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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–934 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 111–617 

WORK-LIFE PROGRAMS: ATTRACTING, RETAINING, 

AND EMPOWERING THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

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 ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 4, 2010 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 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 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

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 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LISA M. POWELL, Staff Director 

KATA C. SYBENGA, Counsel 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Minority Staff Director 

AARON H. WOOLF, Chief Clerk 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010 

Cecilia E. Rouse, Member, Council of Economic Advisers ................................... 4 

Jonathan Foley, Senior Advisor to the Director, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management ......................................................................................................... 6 

Kathleen M. Lingle, Executive Director, Alliance for Work-Life Progress at 

WorldatWork ........................................................................................................ 15 

Max Stier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for Public 

Service ................................................................................................................... 17 

Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union ... 19 

Jonathan P. Flynn, Vice President, American Federation of Government Employees ................................................................................................................... 20 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Flynn, Jonathan P.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Foley, Jonathan: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Kelley, Colleen M.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Lingle, Kathleen M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 44 

Rouse, Cecilia E.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Stier, Max: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

APPENDIX 

Background .............................................................................................................. 79 

Cindy Auten, General Manager of Telework Exchange, prepared statement .... 86 

Report titled ‘‘The Need for Paid Parental Leave for Federal Employees: 

Adapting to a Changing Workforce,’’ by Kevin Jiller, Ph.D., Allison Suppan 

Helmuth, and Robin Farabee-Siers, Institute for Women’s Policy Research .. 90 

Janet Kopenhaver, Washington Representative, Federally Employed Women 

(FEW), prepared statement ................................................................................. 107 

OPM ROWE Pilot Program, copy submitted for the Record ................................ 115 

Questions and responses for the Record: 

Ms. Rouse .......................................................................................................... 139 

Mr. Foley ........................................................................................................... 141 

Ms. Lingle ......................................................................................................... 145 

Mr. Stier ............................................................................................................ 149 

Mr. Flynn .......................................................................................................... 151 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(1) 

WORK-LIFE PROGRAMS: ATTRACTING, 

RETAINING, AND EMPOWERING 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010 

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 Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. This hearing will come to order. 

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. Thank you all for being 

here today as the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

meets to examine how work-life programs can support Federal employees and improve government operations. 

It is fitting that we are addressing these issues during Public 

Service Recognition Week. This week is set aside each year to 

honor the dedicated public servants who provide vital services to 

our Nation. Public Service Recognition Week is also an opportunity 

to showcase the many attractive careers in public service. As we 

showcase these careers, we must also make sure that the Federal 

Government is an employer of choice and offers a competitive benefits package. 

The American workforce faces a new set of challenges. As costs 

have risen and wages have lagged, fewer families can afford to rely 

on a single income and many parents juggle busy work schedules 

and child care responsibilities. Workers of all ages find themselves 

leaving work for night classes, as professions that once required a 

high school or undergraduate education now demand advanced degrees. 

In addition, almost 50 percent of the Federal workforce will be 

eligible for retirement in the next 5 years. Younger workers may 

have different work expectations than previous generations and 

may value workplace flexibility more than traditional fringe benefits. The Federal Government needs to adapt just as the private 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
2 

sector has to attract and retain the next generation of Federal 

workers. 

Work-life programs help agencies compete in the marketplace. 

Offering our employees options like flexible schedules and ability to 

telework and access to wellness programs improves employees’ 

quality of life and increases productivity. 

This winter, this area experienced three blizzards. Those storms 

strongly reinforced the importance of telework for productivity and 

continuity of operations. Because of these benefits, Senator 

Voinovich and I introduced the Telework Enhancement Act last 

year. I look forward to finalizing that bill and to learning about 

other ways Congress can support work-life programs. 

Recently, at the Workplace Flexibility Forum, President Obama 

noted that companies with flexible work arrangements often have 

lower turnover and absenteeism, along with higher productivity 

and healthier workers. The President also cited a recent report on 

work-life balance and the economics of workplace flexibility. I am 

pleased to have one of the authors of this report, Cecilia Rouse 

from the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, here to discuss 

their research on the economics of work-life programs. I look forward to hearing from Ms. Rouse about how these policies benefit 

not only employees, but also employers and the economy as a 

whole. 

I also look forward to hearing from our other witnesses about the 

efforts being made to provide work-life programs to Federal employees as well as suggestions to better use these programs to support our workforce, attract the best people to public service, and 

make the Federal Government the employer of choice in this country. 

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the United 

States and we can lead by example. This week, Public Service Recognition Week, we celebrate those men and women who make a 

commitment to serve the government in the military or civilian 

service. We can do more to honor their service every day by empowering employees to innovate, live healthier, and strive to be their 

best, both at work and at home. 

I thank you all again for being here today and now call on our 

Ranking Member, Senator Voinovich, for his statement. Senator 

Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for calling today’s hearing. As we commemorate Public Service Recognition Week, I think it is important that we examine the extent to 

which the Federal Government’s work-life policies support our need 

to recruit and retain highly qualified individuals to use their skills 

in service to our Nation. 

We have discussed for years the human capital crisis that will 

ensue when the baby boom generation begins to retire. By the fall 

of 2012, the Partnership for Public Service estimates that the Federal Government will hire nearly 273,000 new workers for mission 

critical jobs—273,000. 

This year’s theme of Public Service Recognition Week, Innovation 

and Opportunity, reminds me of the golden opportunity we have in 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
3 

this economy to find some wonderful people who may not have previously considered Federal service. While the economy has led some 

to extend their Federal careers, others are in need of employment 

and it is our collective responsibility to make sure we attract the 

best and brightest at all career stages. 

When Senator Akaka and I got started with this, we were able 

to get the John F. Kennedy School for Government to make human 

capital an executive session, and I recently asked my staff to look 

at what the percentage of people are today in terms of back in 2000 

in terms of the people in the John F. Kennedy School for Government going into the Federal service or in the public service. I was 

really disappointed because it is about the same. It hasn’t really 

changed very much over the number of years. So in spite of the fact 

that we have tried to make the Federal opportunity more attractive, we are still not getting the job done, at least as far as graduates from the John F. Kennedy School for Government. 

The Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act, I think, will help 

agencies and job applicants by eliminating the barriers for applying 

for Federal employment. Once employees have entered on duty, 

however, the Federal Government must be innovative in its efforts 

to give agencies and employees the tools needed to perform at work 

and to maintain a healthy work-life balance. 

One need only look at the Best Places To Work rankings to see 

how flexibilities can improve employee satisfaction. As the Chairman knows well, we have worked together to provide human capital options for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), National Aeronautics 

Space Administration (NASA), the intelligence community (IT), and 

the Department of State. The fact that these agencies are currently 

ranked one through five on the Best Places To Work Survey shows 

that flexibilities, when properly implemented and communicated to 

employees, improve employee satisfaction. 

During his confirmation process, I challenged Director John 

Berry to lead by example and make the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) an employer of choice among Federal agencies. I 

look forward to learning from OPM how the Results-Oriented Work 

Environment will improve individual employee performance while 

providing employees greater control over how they accomplish their 

daily work. This type of strategic innovation is exactly what Senator Akaka and I hoped would result when we created the Chief 

Human Capital Officers Council 8 years ago. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

I welcome our first panel of witnesses to the Subcommittee, 

Cecilia Rouse, Member of the Council of Economic Advisers, and 

Jonathan Foley, Senior Advisor to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in 

all witnesses. Please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before 

this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Ms. ROUSE. I do. 

Mr. FOLEY. I do. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Rouse appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let it be noted in the record that the 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Before we start, I want you to know that your full written statement will be part of the record, and I would like to remind you to 

please limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes. 

Ms. Rouse, will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF CECILIA E. ROUSE,1 MEMBER, COUNCIL OF 

ECONOMIC ADVISERS 

Ms. ROUSE. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member 

Voinovich, and other Members of your Subcommittee and staff. I 

am very pleased to represent the Council of Economic Advisers at 

this very important hearing. 

Today, I will focus my remarks on the main findings from our 

March 2010 report entitled, ‘‘Work-Life Balance and the Economics 

of Workplace Flexibility.’’ The report discusses some of the changing patterns of the American workforce, and the state of flexible 

work arrangements in our economy, the economics of workplace 

flexibility. I will defer discussion of the Federal Government’s 

work-life programs to my colleague from the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). 

As you stated in your opening remarks, we know that the American economy has changed dramatically over the past half-century. 

Women have entered the labor force in growing numbers, such that 

women now comprise nearly one-half of the labor force, and in 

nearly one-half of all households, all adults are working. Families 

have increasingly relied on more than one earner to make ends 

meet, and yet children still need to be taken to the doctor and elderly parents still need care. As a result, approximately 43 million 

Americans served as unpaid caregivers to a family member over 

the age of 50 in 2008, and nearly 20 percent of employed people 

were caregivers who provided care to a person over the age of 50. 

In addition, we know that skills are increasingly important for 

our labor market, and as a result, we have more adults who are 

older than 25 attending school. 

