U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–272 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

UNION TIME ON THE PEOPLE’S DIME: A CLOSER 

LOOK AT OFFICIAL TIME 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 24, 2018 

Serial No. 115–86 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

KEVIN ORTIZ, Professional Staff Member 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chairman 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia, Vice Chair 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 24, 2018 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Trey Kovacs, Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. Bob Gilson, Senior Labor and Employee Relations Consultant and Author 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Mr. Darrell M. West, Vice President and Director of Governance Studies, 

Brookings Institution 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 33 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 35 

APPENDIX 

Committee Staff Report on Official Time Data, Submitted by Chairman Meadows ......................................................................................................................... 52

The Official Time Usage Report for FY 2016, submitted by Chairman Meadows ......................................................................................................................... 59

Letter for the Record from the Department of Education, submitted by Chairman Meadows ....................................................................................................... 86 

Democratic Rebuttal to the Republican Staff Memo, submitted by Ranking 

Member Connolly ................................................................................................. 88 

Statement for the Record of the National Treasury Employees Union, submitted by Ranking Member Connolly ................................................................ 91 

Statement for the Record of the American Federation of Government Employees, submitted by Ranking Member Connolly ................................................... 94 

Statement for the Record of the International Federation of Professional 

and Technical Engineers, submitted by Ranking Member Connolly ............... 97 

Unfair Labor Charge filed by the AFGE against the Department of Education, 

submitted by Ranking Member Connolly ........................................................... 99 

Editorial from The Ledger, submitted by Mr. Ross .............................................. 101 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Robert Gilson, submitted by Ranking Member Connolly .......................................................................................................... 110 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

UNION TIME ON THE PEOPLE’S DIME: A 

CLOSER LOOK AT OFFICIAL TIME 

Thursday, May 24, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:44 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Hice, Jordan, DeSantis, Ross, 

Blum, Connolly, Maloney, and Norton. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The Subcommittee on Government Operations 

will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Official time is a term for Federal employees performing union 

representational activities during normal working hours while getting paid for their regular salaries. A number of employees using 

official time and the amount of hours spent on it are governed by 

collective bargaining agreements at agencies. Some collective bargaining agreements even allow for certain employees to spend 100 

percent of their time on official time, meaning that they never do 

the job that they were hired to do. 

On January 9, I, along with some of my colleagues of this committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, sent a letter to 24 agencies requesting information on official time usage in the Federal Government. The results 

were quite interesting and likely surprising to the average taxpayer. 

Some 12,508 employees at 23 agencies in fiscal year 2017 used 

official time in some capacity. Of those, nearly 1,000 spent half or 

all of their workday on official time. And another 221 employees in 

this category were paid over $100,000 by the Federal Government. 

In total, the Federal Government spends $1 billion on salaries of 

employees who took at least some of their work time as official 

time. 

Every hour spent on official time is an hour spent away from 

some of the critical tasks the Federal Government really has before 

it. In the case of the Veterans Affairs Department, there are 472 

employees who spent 50 percent or more of their time on official 

time, meaning that they were not caring for the veterans. 

And in the case of the Internal Revenue Service, 185 employees 

spent 100 percent of their time performing representational work 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

on behalf of the union, which means that they are not serving the 

American taxpayer. 

I ask that the committee staff report be inserted into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Now, while not performing the work an employee 

was hired to do is bad enough, there are other aspects of official 

time that can impact the mission. Official time allows unions to follow grievances and appeals to the administrative agencies and 

bring the work of the government to a halt. 

By way of example, we have heard from a Federal employee who 

told us that after repeated requests that an employee come to work 

on time, this employee complained that the official was harassing 

the employee and filed a grievance. The union representative got 

involved, and after weeks of back and forth, the employee’s agency 

allowed the employee to push back her start time by 15 minutes. 

Now, to me, as a private business guy, this sounds absurd. 

The grievances filed while on—filled while on official time can 

also implicate national security. Luke Air Force Base in Arizona 

ended off-base access to email system with only a password after 

it experienced multiple security breaches. The union filed a grievance arguing that this was a change in the working conditions that 

the Air Force base first needed to do negotiate. 

