negative effects and reduces costs and 

are working now to implement it. 

Without partnership and the meaningful and detailed technical 

collaboration that allowed it to happen, the agency faced losing a 

sizable portion of current fire leadership as well as the pipeline for 

our leaders of tomorrow. The agency would also have continued to 

incur $15 million per year in meaningless expenses. 

This is just one example of the kind of good decisionmaking and 

savings that can be achieved through effective labor-management 

forums. 

I appreciate the Subcommittee’s decision to hold a hearing on 

this matter, and I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. 

Dougan. 

Ms. Niehaus, will you please proceed with your statement? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Niehaus appears in the appendix on page 89. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA NIEHAUS,1 PRESIDENT, FEDERAL 

MANAGERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. NIEHAUS. Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Johnson, 

since being elected FMA president in March 2010, I have been 

serving as FMA’s representative on the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations. I would like to thank you for 

the opportunity to present our views on the Council and labor-management relations across the government. 

FMA was honored to have a seat on the Council from its onset 

and viewed our involvement as a testament to the important role 

of first-and second-line supervisors in carrying out agency initiatives and fostering better employee-management relations. We believe that when you bring all the stakeholders together, each of 

whom bring unique and respective viewpoints to the table, you ultimately end up with a more meaningful, successful labor-management relationship. 

In order to achieve the goals set out in the Executive Order and 

ensure the Council tackled all the issues, even the tough ones, 

Council members divided into several working groups over the last 

year and a half. The subjects examined by these groups include 

issues specific to the Executive Order but also go beyond the order, 

and working on issues beyond the scope of the Council’s initial 

charter, stakeholders were able to collaborate with decisionmakers 

to make a stronger product and ultimately a stronger government. 

At the national level, FMA has been involved in several of the 

initiatives undertaken by the Council, including the Performance 

Management Working Group, which is on track to release its final 

report at the next Council meeting. Overall, while we at FMA 

would have preferred the group tackle the issue of whether or not 

the General Schedule speaks to today’s workers and job seekers, we 

believe the document is a good first step in ensuring agency leaders 

take performance management seriously and ensuring agency leaders consider strong performance management business as usual. 

Implementing an agency culture based on strong performance management must come from the top down and hold all managers and 

supervisors accountable for performance. 

In my written testimony, I provide background information on 

the partnerships of the 1990s and offer suggestions on how this 

Council could improve upon what we learned then. I also detailed 

FMA’s position on the various subjects the Council is tackling: permissive bargaining, metrics, and pre-decisional involvement. In 

many cases, I am pleased with the progress the Council has made, 

and in others, I believe more can be done. One such issue is the 

involvement of managers and supervisors on the labor-management forums. I would like to take this opportunity to share with 

you the challenges FMA is experiencing at the agency level. 

To date, over 750 labor-management forums have formed at the 

agency or facility level. It is the primary concern of FMA that management associations have been left out and in some cases actively 

excluded from participating in the forums. Under Title V, agencies 

are to provide a framework for consulting and communicating with 

non-labor organizations representing Federal employees on matters 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Nesterczuk appears in the appendix on page 103. 

related to agency operations and Federal personnel management. 

Federal management associations, including FMA, have these consultation rights which were afforded with the belief that management associations and the employees they represent have a unique 

perspective that is not necessarily represented by agency leadership. Members of management associations work closely with employees and agency leadership and are directly affected by the 

issues addressed in labor-management forums, and our exclusion 

means agencies are missing out on the experience of a crucial 

stakeholder when making decisions in these forums. 

At the May 2010 Council meeting, SEA and FMA raised the 

issue of management association participation in forums, and many 

members of the Council expressed support for our participation. 

Since that time, FMA and other management groups have been 

working with the agencies where we have a strong membership 

base to join the newly-formed forums. Unfortunately, with the exception of one forum where FMA has had a seat on the local council since 1995, not a single association has been allowed to participate in the forums, and in some cases our associations have been 

actively excluded. More troubling, the associations are not notified 

of the forums’ decisions in a timely manner, despite the fact that 

our members are directly responsible for carrying out the decisions 

of the forums. 

As pre-decisional involvement, (b)(1) bargaining pilot programs, 

and labor-management forums grow in importance, allowing management associations to participate can be useful to agencies and 

union members in ensuring communication at all levels. Additionally, having the managers’ viewpoints and buy-in expressed early 

in the decisionmaking process allows managers to be better 

equipped when they carry out and relay these new procedures to 

their employees. 