Because of these changes, many workers face the conflicts between their work and their personal lives, which inspires a need 

for flexibility in the workplace. In our report, we describe the prevalence of these workplace practices. We divide them into three 

main categories: When one works, where one works, and how much 

one works. 

In terms of when one works, over one-half of employers report allowing giving at least some of their workers periodically the ability 

to change their starting and quitting times, thereby giving some 

flexibility over when they work. However, less than one-third of 

full-time workers report having flexible work hours, and only about 

40 percent of part-time workers do. 

We also consider how prevalence and flexibility differs across demographic groups. While we find that men and women are equally 

likely to report having flexible work hours, less-skilled workers are 

much less likely to report such flexibility. We believe this stems 

from the fact that flexibility is a form of compensation and less 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
5 

skilled workers receive lower levels of all forms of compensation, as 

well as perhaps due to the nature and context of low-wage jobs. 

Flexibility in terms of where to work is less common. Only about 

15 percent of workers reported working from home at least once a 

week. About 23 percent of employers reported allowing some of 

their workers to work at home on a regular basis. And only one 

percent of employers allowed most or all of their employees to do 

so. At the same time, about 50 percent of employees reported having the ability to work from home occasionally. 

Finally, most employers do offer some workers the ability to return to work gradually after major life events, such as the birth or 

adoption of a child, although job sharing, where multiple workers 

share the responsibility of one position appears less widespread. 

When we consider the economics of workplace flexibility, we 

know that employers must balance the potential costs of these arrangements against the potential benefits. The report discusses the 

fact that the existing research suggests that workplace arrangements have been associated with reducing turnover, reducing absenteeism, assisting with recruitment, improving health, and boosting productivity. 

We present a number of case studies that highlight the benefits 

of flexible work arrangements for firms in various industries and 

of various sizes, and while some research suggests that flexible 

practices can improve productivity, more research would help us to 

better understand the trade-offs that employers face when adopting 

these arrangements. 

However, many firms have not adopted these practices despite 

these potential benefits. One possible explanation is that the costs 

and benefits of adopting these practices do differ across and within 

firms, and we know that firms that have the greatest net gains to 

adopting these practices will be the ones to do so. Consider the fact 

that the evidence that we considered and we looked at is from 

firms that have already chosen to adopt the practices. Therefore, 

they may be the firms for which it is most beneficial. Moreover, 

from a strictly economic perspective, it may be that encouraging 

wider adoption will not be beneficial to those extra firms. 

However, we believe that there still is an economic rationale for 

encouraging wider adoption of such practices. First, there is a 

growing literature that not all firms adopt the most efficient practices, especially due to a lack of information. And due to the rapidly 

changing nature of our labor force, it may well be that managers 

are not aware of that, they overstate the potential costs and understate the potential benefits of adoption. 

In addition, wider adoption of the practices could lower the cost 

to all firms, making it, therefore, beneficial for everybody. And we 

know that flexible workplace practices likely encourages more labor 

force participation among very valuable workers who can contribute their skills and knowledge to our labor force. 

Finally, another social benefit that may not be fully appreciated 

is it does have externalities in terms of reducing commuting time 

and reducing congestion costs. 

So the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) report on workplace 

flexibility finds that flexible work arrangements do promote 

healthier, happier, more productive workers, which may in turn 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Foley appears in the Appendix on page 36. 

help firms’ bottom lines. I would like to emphasize, however, that 

a factor that hinders a much deeper and better understanding of 

the benefits and costs of flexibility is the lack of data on the prevalence of workplace practices, flexibility of practices, and more research is needed on the mechanisms through which flexibility influences workers’ job satisfaction and firm profits in order to help 

guide policy making and managers alike. 

Thank you very much for holding this very important hearing. I 

am happy to address any questions you may have. 

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

Mr. Foley, will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN FOLEY,1 SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE 

DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Mr. FOLEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Voinovich. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of John 

Berry, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to discuss 

the work we have been doing at OPM in the areas of work-life balance and wellness for attracting, retaining, and empowering a 21st 

Century Federal workforce. 

I commend the Subcommittee for your leadership in supporting 

and honoring the important work of our Nation’s public servants 

by holding this hearing during our annual Public Service Recognition Week. This year’s theme, Innovation and Opportunity, gives 

OPM the opportunity to highlight our new Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE) and Campus Wellness Pilot Program. 

We all understand that work is a fact of life. For most of us, this 

will never change. What is changing, however, is the way we work, 

that is, when, where, and how we work. Technology has provided 

us with options we never imagined 20 years ago. Now, not only is 

it easier for us to do our work almost anywhere, it is easier for us 

to do our work anytime. 

The Federal Government offers a variety of flexible work arrangements to attract and retain the best and brightest employees 

in a competitive market. Telework is one of many flexibilities offered by the Federal Government. If implemented effectively, 

telework can make the difference between shutting down Federal 

Government services in emergency situations and continuing to operate with minimal interruption. Telework enables agencies and 

businesses to continue services and operations without jeopardizing 

the safety of its employees. In addition, OPM estimates that the 

Federal Government offset approximately $30 million per day in 

lost productivity during the February storms as a result of 

telework. 

I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm Director Berry’s commitment to advancing telework in the Federal Government. OPM 

has a strategic goal of increasing the number of eligible Federal 

employees who telework by 50 percent by fiscal year 2011. 

As you are aware, Director Berry announced OPM’s new ResultsOnly Work Environment Pilot Program last month called the 

Workforce Flexibility Initiative. ROWE allows employees to work 

whenever they want and wherever they want as long as the work 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
7 

gets done. Managers are expected to manage for results rather 

than process. This is a shift in culture from permission granting to 

performance guiding. 

OPM will be working with the creators of the ROWE strategy to 

implement the new program. Nearly 400 OPM employees, ranging 

from retirement and benefits claims processors to policy makers, 

including union and non-union employees and the Director’s Office, 

are in the pilot and were selected to represent a cross-section of positions available in the Federal Government. Approximately half of 

the participating employees are based in Boyers, Pennsylvania, and 

half are in the Washington area. 

OPM is working with our unions and our General Counsel to implement a version of ROWE that complies with all current Federal 

laws. The pilot program will start in June, continuing through the 

end of the calendar year. If the pilot project increases employee 

performance and morale, as we hope, OPM will expand it within 

our own agency and encourage other Federal agencies to adopt this 

system. 

OPM recognizes that worksite wellness programs are also another way of attracting and retaining a strong Federal workforce. 

Last May, President Obama asked OPM and other Federal agencies to explore the development of worksite wellness programs that 

mirror best practice in the private sector. Private companies have 

achieved promising results. Published studies report savings averaging $3 for every $1 invested through reduced absenteeism, improved productivity, and lower health care costs. 

The Campus Wellness Project involving OPM, General Services 

Administration (GSA), and the Department of Interior employees 

at their Washington headquarters will expand on services offered 

through existing health units and fitness centers, introduce new 

services such as smoking cessation and weight management, and 

ensure that employees who choose to join the program receive an 

annual health risk appraisal and the opportunity for individual 

coaching on healthy behaviors. We are currently using a competitive bid process to select the campus service provider. 

We are working with Health and Human Services (HHS) to identify and fund two additional wellness pilots on Federal sites outside 

the Washington area. These demonstration programs will be evaluated to better understand the results that can be achieved in the 

Federal work environment. 

OPM has set a high priority goal of requiring all executive agencies to establish and begin to implement a plan for comprehensive 

health and wellness programs by the end of fiscal year 2011. OPM 

also coordinates government-wide health and wellness activities, 

such as guidance for agency health promotion coordinators, physical activity challenges, worksite tobacco cessation programs, and 

Feds Get Fit. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing. I would be happy 

to address any questions that you may have. 

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

Ms. Rouse, some people are skeptical that implementing worklife programs benefits employers and not employees. Your report 

indicates that a strong connection between flexibility and productivity has been established. What more should be done to help orVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:48 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 057934 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
8 

1OPM is currently finalizing the report and expects to have it available in September 2010. 

ganizations, both public and private, understand the benefits of 

flexibility and implement work-life programs that capture those 

benefits? 

Ms. ROUSE. I guess what I would say is I think one is that managers don’t fully understand the potential benefits and the potential costs. But quite honestly, the literature of where these have 

been implemented is few and far between. It is growing. For example, there is a budding literature looking at the relationship between health and flexible workplace practices with some compelling 

studies done in, for example, grocery stores in Minnesota. 

But I think what would be very helpful and compelling to me, 

at least if I were an employer, is if there were a wider set of studies at firms that look like mine, because one of the things that I 

think we know about these practices and about business practices 

is that it is not clear that one size fits all. For example, manufacturing firms have their own challenges in implementing such practices, although at the President’s and the First Lady’s Work-Life 

Balance Conference, we heard some very compelling ways in which 

manufacturing firms have implemented more flexibility into their 

work schedules. 

But I think what would be helpful is for such programs to be rigorously studied in manufacturing firms, service firms, and small 

firms. A lot of small firms think that it can’t help them, although 

the data suggest that at least when we look at not the tiny microfirms, but at firms more than 50 workers, that they are adopting 

it at about the same rate as larger employers. The question then 

is what are those firms doing and why can’t others learn from 

them? 

So I think the evidence base is growing, but I think it could be 

much stronger and therefore, more compelling for other employers. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Foley, some agencies have been reluctant to 

implement many of these work-life programs. What is OPM doing 

to alleviate agencies’ concerns and encourage work-life programs 

governmentwide? 

Mr. FOLEY. One of the things OPM is doing, Senator, is trying 

to provide guidance to agencies on work-life programs, on the benefits of the work-life programs and encouraging their wider adoptions, spreading the word, if you will. Another thing, as Ms. Rouse 

is indicating, is to inform people of the research and hold workshops on the benefits of work-life programs so that people understand as an employer what it brings to them in terms of improved 

productivity and morale boosting. So OPM is doing what it can to 

provide information and guidance to agencies. 

Senator AKAKA. As you know, Mr. Foley, I am very interested in 

expanding the use of telework in the Federal sector. In your testimony, you mentioned that the White House Task Force on 

Telework sponsored a forum in March to identify barriers to the 

adoption of telework in the Federal Government. When will the results of this forum be released and what are the next steps for the 

task force? 

Mr. FOLEY. I will need to get back to you in terms of an exact 

date for the results of the forum.1 I don’t have that with me. But 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
9 

one of the things that did come out of the forum was a wealth of 

ideas and enthusiasm for these innovations and so that is being 

documented. But I would have to get back to you in terms of the 

next steps. 

Senator AKAKA. Fine. That will be fine. 

Ms. Rouse, your report notes that companies and the economy 

could benefit from the wider use of workplace flexibilities because 

they improve recruitment, retention, health, and productivity. As 

you know, the Federal Government currently does not offer paid 

parental leave. From your experience studying private sector leave 

policies, what do you believe the overall effect of providing paid parental leave would be? 

Ms. ROUSE. Well, here is one of the places where I think we need 

to understand more. Among the studies that we have looked at, 

there were very few that really focused on paid parental leave per 

se. But I think what we are learning through the research is that 

flexibility is very important, and we certainly know that it is important for parents to be available for their children, especially now 

that we have more households in which children are being raised 

where both parents are working or a single parent is working. And 

so we know that it is important for parents to have that kind of 

flexibility. I think we need more studies to really understand the 

value of that one particular form of flexibility. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Foley, as your testimony states, worksite wellness programs 

have shown encouraging effects on employee health and absenteeism. If the initial project and the two additional prototypes requested through the fiscal year 2011 budget show similar results, 

would you anticipate broadly expanding this model Campus 

Wellness Program? 

Mr. FOLEY. Before I answer that, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to let 

you know that the report from the Forum on Telework will be 

available within the coming months. 

We will be carefully evaluating the pilot wellness programs. We 

want to make sure that they work in the Federal work environment. We have different rules and different operating procedures 

in some environments, and so we wanted to make sure of that, so 

we will be evaluating it carefully. 

We would anticipate spreading the word and spreading those 

programs across Federal agencies. We are asking Federal agencies 

to submit reports—I am sorry, plans, in the beginning of fiscal year 

2011 that will indicate how they plan to grow those programs and 

achieve the benefits that they have shown. 

There are a variety of initiatives underway in Federal agencies 

and so there is not one-size-fits-all with worksite wellness and we 

are looking to encourage agencies to develop plans and programs. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Foley. Senator Voinovich, your 

questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Foley and Ms. Rouse, while our economy 

provides a golden opportunity to hire talented Federal employees, 

our deficit requires some tough choices. The Federal Government 

spends, on average, $100,571 per employee for salary and benefits. 

That is a figure that to me was almost startling. Benefits are 36 

percent of total compensation. What guidance do you have as the 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
10 

1There was no specific line item in the President’s FY2010 budget for Federal work-life pro- grams, although there was $2.6 million allocated to a pilot of wellness programs. While many 

agencies have work-life flexibility policies and programs, they are funded from their general administrative funds. 

Subcommittee considers whether addition of benefits, such as 

through a paid Parental Leave Act at a cost of just under $1 billion 

over 5 years, are appropriate at this time? In other words, can we 

afford additional benefits? 

It is really interesting to me that if you look around the country 

and look at what is happening in State government in terms of 

State government employees, it seems like our own employees, and 

I am a great booster of our employees, seem to be exempt from 

some of the things that others are experiencing. And when you consider last year that out of every $100 we spent, 41 cents was borrowed and our debt is almost at $13 billion, and as far as one can 

see, we are not going to have balanced budgets, what kind of consideration is being made by OPM or your office, Ms. Rouse, in 

terms of the realities of what is confronting our Federal Government and the impact that it has in terms of the people who work 

for the Federal Government? 

Mr. FOLEY. I can start off in terms of what OPM is doing. We 

believe that the work-life programs need to be promoted because of 

the benefits that they bring in terms of increased productivity for 

the organization and ultimately in savings in terms of health care 

costs and that type of thing. So we think that these, if they are 

carefully managed and well implemented, programs hold a lot of 

promise addressing the cost issue that you raise, and that is what 

we are encouraging other agencies to do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Rouse. 

Ms. ROUSE. I was just going to say that, obviously, we know that 

the fiscal situation for the Federal Government is something that 

we will certainly need to be addressing, and it is important that 

Federal dollars be very wisely spent. The research to date—I really 

do want to emphasize I think we need more—does suggest that a 

dollar spent brings back more than that dollar spent. 

But I think we need to learn more and I would like to just highlight that in terms of paid parental leave, in the President’s budget, there is a $50 million proposal for a pilot program for States to 

adopt paid parental leave programs and it would allow us to study 

whether we get the kind of economic benefit that at least some of 

the research suggests that we might get. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You just mentioned the proposed 2011 budget, $50 million to kind of look at that situation. Was there anything 

in the 2010 budget in terms of work-life programs. 

Ms. ROUSE. I would have to get back to you on that.1

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Foley, do you have any ideas in terms 

of money that was in the first budget that the Obama Administration presented to Congress? 

Mr. FOLEY. I know that the Worksite Wellness Program that we 

are getting underway is funded in the 2010 budget, the first pilot 

program, and then the follow-on pilot programs are in the 2011 

budget. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, it seems to me that if you are looking 

at the programs, that this cost-benefit should be really looked at. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
11 

When I was governor, I remember people used to come to me and 

they would say, in terms of insurance benefits, and I would say, 

fine, I think it is a great idea. But if we add that, it is going to 

really increase our cost, and because of that cost, it means that we 

are going to have to pay more for it, or in some instances, people 

who are paying for part of it may not be able to afford it anymore. 

So there is this constant need to look at costs. 

My suggestion would be to look at this wellness program I know 

that we have had several presentations, I think you even mentioned, for every dollar you spend, there are $3 in savings. Those 

are the kinds of things I think that you ought to be emphasizing 

right now, particularly in light of our financial situation, because 

it is really critical right now. Of all the things that people talk to 

me about today, they are interested in their job, and they are really 

worried about where our Federal Government is going in terms of 

spending. 

Ms. Rouse, what does your research show are the most valued 

work-life benefits, say, by young professionals with newborn or 

young children, middle-aged workers with college-aged children 

and aging parents? Do you have anything you can give us now on 

that? 

Ms. ROUSE. I don’t believe that we actually looked by age, but 

it is clear that employees and potential employees very much value 

having some flexibility, and I would imagine it is largely the flexibility in hours and timing that is the most important, although for 

others, flexibility in when they work is important as well. But we 

didn’t look specifically by age. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Foley, some have suggested cafeteria 

plans as a way to provide employee flexibility in managing their 

benefit dollars, giving them a smorgasbord. Are there best practices 

from cafeteria plans that OPM could implement for Federal employees? 

Mr. FOLEY. Certainly, we have looked at the market in terms of 

the different plans that are available. There are a wide variety of 

choices already in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program 

(FEHBP). So currently, Federal employees can choose from highdeductible plans to standard plans, so that there is a considerable 

flexibility now in term of their health plan choices and the benefits 

that they confeur. 

Certainly, a growing trend is that private companies are looking 

for their health insurers to vary premiums by either participation 

in a wellness program or achievement of results in wellness programs. Currently, the way that our law is structured, as you would 

know, the benefit—the employee contribution is fixed in law, so 

that is something that would need to be looked at if we were to go 

down that route. I think it is still early in that area in terms of 

actually varying premiums based on behavior and there are some 

risks associated with that. So we are looking right now at non-monetary incentives in the pilots that I have talked about, ways of seeing how far we can get with encouraging employees to adopt 

healthy behaviors that way. 

Senator VOINOVICH. In other words, if we went the route of, say, 

Safeway or other companies that are out there that are really getting into this, Proctor and Gamble and so forth, that if we wanted 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
12 

to do an experiment, we would have to change the law in regard 

to that particular agency that we would be doing this with so that 

we could get kind of an idea of what impact it has? 