In conclusion, as we saw in the 1990s and over the last year and 

a half, many factors must be met to create cooperative relationships between management and labor. This is no easy feat, but the 

dedication of the Council members to improve relations through 

this avenue has proven successful thus far. However, FMA remains 

discouraged that our participation is viewed as valuable on a national level but not at the agency or local level. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to express our views here 

today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Niehaus. 

Mr. Nesterczuk, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE NESTERCZUK,1 PRESIDENT, 

NESTERCZUK AND ASSOCIATES 

Mr. NESTERCZUK. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Johnson. Thanks for inviting me 

to testify on labor-management forums in the Federal Government, 

a subject that I consider both important and timely. 

Permit me to sound perhaps a discordant note this afternoon on 

this subject. Executive Order 13522, issued on December 9, 2009, 

opened government decisionmaking to non-governmental entities in 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

an unprecedented fashion. Although the labor management councils created under the Executive Order are reminiscent of the partnership councils during the Clinton Administration, they are Clinton partnerships on steroids. One has to wonder what management 

crisis called for such a radical escalation of the role of Federal 

unions. Of particular concern are the pursuit of pre-decisional involvement that expands union activity into previously nonbargainable areas such as budget preparation and the allocation of 

resources that this entails. At a time of perhaps the most severe 

peacetime budgetary constraints we have ever experienced, when 

Federal programs face cuts and employee pay has been frozen, it 

is not an ideal time to launch a radical initiative that is certain to 

drive up the cost of governing. We should be streamlining government management for greater efficiency and lower cost rather than 

overlaying additional burdensome procedures. 

Now, of particular concern, pre-decisional involvement, as promoted under labor-management forums, weakens the chain of accountability by which agency management is held responsible for 

the stewardship of government. The President and his appointees 

set priorities for the allocation of resources based on his publicly 

stated agenda and congressional intent. Allowing non-government 

entities to participate in agency decisions affecting all ‘‘workplace 

matters’’ is unprecedented, especially since the scope of issues falling within the rubric of ‘‘workplace matters’’ is undefined and, 

therefore, open to the broadest interpretation. 

The Office of Government Ethics promulgates extensive rules to 

prevent Federal officials from engaging in activities and contacts 

that create conflicts of interest or even have the appearance of conflicts of interest. This is important in order for the public to retain 

confidence in their government, confidence that rules are applied 

fairly and equally to everyone, and that decisions are not skewed 

for the benefit of special interests. 

Unions are a special interest. They exist to maximize the extraction of benefits from employers on behalf of their members, and 

Federal unions were not created for the purpose of maximizing the 

efficiency of governance. To place them in a position where they 

can influence public policy for their own benefit is a clear conflict 

of interest and should not be tolerated. 

And what is a succeeding Administration to do when saddled 

with a labor-management arrangement adamantly opposed to its 

agenda? The labor-management forums are not good government; 

rather, they represent a pandering to special interests. 

As far as costs, the new labor regime envisioned in the forum 

concept can only drive up costs of government. According to OPM 

reports, annual use of official time overwhelmingly—that is, about 

75 percent—goes to general labor-management issues, not to dispute resolution or bargaining. And the forums, when fully implemented, will only add more issues to meet over and discuss. 

Since its inception last year, the National Council overseeing the 

labor-management forums has already spent over $1 million in 

monthly meetings, and this will multiply 20-or 30-fold as individual 

agencies become more involved. 

Unions are already heavily subsidized by the taxpayers for the 

use of official time, which, according to recent OPM reports, comH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

26 

promise about 2 million man-hours per year at a cost of at least 

$130 million. The burden of paying for office space, equipment, and 

supplies adds an additional $250 million a year. 

The most compelling argument OPM has advanced for this new 

labor initiative was the need to ‘‘reset: labor relations after the 

‘‘bad feelings: created by the previous Administration. Surely there 

were other, cheaper ways for the Administration to reach out to 

this constituency. 

What should we do about this? The reset under the forums unfortunately results in further politicization of the civil service. 

Unions in general are very political and highly partisan. That is 

their choice. It is also their right to be so. However, elevating these 

non-government entities to partnership status with career managers in government undermines the perception of political neutrality that the career civil service has nurtured since its inception 

over a century ago. And how is the next administration to deal 

with the ‘‘fox in the chicken coop’’ that the unions have come to 

represent? For the sake of maintaining the neutrality of Federal 

civil service, I would recommend that Congress consider defunding 

the labor-management forums. 