Mr. FOLEY. In terms of employee contribution, yes, that is correct. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So we can’t do that on kind of a pilot basis? 

Mr. FOLEY. Not that I am aware of. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Ms. Rouse, certain industries such as manufacturing have been 

reluctant to adopt flexible work options because these options are 

more difficult to successfully integrate into their business models. 

You mentioned that there are companies in these industries that 

have successfully adopted flexible work policies. Do their experiences hold any lessons for the Federal Government? 

Ms. ROUSE. Again, I think this is a situation where there is not 

going to be one set of policies or lessons for the Federal Government as it is a large employer with different types of workers. 

One of the things that we see in manufacturing is that, especially for workers on the production line, those workers need to be 

physically where they are at the time that they need to be there 

in order to complete the production process. So one of the things 

that firms have tried to do is to train workers in the step that 

comes before and the step that comes after the part that they are 

responsible for so that they can compensate if their colleague needs 

to be absent for some period of time without disrupting the entire 

production process. 

Another strategy that we highlight in the report is the use of retirees who can step in if a worker is going to be absent for a day 

or possibly even a few hours. These retirees can step in on short 

notice and are already familiar with the production process and 

therefore can substitute for that worker. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Foley, I would like to hear more about your 

Results-Only Work Environment Pilot Project. How will you measure employee performance, and do you believe this model could be 

translated to other agencies? 

Mr. FOLEY. The performance metrics that we have in place will 

be used in the ROWE Program, the ROWE Pilot Program, so we 

won’t be changing the performance metrics, but we will be carefully 

monitoring and looking at those with a heavy emphasis on achieving the same results or better results through the employees in the 

pilot program. 

We have deliberately chosen a diverse group of employees that 

reflects the different work environments that we have—policy analysts and we also have retirement benefit officers who work on a 

case-by-case basis where productivity might be more easily measured. So we are trying to look at a typical OPM workforce, at least 

in this case, and evaluate it to understand what the different impact is across different work settings. 

The evaluation will be available early next year and we really 

hope to learn from that and then have discussions with other agencies about this. It is a very significant experiment in terms of the 

culture change that we are calling for and so it is not something 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
13 

that we take lightly and we want to make sure that we can show 

positive results to share that with other Federal agencies. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Foley, I understand that OPM did not request special demonstration project authority and is operating the 

Results-Only Pilot under current law. Please discuss the challenges 

you have identified as you prepare to begin this pilot program, as 

well as any changes to law you believe would be needed if this 

project were expanded. 

Mr. FOLEY. Yes. We are not calling for any changes to current 

Federal law and I think that is an appropriate way to experiment 

with this. We are looking at, particularly at the counting of hours, 

the 80 hours per pay period as an issue that we would hope the 

evaluators would look and comment on that in terms of if there are 

recommended changes if one is working in a ROWE environment. 

There are also other rules, such as core hours, so being available 

for 2 hours on two designated days per period. Again, these are 

some things we want to look at and test and understand, are they 

barriers or do they matter? Do they get in the way or not? 

Obviously, in terms of culture change, we are looking at attitudes 

and employee morale, so trying to understand the attitudes of 

workers and managers to this new environment. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Foley, OPM has contracted with Deloitte to 

provide an outside analysis of the Results-Only Pilot. What outcomes does OPM hope to see from this review to show the pilot has 

been successful? 

Mr. FOLEY. Again, with the emphasis on results—we are looking 

to see, is there improved productivity? Is there improved results 

from the work, from this environment, changed environment? So 

trying as best we can to measure that. We are also looking at employee morale and employee attitudes to work. Many of the other 

environments that the ROWE-type model has been tried, there 

have been improvements in employee morale and productivity, so 

we will be looking at those. There also appear to be tangential benefits in health habits and sleeping and that kind of thing. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Rouse, you have stressed that more research 

into work-life programs is needed. Will the Council of Economic Advisers be doing additional research and releasing additional reports 

on the economic benefits of these programs? 

Ms. ROUSE. We do not conduct our own original research, but we 

are definitely working with other members of the Administration. 

There is the Work-Life Conference that we held last month. There 

are groups that are starting to work with us where they may be 

generating additional research themselves, pilot programs, working 

with employers to stand up programs, and studying those programs 

for the cost-benefit analyses and the impacts on the employers as 

well as workers. So we will be eagerly following those and are 

happy to summarize them in a subsequent report. 

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

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. What percentage of our workforce are subject to collective bargaining agreements? 

Mr. FOLEY. Off the top of my head, I don’t have that figure. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the President of the National Treasury 

Employees Union (NTEU) is here. Maybe we will get that in her 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
14 

testimony. I would be interested in that. The thing is that it is my 

understanding that in terms of salary benefits, those are not negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement. That is set by Congress, is that right? The wages we pay our Federal employees are 

not subject to collective bargaining. We set that by the statute and 

that is what it is. 

Mr. FOLEY. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. How about health care benefits? Is that 

set by statute or is that negotiated? 

Mr. FOLEY. The health care benefits as broadly, they are set in 

statute in terms of the contribution amounts, yes—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. So it is by the statute. You don’t negotiate 

the participation of the employees? If the Congress decides that 

they are going to pay 35 percent or whatever it is, that is by law 

rather than by negotiation? 

Mr. FOLEY. That is correct. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. That wasn’t the case in State government. I know when we did, I think, for instance, money for training, we negotiated that and we would list pay increase, but if they 

put a nickel in, we put a dime in for training because we thought 

it was important and our unions thought it was important. When 

I came in, our health care costs were going up, like, 23 percent a 

year and we wanted to go to preferred provider because we thought 

we would save money. And so what we did was, again, negotiated 

with the union and said, if you are willing to go along with this, 

we will reduce the amount of money that you pay for your health 

care. That would involve the unions in these discussions. 

Now, both of you have talked about some new ideas, and I know 

that we have talked with Mr. Berry about some of his ideas in 

terms of the workforce and so forth. What I would like to know is 

just how much participation in some of the discussion that is going 

on have you had with our major unions, because I think I would 

be interested in knowing that. 

Mr. FOLEY. Well, certainly the ROWE initiative that we are implementing at OPM has been discussed and is being discussed with 

the two locals that are participating in that project, and also the 

Telework Thought Leadership Forum included representation. So 

there is an effort to have those discussions and have them be a 

part of the initial phases and the planning of these initiatives so 

that the issues that they raise can be measured and evaluated in 

the evaluation. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I think that is really important, because so often what happens is that because you don’t have the 

consultation, that sometimes things are promoted and the unions 

are very unhappy about it, and then it just becomes a stalemate 

here in Congress. I know he has got some ideas, and you have, and 

so forth, but I think the more you can work with the unions, the 

better off I think all of us are going to be. Mr. Chairman, I have 

no further questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

I want to thank our panel for your valuable testimony. Before I 

ask the second panel to come forward, I want to tell you that your 

responses have been helpful to us. As you know, we are trying to 

set up conditions where the Federal Government can be attractive 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
15 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Lingle appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

to people, especially young people in our country. We need to work 

with educational institutions, as well, to try to reach out and attract some people to the Federal workforce. And, of course, as we 

continue to mention, to continue to make the Federal Government 

the choice employer. We can do that by working together and we 

look forward to information you can give us to help us do that. So 

thank you very much to our first panel. 

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you. 

Ms. ROUSE. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. I would like to ask the second panel to please 

come forward. 

I want to welcome our second panel. On this panel this afternoon, we have Kathy Lingle, Executive Director of the Alliance for 

Work-Life Progress at WorldatWork. Also, Max Stier, the President 

and CEO of Partnership for Public Service, Colleen Kelley, President of the National Treasury Employees Union, and Joe Flynn, 

Vice President of the American Federation of Government Employees. 

It is, as you know, the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in 

all witnesses, so I would ask all of you to stand and raise your 

right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Ms. LINGLE. I do. 

Mr. STIER. I do. 

Ms. KELLEY. I do. 

Mr. FLYNN. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Let the record note that the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. 

Let me also remind all of you that although your oral statement 

is limited to 5 minutes, your full written statement will be included 

in the record. 

Ms. Lingle, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHLEEN M. LINGLE,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR WORK-LIFE PROGRESS AT WORLDATWORK 

Ms. LINGLE. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Voinovich, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

honor of testifying before you today on best practices in the field 

of work-life effectiveness. My name is Kathleen Lingle. I am the 

Executive Director of Alliance for Work-Life Progress at 

WorldatWork. I have been a work-life researcher, practitioner, and 

consultant for over 20 years. 

During this week of public service recognition, I believe it is 

timely to have a robust dialogue about the importance and value 

of developing a coherent strategy for Federal work-life programs. 

Numerous studies have shown that the quality of workers’ jobs and 

the supportiveness of their workplaces are key predictors of worker 

job productivity. We have heard a lot about that from our first 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
16 

panel. It also contributes to job satisfaction, commitment to employers, and more positive mental and physical health outcomes. 