Second, Congress should consider reinforcing the provisions of 

Chapter 71 of 5 USC that stipulate non-negotiable agency rights in 

order to place these agency rights beyond reach of temporal political pressures in the agencies. 

Finally, Congress should undertake defunding the subsidies that 

distort the true worth of unions in the Federal sector. Federal 

unions should be subjected to a market test of their viability and 

value to Federal employees. Unions collect dues from their members, and these should be used by unions to pay their own way. 

Self-sufficiency will give unions the incentive to better focus on 

member services and issues that are relevant and important to 

their members, not necessarily the next election. 

I will conclude with that, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions that you might have. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Nesterczuk. 

Senator Johnson, will you please proceed with your questions? 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Niehaus, you said that you have been excluded, FMA has 

been excluded from these forums, but you have not answered the 

question why. Can you just tell me why is that happening? I would 

imagine there are probably various reasons at different agencies. 

Ms. NIEHAUS. We have heard overwhelmingly, not citing either 

of my colleagues at the table, that the unions object to a management association being involved, and that in some agencies the 

unions have indicated it would be a deal-breaker and they would 

not participate if FMA was allowed to participate. 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you speculate as to why they would be objecting to that? 

Ms. NIEHAUS. The only reason I can think of is they would see 

it as a second management seat at the table or an additional management seat at the table; whereas, we would not be representing 

the agency, we would be representing the management personnel 

who are our members. 

Senator JOHNSON. So it would be a matter of being outnumbered. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

27 

Ms. NIEHAUS. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Dougan or Mr. Junemann, would you 

have a comment on that as to why? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes, I think the basic issue is labor-management 

forums are essentially an extension of the collective bargaining 

agreement between labor and management. It is a vehicle that we 

can use to enhance our collective bargaining relationship, and it allows us the ability to talk as equals at the table in a pre-decisional 

mode, to discuss issues which management then is going to exercise their management right to make that decision. So I want to 

make that point clear. There has been, I believe, some 

misclarification of exactly what pre-decisional involvement is. 

Pre-decisional involvement is not co-management; it is not the 

case that labor is making decisions with management in a labormanagement forum in a pre-decisional involvement setting. Predecisional involvement is nothing more than communication and 

sharing information, sharing concerns, sharing alternatives, sharing options between labor and management to hopefully better 

allow management to make a more informed and better decision. 

It is management’s decision to make. It is not labor’s decision to 

make. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, let me interrupt you here. So, again, the 

purpose for these things, as is being laid out here, is just it is kind 

of warm and fuzzy, we get everybody at the table that can really 

help improve effectiveness and efficiency. But we have really the 

first-line supervisors that unions are basically excluding from that 

process. Does that not run counter to the stated purpose of the forums? 

Mr. DOUGAN. As I stated before, by law there is a different relationship that exists between labor and management as opposed to 

between management and other employee groups, which Ms. 

Niehaus’ group is one of many. There are many employee groups 

within any Federal agency that represent various groups of employees. They are not sanctioned and do not exist by law. They 

exist through agency policy and through the agency’s willingness or 

unwillingness to recognize them as a group to communicate with 

and to seek input. But the problem with labor-management forums 

at a local level, that is where the rubber meets the road. That is 

where the decisions get made that ultimately are going to impact 

on the need to either collectively bargain—to bargain further on 

those decisions or not bargain further on those decisions. And I believe it puts labor in a difficult place when there are parties other 

than labor and agency management sitting at the table discussing—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, you seem to be confirming my worst 

fears that this really is a quasi-negotiating session as opposed to 

something else. 

Mr. Nesterczuk, you made the statement that these forums will 

certainly drive up costs. Can you explain why you feel that way? 

Why are these forums absolutely certain to drive up costs? 

Mr. NESTERCZUK. The more issues that you put before the 

unions, the more official time will be used to deal with those issues, 

the more opportunities they get to become involved with policy 

matters, policy decisions in the agency, the more staff will be asH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

28 

signed to those matters, all on official time. These are not things 

that happen for free. There may not be additional budget allocations for that purpose, but those are funds that are taken away 

from other activities, activities that are supposed to be directed at 

delivering services to the taxpayer. 

Senator JOHNSON. So you are saying that these forums basically 

open up a can of worms where they will basically metastasize in 

terms of maybe four or five issues become 20 become 100? 