For the past 35 years, most, if not all, Federal agencies have developed an impressive variety of supports for everyone who works 

to help them manage their dual agenda throughout the career life 

cycle. In fact, what is interesting is the Federal Government exerted leadership in work-life programs long before these innovations were adopted in private industry. However, what is striking 

today is that, for the most part, the Federal sector is not harnessing the full power of work-life effectiveness as the most inexpensive and intrinsically motivating driver of attraction, engagement, and retention available in the 21st Century. 

The notable gap in the Federal environment vis-a ́-vis private industry is a failure to deploy work-life as an overarching organizational strategy, one that has a demonstrated capacity, as we have 

heard, to engage the minds and hearts of any labor force in any 

sector. In private industry today, employers compete to be perceived as best in class because such employee-friendly behavior literally pays itself many times over. 

In WorldatWork’s 2007 survey, ‘‘Attraction and Retention: The 

Impact and Prevalence of Work-Life Programs,’’ we found that a 

successful work-life portfolio can result in tangible increases in attraction and retention of the kind of talent needed for organizational success. This portfolio that I am referring to includes seven 

categories of work-life practices, several but not all that have been 

mentioned so far. These include dependent care, paid and unpaid 

time off, health and wellness, community involvement, financial 

support, workplace flexibility, and culture change initiatives. 

These beneficial results that accrue from the application of such 

a portfolio, an integrated portfolio, are not just limited to the private sector. Data show similar outcomes for public sector employees. I know my fellow witness, Mr. Stier, will also speak to this, 

but according to the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government Report by the Partnership for Public Service, work-life balance and a family-friendly culture are two of the ‘‘best in class’’ categories used to rank Federal agencies. 

And it is not just one demographic group that values and benefits from these programs. Achieving success both at home and at 

work is important to everyone. From experienced workers in their 

60s to students just graduating from college, research shows that 

work-life programs appeal and support workers in multiple generations. 

Also, no longer are work-life programs seen through a gender 

lens. Both women and men experience work-life conflict, and having flexibility in their work schedules is an increasing priority as 

they struggle to balance family and work. 

Director John Berry has it right. In order for the Federal Government to become a leader in work-life programs, you must consider 

the big picture. Instead of pursuing one discrete work-life program 

after another in relative isolation, I recommend that the entire exercise be ratcheted up a notch and considered in its entirety as one 

coherent people and business strategy. 

Using the work-life portfolio as the well-tested road map it has 

become for employers everywhere, all of the component elements of 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
17 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Stier appears in the Appendix on page 54. 

policy and practice required to meet the needs of Federal workers 

will fall into place. Any important missing pieces will become evident and can be developed as necessary. 

For the sake of time, I have included numerous examples of best 

practices and specific recommendations in my written testimony 

and would be happy to share them with you during question and 

answers. 

In closing, I look forward to working with the Subcommittee and 

the Administration as you develop work-life programs that ensure 

that the Federal Government attracts, retains, and empowers a 

21st Century workforce. Thank you again for the opportunity to 

testify on this important issue. 

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

Mr. Stier, will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF MAX STIER,1 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE 

Mr. STIER. Thank you very much. This is an opportune time for 

this hearing and there are no better two people than the two of 

you, Chairman Akaka and Senator Voinovich, with whom to have 

this conversation. I consider you the dynamic duo of good government, so it is an honor to be here especially during Public Service 

Recognition Week. 

My interest here is to see how we move the ball forward. I think 

there is widespread agreement that flexible work arrangements are 

important in terms of productivity. Senator Voinovich, I think you, 

as usual, hit the nail on the head in terms of the lens through 

which we need to be viewing this. How do we provide more costeffective and better service to the American people? This conversation has to be about how we do that. The evidence, I think, is 

strong to suggest that there are a lot of things we can do with respect to flexible work arrangements that would get us there. 

To me, there are several key questions. What are the barriers 

that are preventing us from getting there? If there is a consensus 

that we need to make this happen, why isn’t more happening? 

What are the specific things we can do about it? 

On the barriers, I would suggest that there are four important 

barriers. The first is manager resistance, and this is not only about 

training. 

The second is that there is poor performance measurement right 

now in government so the proxy for actual performance is physical 

presence. People don’t actually know what good work is, and therefore, they think because they can see somebody, they are getting 

work out of them. That is something we have to change. This, I 

think, is an issue that is more substantial than even the flexible 

work arrangement conversation. We need a better appreciation and 

understanding about what performance is in the public sector in 

order for us to be able to address these issues and others. 

Third, there are clearly issues around security of information 

that are technology-based. 

And fourth and finally, I think there is an important issue 

around public perception. We are losing the battle right now with 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
18 

the American public about the importance and value of government 

service and we need to make sure that flexible work arrangements 

are seen as a mechanism of actually doing better for the American 

public as opposed to simply another benefit for public workers. 

That is one of the key barriers we also need to address. 

So I would present six things we might do going forward. The 

first is to note that this is in draft form. We are currently doing 

research on the subject matter with Booz Allen Hamilton. We will 

be issuing a report in the next several months that will be much 

more complete and comprehensive, but let me give you some of our 

initial findings. 

First, clearly, I think the legislation, particularly around telecommuting, that you have in place needs to be passed. It needs to be 

passed, but I hope that you will pass it and you will stay on top 

of this issue even after passage, because that legislation will improve the process, but will by no means solve it, and we have a lot 

of work to do beyond that. 

Second, we need to raise our sights. I think, very importantly, 

there is a concrete goal that OPM has set about raising the telecommuting numbers by 50 percent by next year. In truth, we have 

to be doing even much more than that in the next year and beyond. 

We have companies like IBM that have 40 percent telecommuting. 

In the government right now 5 percent of eligible workers are telecommuting. Overall, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is at 

the top at 80-plus percent, but agencies like the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) 

have less than 3 percent of eligible workers telecommuting. So we 

need to actually set a mark that is much higher, and I would argue 

for around the 40 percent that IBM is doing. 

Third, we need to build from best practices. There are agencies 

like Patent and Trademark Office that are doing it. We need to understand how they are doing it and get it adopted elsewhere. The 

best way of spreading change in government is by finding other examples in government where it is working. 

Fourth, we have opportunities around change that is already taking place. The Department of Homeland Security is looking at new 

space options. If you look at the Patent and Trademark Office 

story, they were at 10 percent telecommuting in 2001. They are 

now at over 80 percent, and that happened around their movement 

to new space. I think we could imagine GSA requiring that there 

be real telecommuting plans when they provide new space for agencies. I am happy to talk about that further, but I am trying to 

make my time limit here. 

So fifth, we are going to need to invest some dollars up front. We 

heard a little bit about the wellness program, the $2 million-plus 

that Director Berry has invested. This is a matter of front-end 

money that is necessary to get the stuff rolling, but we will have 

back-end payoff of a lot larger significance. 

And sixth, along the same lines, we need to do more piloting. We 

need to do some more demonstration work in government. The 

ROWE Project is fascinating. This is a two million-person organization. We need to have more experimentation to understand what 

is possible and what is going to work, and I doff my hat to Director 

Berry on ROWE. We need to make sure that we combine those piVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:48 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 057934 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
19 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

1The report appears in the Appendix on page 90. 

lots with real solid data gathering protocols so we can prove that 

flexible arrangements work and we understand how to replicate it 

them. 

So thank you very much, again, for inviting me here. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you so much, Mr. Stier. 

Colleen Kelley, will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

Ms. KELLEY. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member 

Voinovich. As the National President of National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), representing over 150,000 Federal employees in 

31 agencies, I very much appreciate you holding this hearing on 

this subject, especially during Public Service Recognition Week. 

The Federal Government is the Nation’s largest employer, but 

today, the Federal Government is losing ground in areas that are 

very important in attracting, retaining, and empowering its workforce. We want to bring back a leadership role to the Federal Government and make it the employer of choice in the United States. 

Dramatic changes in the workforce in the last 40 years have created what Workforce Flexibility 2010 calls a work-family mismatch 

and conflict. Employers who follow dated policies and practices that 

limit workplace flexibility do not serve the interests of either the 

employer or the employee. And when the employer is the Federal 

Government, it does not serve the interests of the citizens, either. 

NTEU is very enthusiastic about the endorsement of flexible 

work arrangements by the Director of OPM and by the White 

House. We would like to see flexible work arrangements as the 

standard operating procedure in the Federal Government. 

In that regard, it is time for the Federal Government, as the 

largest employer in this country, to step up and make family leave 

real, not a mirage that just a few can afford to use. Being able to 

substitute any leave without pay under the Family and Medical 

Leave Act (FMLA) with 4 weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child will make a significant difference in the lives of both 

parent and child. 

A report by the Institute of Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) in 

October 2009 states that younger workers demand greater workplace flexibility, and while many private sector companies are leading the way with paid parental leave packages, the current Federal 

benefits do not meet younger workers’ needs. IWPR calculates that 

the Federal Government could prevent over 2,600 departures per 

year among female employees by offering paid parental leave, preventing over $50 million per year in turnover costs. 