Mr. NESTERCZUK. Absolutely. 

Senator JOHNSON. That is your primary concern? 

Mr. NESTERCZUK. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Junemann, you look like you are anxious 

to hop in here. 

Mr. JUNEMANN. I have that look on my face, and it has nothing 

to do with—— 

Senator JOHNSON. The Brewers. [Laughter.] 

Mr. JUNEMANN. First of all, on the question with the management associations, our union does not really have a stand on that. 

In fact, I heard about that issue the first time this morning, that 

this was an issue. Obviously, they have a responsibility to advocate 

for management, for front-line supervisors. We have a different 

one. Ours is, I think more governed by laws than theirs. But they 

have a responsibility to theirs, and we have not taken a stand like 

I have heard this morning. 

On this thing about that these forums will lead to more—sort of 

like marijuana leading to stronger stuff or something, right? That 

these forums will lead—— 

Senator JOHNSON. I did not say that. 

Mr. JUNEMANN [continuing]. To more problems. [Laughter.] 

I know. I kind of did. No, I did. I have that way of talking. But 

I really see just the opposite. As a matter of fact, in talking to our 

folks at NASA—I just met with our NASA Council people last 

week. They had issues—for instance, there was—and I would like 

to tell you exactly. I could get it for you, the issues behind it. There 

was a grievance at Goddard Space Flight Center, Goddard Research Center, that has been going on since the mid–1990s. And it 

is a grievance and it is a charge and it is a suit, and it goes on 

and on and on. And they brought it up at a labor-management 

forum, and it is done, it is resolved, and it will never be brought 

up again. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. JUNEMANN. This is supposed to be solving problems, and 

that is what it is for. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Because my time is running short in a 

number of ways, let me just quickly go to a broader question directed to the union representatives here, because it does strike at 

the heart of my concern in terms of the politicization of management and really how effective are these going to be at trimming 

costs, where we ran a $1.3 trillion deficit last year, we are borrowing $3.5 to $4 billion a day. But the fact of the matter is that 

the taxpayer really through payment to Federal workers and those 

wages are turned to a certain extent into dues and those dues are 

funneled back into political contributions. In the last 20 years, 

labor unions have contributed $384 million into Federal campaigns 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

29 

in terms of Federal public employee unions—$45 million from the 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 

(AFSCME), $31 million from the National Education Association 

(NEA), $29 million from the Service Employees International 

Union (SEIU). Ninety-five percent of those contributions go to one 

party, the Democratic Party. So you can maybe understand how 

there may be just a little concern about the conflict of interest of 

unions being at the table when certainly one party is trying to instill some fiscal discipline in this country. So I guess I will just 

open that up. 

Mr. DOUGAN. First I would like to address the issue of union 

dues going to political candidates. That is absolutely not correct. 

There is not one dime of union dues that is spent in political contributions to any candidate from any party. Those dues cannot be 

spent by law—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Where is that $384 million going in terms of 

Federal campaigns then? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Our individual members, should they decide to 

make political contributions, are certainly free, just like any other 

citizens of the country, to make contributions either individually or 

through a PAC fund that many unions have, just like other corporations, to help support the candidates. But it is not from dues 

money. It is from their own contributions should they so choose to 

do that. There is no decision on the part of union leadership as to 

how much money will be contributed. It is up to each individual 

member whether they want to contribute something or nothing. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for indulging me so I could leave early. 

Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. I have a question for both Mr. Junemann and 

Mr. Dougan. As we have discussed today, DOD has worked closely 

with employees throughout the process of designing a new performance management system, a critical difference from NSPS. Do you 

believe the process for designing the new system will improve its 

implementation? Mr. Junemann. 

Mr. JUNEMANN. Yes, Senator. Absolutely I do believe that it will 

be improved simply because when the employees are involved at 

the inception point of the performance management system, when 

they are designed and putting it together, they will be invested into 

it because of the resources, simply because of the time and energy 

that they have put into the program, it will be more successful simply because they will be participating in it. 