I would like to ask that their report, which I have a copy here, 

would be entered into the record for this hearing, if that is OK.2

Senator AKAKA. Without objection. 

Ms. KELLEY. As you know, the House has passed its paid parental leave bill last June, and that was passed on a bipartisan basis. 

With your leadership, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see your ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:48 Oct 08, 2010 Jkt 057934 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
20 

mittee pass Senator Webb’s bill, S. 354, this summer on paid parental leave. 

NTEU has found that where agencies have good telework programs, which we have talked a lot about today, employees feel they 

can handle work-life issues much better than in agencies that are 

resistant to such programs. Given the convincing merits of the 

Akaka telework bill and the few remaining months in this session 

of Congress, we believe it is very important that the Senate act 

swiftly on this important legislation, and then we need to breathe 

life into telework and to make it a reality for the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees who do not have appropriate access to 

it today. That would be a triple win, a win for employees, a win 

for agencies, and a win for taxpayers. 

Wellness programs also contribute positively to work-life balance. 

This year’s Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Call Letter contains several proposals by OPM to provide wellness programs for Federal employees, and in addition, OPM informed the 

carriers that coverage of dependents has been extended to age 26 

by the recently passed health care law, and that effective date will 

be January 1, 2011. A longtime NTEU initiative, the age 26 coverage will provide a much needed safety net for those dependents 

just starting out their careers, often without health insurance, and 

we would like to explore the possibility of an earlier start date. 

Under your able leadership, Senator Akaka, S. 372, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act is also ready for floor action. 

This bill represents years of work in addressing gaps in whistleblower protection, and for the first time will extend whistleblower 

protection statutorily to Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) at 

the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). NTEU stands 

ready to assist in whatever way necessary to see this bill successfully passed in the Senate. 

NTEU has found that work-life balance is the easiest to achieve 

when employees have a voice in their workplace. If the workers can 

have a collective voice, the effect is much stronger. Sadly, that is 

not the case at TSA. We would also like to see a Senate version 

of Representative Nita Lowey’s bill, H.R. 1881, introduced that 

would give TSOs the right to collectively bargain. While we wait 

for a new administrator to be named, we ask for your help in persuading the Department of Homeland Security to grant collective 

bargaining rights through a directive now. 

NTEU wants the Federal Government to be a leader in the 

movement in order to provide a better work environment for employees and we will do all we can to promote the programs that are 

passed by Congress and endorsed by the Administration that further our members’ ability to balance the demands of their jobs with 

the demands of their families and also to look after their own 

health. 

Thank you, and I would be glad to answer any questions you 

have. 

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

Mr. Flynn, will you please proceed with your statement. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
21 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Flynn appears in the Appendix on page 69. 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN P. FLYNN,1 VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

Mr. FLYNN. Mr. Chairman and Senator Voinovich, on behalf of 

the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which 

represents more than 600,000 Federal employees, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today regarding work-life programs which 

would attract, retain, and empower the Federal workforce. 

In the 21st Century, one can easily see the effects that home 

computers, email, smart phones, and cell phones have in enabling 

a 24/7 work environment. Employees are looking for balance between work and their personal and family demands, and if the Federal Government fails to provide this balance, agencies risk losing 

valuable employees to employers who offer more flexibility. 

AFGE supports the telework legislation, Mr. Chairman, that you 

and the Senator have introduced, as well as the companion legislation in the House. Both bills require that all Federal workers be 

considered eligible for telework unless the agency shows they are 

ineligible. Under current law, Federal workers must overcome this 

presumption that they are ineligible for telework unless the agency 

determines otherwise. 

I would like to give you two examples of why your legislation is 

so important. AFGE members working at agencies with established 

telework programs, such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services and Citizenship and Immigration Services, report that 

those agencies have self-imposed an arbitrary cap on the number 

of workers allowed to participate in telework. At the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), although AFGE succeeded in negotiating a telework program, the union had to trade off the right to 

file any grievances on the matter regardless of their merit. This 

makes it almost impossible to ensure that telework at NSF is applied fairly and uniformly to employees. 

I would like to talk to you just very briefly about the ResultsOnly Work Environment. AFGE Local 32 is working closely with 

Director Berry’s office in the implementation phase of the ResultsOnly Work Environment Pilot at OPM. This is another flexible 

workplace initiative which allows employees to work when they 

want, when they can, where they want, as long as the work gets 

done, and that is the key, as long as the work gets done. 

One of the work groups selected to participate has had major 

workload processing problems for some time, and as a result of the 

ROWE Pilot Project, joint management and labor forums have been 

established to address these problems, and many of them to date 

have been resolved. If the ROWE Pilot works with this particular 

work group, Mr. Chairman and Senator, it can work with any other 

office. 

We particularly appreciate Director Berry’s efforts. He truly 

leads by example. Mr. Chairman and Senator, based on my experience as a Federal employee and a union representative, whether 

we are talking telework, wellness programs, or the ROWE Program 

or similar-type programs, I cannot overstate or overemphasize the 

importance of having an agency champion of these programs at the 

top. That is critical to the success of these programs. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
22 

We urge agencies—with regard to the wellness programs, workplace wellness programs have been around for a number of years. 

Wellness programs include weight loss, physical fitness, smoking 

cessation, and stress management, which help reduce health insurance premiums, workers’ compensation premiums, and workplace 

injuries and illness. Employees also see the benefit in terms of increased productivity, improved employee relations, and employee 

morale. Healthier workers take fewer days off for illness and may 

experience less severe symptoms. We urge agencies establishing 

wellness programs to ensure that they work with their unions, 

where you have a union, in the development and implementation 

of these programs. 

Paid parental leave—despite the protections of the Family and 

Medical Leave Act, many Federal workers must choose between a 

paycheck and meeting their family obligations because they currently have no paid parental leave. The House bill passed in the 

Senate and its companion introduced by Senator Jim Webb would 

provide Federal employees 4 of the 12 weeks of family and medical 

leave as paid leave upon birth and adoption of a fostering child. 

Mr. Chairman, the time has come for the Federal Government to 

set the standard for U.S. employers on paid parental leave. AFGE 

urges the immediate Senate passage of S. 354 so that the bill can 

be sent to President Obama by the end of the year. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Myself, as well as 

AFGE, would be happy to answer any questions or further any 

other information you might need. Thank you, sir. 

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

Ms. Lingle, as I noted in my opening statements, I believe the 

Federal Government needs work-life programs to stay competitive 

with the private sector. Your testimony describes a number of best 

practice programs in the private sector. Does your research show 

that more organizations are offering work-life programs now than 

in the past? 

Ms. LINGLE. Well, I have described a portfolio with several categories in it, so the answer is there has been growth in some of 

those categories and relative shrinkage in others, particularly over 

the last 18 months as we faced the worst recession we have had 

since the 1930s. Things that require a great deal of money, as you 

might expect, have been curtailed somewhat. Things that have no 

direct cost, like flexibility, community volunteering, and some other 

aspects of the portfolio, have grown. 

So we have seen change, but in general, since flexibility seems 

to be a great topic of discussion in this forum, that, we haven’t seen 

a great deal of retrenchment on. In fact, we are seeing some experiments in both the public and private sector that we have never 

seen before where employers are actually mandating flexibility 

rather than waiting for employees to ask for it. So we have got 

some very interesting experiments going on at the moment. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. As many of you have mentioned— 

and this is for the entire panel—some managers have been resistant to more flexible ways of managing employees. How do you believe we can overcome this resistance? Ms. Kelley. 

Ms. KELLEY. I think there are a number of things that can be 

done. I think that the agency leadership at the highest level, at the 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
23 

middle level, at the front-line level all need to model that behavior. 

They need to not only talk about it, but they need to recognize and 

reward managers who support employees in flexibility and in doing 

telework, and not just talk about it. I think that agencies who have 

been successful should be asked and expected to be out there talking to other agencies about their very real experiences and about 

their real successes. 

I think when there are productivity savings, which in many cases 

there will be, that the agencies should be able to retain what they 

save and reinvest it in other agency programs. Most agencies that 

I am aware of have a lot of work they would like to do, but they 

don’t have the resources to do it. So rather than see them have productivity gains and then take those savings away from them, let 

them reinvest those in the workforce as well as in the work of the 

agency. 

But I think it is a big culture issue. When I attended the White 

House forum, it was clear to me from the private sector companies 

who do this and do it well that they all recognize it as a culture 

change. It is not just about issuing a memo or saying it is OK to 

approve it. It is about living it every day and not waiting for an 

employee to ask for the flexibility but to offer it to them. 

I know when I left that forum, I remember one of the opening 

sessions presenters, it was the CEO from Campbell’s Soup, and 

when I heard him speak about telework and flexibilities and his 

workforce, I made myself a note that I know a few agencies that 

have managers they should detail to Campbell’s Soup for a while 

because I think that it would help them with this culture issue, because I am more convinced than ever that really is what drives a 

lot of it. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. Lingle. 

Ms. LINGLE. There is a good history in showing evidence for the 

impact of training. If you are really going to culturally embed flexibility, it doesn’t happen intuitively or without a great deal of work. 