To Senator Johnson’s question—and I am sorry he had to leave— 

my union is very concerned, as am I, on cutting costs at every level 

of the Federal Government. We think that is one of the primary 

reasons to have an Executive Order on partnership, because I 

think it is up to the President, it is up to the Congress to go the 

Federal employees and say, ‘‘It is your duty as workers and as patriotic citizens to cut costs wherever we can.’’ We are very, very 

concerned with shipyards potentially being closed, with bases potentially being closed. So each one of these people, each one of 

these leaders wants to make sure that they have wrung out every 

nickel out of their operation, and partnership is the best way to do 

that. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

30 

But on your question of the workplace performance initiatives, 

certainly if the unions are involved—and, again, my union does not 

bring in professional negotiators into these talks. They bring in just 

everyday workers who get elected to a responsible position, and 

they go into these talks, and based on their members’ input, that 

is where these initiatives and programs get designed. And once 

they get designed with these people’s input, then they are invested 

and they are going to make them successful. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Dougan. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Thank you, Senator. Before I answer your question, 

I would like to be granted just a moment to speak to a quote that 

Senator Johnson gave in his opening remarks. He quoted a letter 

from FDR where he said,‘‘. . . the process of collective bargaining, 

as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.’’ I know this letter well because the letter hangs outside my office, the original letter. This letter was addressed by FDR to Luther Steward, the president of NFFE, my union, in 1937. And Senator Johnson accurately quoted FDR, but he did not present the 

quote in its proper context. 

When FDR said ‘‘collective bargaining, as usually understood,’’ he 

was talking about the right to strike. There was no collective bargaining at that time that did not include the right to strike, and 

the portion of the letter that he did not quote talks about ‘‘as usually understood,’’ meaning that public workers would not be allowed to strike. That is what FDR was talking about and that is 

what he meant by collective bargaining, as usually understood, not 

translating to the public sector, and nothing else. And I just want 

to set the record straight on that. 

But to address your question, I think, what we saw with NSPS, 

the National Security Personnel System, and what we have seen 

with the New Beginnings effort in DOD is night and day. And just 

to set the record straight, Mr. Nesterczuk wrote a report in 2001 

called ‘‘Taking Charge of Federal Personnel,’’ and this report served 

essentially as the template, as the guiding document for the Department of Defense to inflict the National Security Personnel System upon the DOD workforce and the rest of the Federal Government. 

This report recommended bypassing workers and their union in 

order to give Federal executives full authority to move those who 

remained into a highly subject merit-based pay system. Those recommendations in that report were followed almost verbatim in the 

creation of NSPS. As a result, NSPS ultimately failed, was seen as 

an abject failure, was seen as essentially the largest failed personnel system effort. It has proved to be the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in personnel reform history. And there are really 

two reasons for that: 

One was because the employees and their elected representatives 

were completely cut out of the process. The process and the system 

lacked transparency. Nobody could figure out how it worked. 

Therefore, there was no buy-in and people were suspect and people 

just did not know how this thing worked. And so it is hard to have 

credibility when you do not understand the system. And ultimately 

it was determined that the system was discriminatory. It discriminated against varying classes of employees. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

31 

These are fundamental problems that ultimately made NSPS 

unsalvageable, and I would note that the Chairman of this Subcommittee at the time, Senator Collins, was a key supporter in calling for the full repeal of NSPS. So this is not a partisan issue. This 

is not a Democrat-versus-Republican issue. This is doing what is 

right, as opposed to what we did in New Beginnings, a completely 

transparent process. Labor was brought in early, fully engaged, 

was given an equal seat at the table. We were able to put—much 

like Mr. Junemann, all of labor offered folks from the field that actually know the work, that live under these rules and these systems, and offered them as the team members of these work groups. 

And because of that, we have a product that can stand the test of 

whether it is transparent or not. We have a product that can be 

supported by labor as well as management and hopefully can be 

supported by Congress when they get the results in the next few 

months. 

Mr. NESTERCZUK. Senator, surely I could be given an opportunity 

to respond? May I comment on your question? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, please comment. 

Mr. NESTERCZUK. Mr. Dougan’s points sort of bring to kind the 

maxim that in this town the difference between truth and a lie is 

that you have to tell the lie more often before people accept it. 

As far as the status of NSPS, it was not a failed system. It was 

a system that was meant to serve the Department of Defense, at 

its own choosing, based on 25 years’ prior experience with demonstration projects. They knew fully well what they were doing. 

Employees were beginning to learn it. We knew from experience it 

takes 3 to 5 years for the workforce to accept such a significant 

change in a personnel system, and that was based on the experience in the various demonstration projects, 3 to 5 years. 

So the unions were very anxious to kill that thing before it ever 

reached the 5-year maturation point where employees were buying 

in, and the degree of buying was increasing exponentially at the 

time that the plug was pulled on NSPS. 