There is something that pushes the culture about flexibility, and 

managers are not trained historically to deal with these kinds of 

issues. In fact, over the last 20 years, we have taught human resource (HR) people in particular not to get into people’s private 

lives, that is not where you go, and this takes art and skill. Both 

employees and managers actually need to be trained how to behave 

and how to proceed. That is one of the keys to success. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Flynn. 

Mr. FLYNN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Once again, please let me emphasize the important of top management supporting these programs. That is critical. Legislation aside, negotiated agreements 

aside, if you don’t have that support, the program will be undermined. 

The second piece is we have to change the paradigm of what supervisors are looking at. I think it was mentioned earlier, but you 

have to get away from the idea of measuring presence to measuring 

outcome. 

And third, I believe that you need to have a security confidential 

protocol in place where supervisors and managers are trained on 

it so that the fear of information being lost is overcome. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
24 

And I think it comes down to this, two factors. Can the work be 

done in part at home? And is the equipment available for the employee to carry it out? And if those two conditions are met, it is real 

simple. Do it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Stier. 

Mr. STIER. Mr. Chairman, you heard a whole bunch of good reasons that I think cover everything. I want to pick up on one thing 

that Ms. Kelley stated that I thought is a nice idea, as well, and 

that is more mobility. If you can actually have leaders and managers in government agencies see it work in other places, that 

would improve the ability to spread best practice across government. 

I believe everything that needs to happen in government is happening somewhere, but frequently in not many places. If we can 

give the talent in government the experience of seeing it work and 

feeling it work and having the opportunity to work in that work environment, then we increase the chances of it being adopted in 

other agencies. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Stier, you had mentioned that many managers are not trained to successfully implement and oversee worklife flexibility programs. What recommendations do you have for 

Congress and OPM to ensure managers receive sufficient and effective training? 

Mr. STIER. Senator, this is something that obviously you have 

and this Subcommittee have worked on. I think we underinvest in 

the training and development of our managers and leaders and 

that is a source of many challenges that we face around the flexible 

work arrangements but also beyond that. I believe we need to see 

long-term investments in the training of the workforce. 

We need to see leadership commitment to it. It is not simply a 

matter of dollars. We actually need to see leaders in their own 

evaluation of their top management, prioritizing the need for investment in the workforce and in the folks that report to their direct reports. 

Ultimately, in terms of this Subcommittee, I think you can be 

looking at data points like the Best Places to Work rankings, manager satisfaction surveys that target specifically those managers, 

and ultimately, I hope, real performance metrics. 

So again, as Mr. Flynn stated, I believe at the end of the day, 

one of our key issues in the public sector is a need to be able to 

have very clear and direct communication about what we are trying to achieve and the role that individuals and teams play in getting there. If you have real-time performance information, I think 

you will have telecommuting to a greater extent and you will have 

better performance, ultimately. But I think we have some distance 

to travel there. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Senator Voinovich, your 

questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. Mr. Stier, the Partnership for Public 

Service has been working a long period of time to highlight the opportunities that we have here in the Federal Government. I know 

one of the reasons why Sam Heyman formed the organization was 

he felt that more people ought to be going into public service. I 

was, as I mentioned, a little bit disappointed at the look at that 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
25 

at the John F. Kennedy School. Really, the numbers haven’t really 

improved very much since the time we got started with this. 

Besides the antiquated archaic hiring system that we have, and 

hopefully we are going to get that changed this year—and I just 

want to make clear, the number of people I have met who wanted 

to work for the Federal Government and never heard and then got 

jobs and then heard, it is just amazing. In other words, because we 

are not communicating, we are losing a lot of good people. And 

then, by the way, the word gets out on the street that this thing 

is archaic and so people just say, I am not going to even bother 

anymore because of the anecdotal stuff that is out there among 

people who might be wanting to work for the Federal Government. 

But besides that, what other disincentives are out there, and in 

terms of work-life issues? Have you ever done an analysis of what 

it is that people are really looking for? Maybe, Ms. Lingle, you can 

look at it. What are the things that they really are looking for in 

terms of a future employer? Both of you can respond. 

Mr. STIER. I think Ms. Lingle hit it right to say that what is interesting is that, in many ways, what young folks are looking for, 

the same thing is true for more experienced folks, as well. The 

work-life balance issue is one that plays at the top of the list for 

great talent across the whole spectrum of experience. There are 

plenty of surveys out there that show that it is a prime issue for 

a lot of talented people. I think that is something that does matter 

and goes to the point here about enabling more flexible work arrangements. I think it is important that we focus on this not just 

for young people, but for that full range of experience. 

To my mind, there are three barriers that we have here. The 

first is that the talent market, by and large, doesn’t even know 

about government service. It is not on their radar screen. If you 

ask most folks today to tell you what public service is, they will not 

include government service in their definition. So what used to be 

synonymous terms now has lost almost entirely government service 

from the equation. 

What we have found on the positive side, though, is that the 

more people know in the talent market about these opportunities, 

the more they like it, so that they find it to be meaningful work 

in which they can grow and develop and make a difference, and 

that is what is going to attract them. 

The second hurdle is the hiring process you mentioned, and I believe that the work that OPM and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) is doing is vital, but honestly, I think it is going to 

take more than a year to make these changes. It is going to take 

a lot of work inside each and every agency to actually get the 

changes that will make a difference, and your hiring reform bill 

will help. 

And then the third issue is some of the stuff we are talking about 

today, what happens to folks when they are inside government, 

how they are managed, and, therefore, are they willing to stay and 

are they going to give of their very best efforts. The kinds of things 

we have talked about here will improve that third bucket. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Lingle. 

Ms. LINGLE. Mr. Stier and I haven’t had a chance to talk about 

this, but one of the suggestions I would make, and Senator 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
26 

1 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the total turnover rates from January of 

this year were 3.6 percent for private employers. BLS does not provide turnover rates for the 

Federal Government separately. 

Voinovich, your point is excellent, in private industry, you ask people what their needs are, and the value of the portfolio management aspect of work-life is that you can predict the various events 

and therefore the needs that an employer is going to have to meet 

over the next 6 months, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, i.e., the strategy. 

So one of my suggestions is that there actually be an augmentation, in between Administrations now, which are going to be annual, of the Employee Viewpoint Survey, what in our field we call 

a work-life needs assessment. What isn’t done in the survey today, 

but it has been greatly improved, is actual usage and access to 

these various work-life issues. It is very important to know not just 

how satisfied are people. 

What we have found from other surveys in private industry, employees will answer that they are very satisfied with parental 

leave, with flexibility, and then you find out later they have never 

used them. It is sort of a halo effect. It is really important to find 

out, can people get to these things? How do they feel about that, 

and what is their experience and what are they lacking? That is 

a very critical point. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Kelley, do you have a list of things from 

people in terms of what attracted them to the Federal Government. 

Ms. KELLEY. Well, in my experience, first and foremost, it is the 

mission of the agency that often draws the applicants even to the 

agency. After that, it is about, once they get through training, in 

pretty short order, it is about work-life balance. It usually starts 

by seeing what is happening around them in their agency and they 

see that in their occupation, they do not have access to Flexiplace 

or telework or to different work hours. 

But then, they get a broader range of information when they talk 

to neighbors and friends and relatives who work either for other 

agencies or for the private sector and realize that there is a whole 

other spectrum out there. And then the question is, why would the 

Federal Government, as the largest employer, not make those 

available? 

I also worry about these things not being expanded today, because I think for the next couple of years, the Federal Government 

will not see the turnover that it otherwise might because of the 

economy. But once the economy turns, and it will, I worry that we 

are going to lose a lot of the employees that we have, not through 

retirement but to private sector companies who have really put in 

place a much broader spectrum of work-life balance opportunities 

for employees. We need to worry about that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. That gets to the issue. We know what the 

situation is right now because things are tough out there. This is 

the worst recession since the Depression. A lot of people are out 

there looking for work. But let us go back to a more ordinary time, 

let us say 5 years ago when things were fairly good and the economy was working. Was the Federal Government’s turnover rate 

more than the private sector? 

Ms. KELLEY. I don’t know. I would have to get those numbers for 

you.1


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
27 

2The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the percentage of the Federal workforce represented by unions is 33.2 percent. However, it also reports that the total number of Federal 

Government employees is 3.6 million, which we do not believe is accurate. Historically, over 60 

percent of the eligible Federal workforce was represented by unions. We believe that the BLS 

percentage includes non-elibile employees, such as managers. In both instances, we cannot 

verify this information. Perhaps your office can get more accurate information from the Congressional Research Service or directly from agencies. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to find that out from staff. 

The other thing is that the percentage of people in the Federal 

workforce that are in collective bargaining, do you have any idea 

what the answer to that is? 

Ms. KELLEY. I don’t know the percentage.2 We will get you that 

number. But when you asked the question earlier, I was going to 

yell from my seat. When you said, how many Federal employees 

are covered by collective bargaining rights, I was going to say, not 

enough. [Laughter.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. I wouldn’t expect you to say anything else. 