The notion that only a system that is blessed by the unions can 

flourish in the Federal Government is what has kept us working 

with a Model T compensation system—and that is the General 

Schedule—at a time when we have hybrid engines available to 

power our workforce. The initiative today on the part of the Councils to build a new personnel management system, a performance 

management system built on that rickety structure of the General 

Schedule is doomed to fail. 

Yes, I wish them well in their efforts. They will spend gross 

amounts of money in the process. They will foist this on a workforce that will have to accept it. No question of that. But it will not 

have the beneficial results that NSPS was beginning to provide the 

Department of Defense. 

If the Administration had been really honest and sincere in their 

desire to explore performance management, they would have done 

their best to keep NSPS going to learn from it. If there were faults 

and flaws in it, there was a wonderful opportunity to learn from 

it in a system that was unique at the time—over 200,000 employees covered across various kinds of DOD activities from coast to 

coast. We could have learned a lot, and instead you killed it. And 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

32 

now you have to start from scratch, again falling back to ancient 

technology. I wish you a lot of luck with that. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Ms. Niehaus, thank you for your comments about the importance 

of training to effective implementation of labor-management partnerships and of supervisor training more broadly. As you know, improving training is a priority for me. 

Ms. NIEHAUS. Yes, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. I would like to hear your thoughts on the training that is being provided on implementation of the Executive 

Order. What have your members told you about training they have 

received on this issue? 

Ms. NIEHAUS. In that particular respect, I can also speak from 

personal experience. My day job is as the Labor Relations Officer 

at Travis Air Force Base; I am not expressing DOD or Air Force 

opinions but strictly my own. I attended the FLRA training with 

our local union president from the installation, and I was very impressed with the training provided by the FLRA regional director 

and his staff for the implementation of the Executive Order. It was 

very thorough and included exercises that were very helpful to understanding the various aspects of this. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Junemann, I am proud of the Moonshine Program to improve collaboration and innovation at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and the positive results it is achieving for our military and 

taxpayers. 

What lessons does the Moonshine Program hold that could be 

replicated in other locations where partnerships may not be as advanced? 

Mr. JUNEMANN. Well, I think the lesson is—I will quote Scott 

Gould, what he said at one of our National Partnership Council 

meetings, a very short statement. He said, ‘‘This stuff works.’’ 

I think the lesson that can be learned is they have very, very 

short meetings, unlike what has been stated by some of the detractors of partnership and its progresses. They have very short meetings. They have 1-hour meetings on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning, and those are only to talk about efficiency, productivity, and safety. That is it. And then they go forward, and they 

get it done. 

As Director Berry said in his testimony—and you know Ben 

Toyama. It was Ben Toyama who made that statement, and what 

he said was, ‘‘If you ask one of my members how can I save some 

money, they will say, ‘Get rid of my boss,’ ’’ because they do not 

really know. That is not their job. But if you say how can I save 

some time, they have a hundred ideas. 

So the lesson that can be learned and the lesson that can be replicated is—and this is the thing that I really think that the Subcommittee should look at, is exactly what you are saying, Senator 

Akaka. We should take the benefits that have happened under 

Moonshine at Pearl and say, ‘‘Why isn’t it being done at Philly? 

Why isn’t it being done at Norfolk and at Portsmouth?’’ And call 

in the decisionmakers and say this is makes a whole lot of sense, 

that the workers, the stewards, the supervisors, the managers get 

together for one hour, one short hour, and say let us get this done 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

33 

better than we have ever done it before. And you have seen the statistics, sir. The benefits, the efficiency, the man-hours that have 

been saved, the millions of dollars are incredible. And when we are 

facing the sort of deficits that this Nation is facing, those things 

should be capitalized upon. 

And, Senator, I agree with you, they should be replicated, and 

where they are not, really the question should go out to the players 

involved and say, ‘‘Why aren’t you doing this?’’ Because that is actually what Ben Toyama from Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard is asking others: Why isn’t this being done elsewhere? So, Senator, I really believe it should. 

If I could just make a statement about FMA, it seems to me that 

the reason that they have a separate agency for managers is because, I guess according to law, you cannot belong to unions. Even 

that needs to be changed. [Laughter.] 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Dougan, your written testimony discusses an 

Inspector General report which found that a firefighting workforce 

succession planning process developed through partnership between your union and the U.S. Forest Service saves $15 million per 

year. Will you please describe this planning process and how it 

saves taxpayers’ money? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Sure. As I stated in my oral testimony, what happened in the Forest Service was there was an attempt to ‘‘professionalize’’ the wildland firefighting workforce in that agency. And 

as a result of that decision, there was a determination made that 

many of the fire leadership positions within the agency needed to 

be in a professional occupation series. Much of the current firefighting workforce is in a technical series. 