[Laughter.] 

The one thing that I would like to just affirm, Mr. Flynn, is the 

issue of Mr. Berry involving you in some of their discussions and 

ideas about changing things. From what I picked up from what you 

had to say, you seemed to be satisfied that he is really reaching 

out and that you are a participant rather than he is doing it all 

on his own and he is going to try to sell you on what he wants to 

do. 

Mr. FLYNN. You are absolutely correct, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

Mr. Lingle and Mr. Stier, in your testimony, you both suggest 

that changes need to be made to the annual Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey if we want to better understand the experience 

and needs of the Federal workforce. Would you please talk more 

about the changes you think are needed to this survey? 

Ms. LINGLE. I mentioned before, I think it would be a great addition, either in the survey or an augmented survey which I would 

call a Technical Work-Life Needs Assessment, to get at access and 

usage. I think that would be useful information we don’t currently 

have. 

Second, I would like to see the panorama of issues asked about 

in the survey to reflect the entire portfolio. There are pieces missing right now, like community outreach, volunteering, etc., that 

would be interesting to know about and see. We know nationally 

there is a great upsurge in community outreach in the last year 

during the recession, and morale and retention are going up everywhere because of that, certainly in private industry. So it would be 

interesting to see what the experience is in the Federal Government right now. People are reaching out to people in pain, and all 

of us know family members and friends who are in big trouble, and 

that has really opened hearts and minds of people which make a 

workplace much more attractive when they respond to this. So that 

is one example of an area that is missing right now. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Stier. 

Mr. STIER. I think that OPM and OMB are looking at the survey 

and are trying to hone in on the right data sets that they want to 

collect. To my mind, some of the most important things that need 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
28 

to happen are—and they have decided to do this, it has to be done 

annually. It has to be done frequently enough that the information 

can be used to actually hold leadership accountable. It has to also 

be made available faster. In the past the turnaround time has been 

something like 5 months. That is too long. You need information 

in a much more expedited fashion. 

I think you also need a census. In the past, there have been some 

agencies that have actually surveyed the entire workforce. In today’s work with technology, that doesn’t really cost on the implementation side anything more. But what that then allows you to 

do is to actually understand better what is happening in smaller 

components of agencies, so you can actually see important differences within the same organization and manage from that data. 

So those are the sorts of things that would make a very big impact, and again, I think we are at the front edge of understanding 

how useful this information can be and we need more members like 

yourself to own it and to use it to hold leaders accountable when 

they come in front of you. 

Senator AKAKA. Several of you have mentioned paid parental 

leave as an attractive work-life program. Do you believe the Federal Government is at a recruiting disadvantage with the private 

sector because we do not offer paid parental leave? Ms. Lingle. 

Ms. LINGLE. Relatively, I would say yes. My understanding is the 

Federal Government has very generous sick leave, but paid parental leave, even for new mothers and certainly for fathers, is a relative disadvantage. Today, in private industry, the companies we 

call ‘‘Best in Class,’’ about 72 percent of them offer paid parental 

leave. In best companies, the national average is much lower than 

that, something about 15 percent. It is a growing category. Three 

years ago, that was only 12 percent in best practice companies, a 

huge benefit as we learn more about the mind and what happens 

with children and raising children in this 21st Century who have 

self-esteem with two parents on deck. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Kelley. 

Ms. KELLEY. I think it is a recruiting disadvantage for some. If 

at the same time they are looking for a new position with the Federal Government and they are also thinking about starting a family, then I do think that it is a disadvantage. 

But I think the other place we lose as the Federal Government 

is for employees who are here 5, 6, or 7 years and then decide that 

they are going to start a family and that this is an issue for them 

that wasn’t even on their screen when they joined the Federal Government. But now it is and it will become the reason that we will 

lose them, because they will leave. They won’t return to the Federal Government and they will look for somewhere else as they continue to build their family that has better practices and that are 

more family friendly. 

Mr. STIER. Mr. Chairman, if I might? 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Stier. 

Mr. STIER. I would just add a personal anecdote on that front. 

I have two children. You have met my wife. She was a career Federal prosecutor, had been in the Federal Government before that, 

and she had a lot of vacation time and sick leave that she had built 

up over time and was able to take time off as a result for both of 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
29 

our children. If we had not started a family as late in life as we 

had, we would not have had that opportunity and it would have 

been a real hardship. 

I think there is a real differential here. If you have been in the 

Federal workforce for a while, you can manage. But if you, as has 

been suggested by Ms. Kelley, are new, that is a real problem and 

I think it is clearly a disadvantage for the government to recruit 

and retain an important segment of talent that is out there. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. Kelley and Mr. Flynn, the Administration is working to expand worksite wellness programs in 

the Federal Government. What specific steps can OPM take to ensure that your members are aware of and participate in these programs? 

Ms. KELLEY. I think the wellness programs are very important 

and I think that leadership by OPM is important and will take us 

a couple steps forward. But in the long run, I think it will come 

down to resources. And when agencies have choices they have to 

make, and even though they are given the authority to run these 

wellness programs, if they are not given the appropriations to do 

it and they have to make hard choices about mission-related, delivery of their programs, that they will not become a reality. 

In fact, as pleased as I am that we are talking about these 

wellness benefits, everyone has made pretty clear that the percentage of Federal employees benefiting from telework today who are 

able to actually work a telework schedule is very small. I would 

suggest that the percentage of Federal employees benefiting from 

wellness programs is even less than telework. I think we are even 

much further behind on the wellness programs than we are on the 

telework. 

So again, I think what OPM is doing, what the Administration 

is holding up as a standard of what they would like for the future, 

but I think it is going to take consistent progress year after year 

after year. It cannot be something we talk about today and then 

not again for 4 years. And I think there has to be a very serious 

look at budget implications and what really is deliverable so that 

we can have some successes to point to. 

Senator AKAKA. I want to thank you, this second panel, for your 

observations as well as your experience and perceptions about our 

Federal workers. Several of you have mentioned the word ‘‘culture’’ 

and the change of culture that has to come about. This is something that I would say is generational, but we have to set the base 

for this and begin to plan strategically where we should be in the 

years ahead to get all the productivity from our workers and to 

make the Federal Government an employer of choice. I am so glad 

that even here, there is a cultural change in our relationships 

among those who have decision making powers in our government 

to continue to talk about this and bring this about. 

I am glad to hear, also, that somewhere, there should be a question about what the needs of the workers are, and from there to 

try to see what can be done to address workers’ needs. For me, I 

think that it is a change in culture that needs to come about. And 

by dealing with their needs, there is a good chance they will stay 

with the Federal Government. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
30 

So all of these ideas are beginning to be expressed and we need 

to really take this and continue to put it together as a new base 

of culture for Federal workers and their future. 

So I want to again thank you all for your thoughts and recommendations. I encourage all of you to continue working together 

with this Subcommittee to improve work-life programs in the Federal Government. We have mentioned, too, that we need to also 

cast an eye on the private sector and learn from them and use 

whatever can be used in the Federal Government system. These 

programs are vital to support our workforce and attract the best 

people to public service. 

The hearing record will remain open for 1 week for Members to 

submit additional statements or questions. 

Thank you very much for your time. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(31) 

A P P E N D I X 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.001
32 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.002
33 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.003
34 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.004
35 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.005
36 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.006
37 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.007
38 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.008
39 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.009
40 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.010
41 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.011
42 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.012
43 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.013
44 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.014
45 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.015
46 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.016
47 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.017
48 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.018
49 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.019
50 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.020
51 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.021
52 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.022
53 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.023
54 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.024
55 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.025
56 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.026
57 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.027
58 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.028
59 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.029
60 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.030
61 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.031
62 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.032
63 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.033
64 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.034
65 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.035
66 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.036
67 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.037
68 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.038
69 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.039
70 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.040
71 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.041
72 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.042
73 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.043
74 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.044
75 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.045
76 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.046
77 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.047
78 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.048
79 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.049
80 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.050
81 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.051
82 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.052
83 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.053
84 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.054
85 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.055
86 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.056
87 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.057
88 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.058
89 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.059
90 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.060
91 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.061
92 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.062
93 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.063
94 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.064
95 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.065
96 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.066
97 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.067
98 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.068
99 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.069
100 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.070
101 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.071
102 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.072
103 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.073
104 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.074
105 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.075
106 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.076
107 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.077
108 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.078
109 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.079
110 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.080
111 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.081
112 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.082
113 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.083
114 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.084
115 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.085
116 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.086
117 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.087
118 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.088
119 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.089
120 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.090
121 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.091
122 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.092
123 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.093
124 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.094
125 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.095
126 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.096
127 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.097
128 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.098
129 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.099
130 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.100
131 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.101
132 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.102
133 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.103
134 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.104
135 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.105
136 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.106
137 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.107
138 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.108
139 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.109
140 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.110
141 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.111
142 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.112
143 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.113
144 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.114
145 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.115
146 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.116
147 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.117
148 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.118
149 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.119
150 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.120
151 

Æ 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER57934.121