Professional occupations require positive education requirements, 

and in the case of the series that they were looking at for these 

firefighters, it required everyone that was in one of those positions 

to have a bachelor degree or higher with a minimum of 24 hours 

in very specific types of college course work. Much of the firefighting workforce comes up through the ranks, and basically their 

university is out on the fire lines. Many of these people do not have 

college educations. Many of them have taken some college classes 

but do not hold degrees. But yet they have been doing the work 

and leading the firefighting efforts in the Federal Government for 

a number of years. 

As a result of that reclassification, there was a determination 

made that these people had to be sent back to school to get that 

training in order to qualify for those jobs, and that is where the 

$15-million-a-year figure comes from. It is the cost of sending these 

folks back to school either through distance learning or actually 

physically having to go enroll in colleges and take classes in order 

to qualify for the very jobs that they have been doing for, in many 

cases, the last 30 or 40 years of their careers. 

So the union had a concern over that because, obviously, we represented many of these people, and it is very difficult for people, 

unless you are very early in your career and you are not married 

and you do not have kids, to just pick up all your belongings and 

go back to school. So we had concerns about how we were going to 

make this happen, and when we got to looking into the facts, there 

were other opportunities, it appeared to us, other types of job series 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

34 

that they could be placed into that would meet the agency’s requirements of a more professional workforce, but yet the training 

that they would receive would be more fully directed at the work 

that they are actually doing in firefighting. And so we proposed 

that change to agency management and worked with OPM and 

working with many Members of Congress, many congressional committees, to drum up support, and we are finally able to get the support in Congress and through OPM that we needed to change the 

job series from a professional series to an administrative series, 

which eliminated the positive education requirement, the degree, 

and yet protected ensuring that these folks still maintained the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities that they needed to do their jobs. 

It was an effort that took several years. It was carried on through 

the Forest Service Partnership Council and through various work 

groups that were spun off of this Council. 

It is one of many examples, I think, across government where 

there are positive results being seen from the labor-management 

forums. In many cases I think labor-management are sometimes 

our own worst enemies because we do not do a good job of championing these victories when we have them and telling these stories. And it should not take a hearing like this for this kind of word 

to get out there to folks about some of the benefits of labor and 

management collaboration. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank the 

witnesses for attending this hearing. As we have heard today, the 

Federal Government can increase productivity and reduce costs 

through the establishment of effective labor-management partnership. I am also pleased that DOD is engaging with the employees 

and their representatives in a genuine collaboration to design a 

new performance management and hiring system. Employee buyin will reduce costs and make the new system more effective. 

I look forward to working with all of the witnesses in the coming 

months on the important issues we discussed today. Again, thank 

you for being here. 

The hearing record will be open for one week for additional statements or questions other Members may have pertaining to the 

hearing. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.001
36 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.002
37 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.003
38 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.004
39 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.005
40 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.006
41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.007
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.008
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.009
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.010
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.011
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.012
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.013
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.014
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.015
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.016
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.017
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.018
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.019
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.020
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.021
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.022
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.023
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.024
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.025
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.026
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.027
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.028
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.029
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.030
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.031
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.032
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.033
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.034
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.035
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.036
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.037
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.038
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.039
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.040
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.041
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.042
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.043
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.044
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.045
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.046
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.047
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.048
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.049
84 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.050
85 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.051
86 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.052
87 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.053
88 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.054
89 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.056
90 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.057
91 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.058
92 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.059
93 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.060
94 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.061
95 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.062
96 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.063
97 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.064
98 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.065
99 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.066
100 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.067
101 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.068
102 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.069
103 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.070
104 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.071
105 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.072
106 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.073
107 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.074
108 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.075
109 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.076
110 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.077
111 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.078
112 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.079
113 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.080
114 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.081
115 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.082
116 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.083
117 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.084
118 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.085
119 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.086
120 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.087
121 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.088
122 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.089
123 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.090
124 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.091
125 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.092
126 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.093
127 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.094
128 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.095
129 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.096
130 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.097
131 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.098
132 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.099
133 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.100
134 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72488.101