Now, this committee is not alone in examining official time. A recent Office of Personnel Management report found that official time 

usage is on the rise governmentwide. The Federal Government saw 

a 4.76 percent increase in hours spent on official time from fiscal 

year 2014 to fiscal year 2016. OPM also estimated that the total 

cost of official time in fiscal year 2016 to be $177.2 million. OPM 

said that this number does not reflect the true total cost, because 

OPM does not—the OPM report does not take into account government costs relating to the free use of government property and supplies by union officials. 

So I’d ask that the official time usage report for fiscal year 2016 

of the Federal Government be submitted into the record. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MEADOWS. This administration is taking steps to reverse this 

troubling trend. Recently, the Department of Education narrowed 

considerably the amount of official time employees may use, but it 

did not eliminate it. 

I would like to enter into the record from the Department a letter explaining the recent changes made to the collective bargaining 

agreement. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And in a hearing last week, the new director of 

OPM testified official time is a problem at agencies and that the 

administration is committed to reexamining its use. 

I would like to thank the witnesses today for their testimony and 

look forward to hearing their insightful comments. 

And with that, I recognize the ranking member, the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

And I would ask at this point before I begin, Mr. Chairman, 

unanimous consent that the Democratic rebuttal to the Republican 

staff memo, which was not cleared on our side, be entered into the 

record. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Mr. MEADOWS. Without objection. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

When Congress enacted the Civil Service Reform Act, Congress 

found that, and I quote, ‘‘labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest.’’ Because the 

reality is that unions contribute to the effective conduct of public 

business and facilitate settlements of employee disputes. 

Federal unions are required to represent all employees within a 

bargaining unit, including those who do not pay dues and may not 

seek fees from nonmembers. In exchange for those representational 

duties, the Civil Service Reform Act authorized the use of official 

time. The legal authorization for designated Federal employees to 

protect whistleblowers, represent colleagues in grievances against 

abuse, and negotiate collective bargaining agreements. Sometimes 

they’re troubleshooters who can diffuse a situation before it gets to 

the litigation stage. 

The truth is that official time is authorized by law, negotiated by 

agency management with the union, and is intended to promote 

the peaceable resolution of disputes and the efficient operation of 

government. Unions and agencies must agree on the amount of 

time for representational activities, which must be, and I quote, 

‘‘reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest.’’ 

Congress carefully crafted a collective bargaining system for the 

Federal Government that balanced the interests of the agencies involved, Federal employees, and the American public we all serve. 

The cost of all of these benefits: just 40 seconds per day. That’s the 

amount of time per Federal employee official time costs the Federal 

Government, according to the Office of Personnel Management. 

That is less than the time it takes to get a cup of coffee, like this 

one like I got right here. 

Do my Republican friends want to prohibit Federal employees 

from getting their morning coffee because it’s a drain on the Federal Government? This hearing isn’t about protecting the taxpayer 

dollar. As the Republican staff memo makes all too clear, it’s about 

attacking Federal employees, a central theme of this Congress, unfortunately, and the Trump administration. 

Last week, the Oversight Committee held a hearing to discuss 

the recently issued President’s management agenda and the President’s plan to take $143 billion from middle class Federal workers 

in wage and retirement cuts and to use their money to partially offset the cost of a $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to the wealthy. During 

this administration, Federal employees have had to deal with efforts to gut the missions of Federal agencies, attacks on the Federal workforce, and their retirement benefits, as well as the repression of and retaliation against Federal whistleblowers. We might 

even add censorship to scientists trying to do their work. 

Federal employees need more support and avenues for redress, 

not fewer. Whether it’s through congressional oversight, inspector 

general investigations, or through union representatives, we should 

be giving Federal employees the tools they need to sound the alarm 

against the activities that make it harder for the Federal Government to work for the American people. 

If our committee wants to quibble over the 40 seconds spent on 

official time, it should also look into how some of the Trump adVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31272.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

ministration political appointees spend their time. According to numerous press reports, Millan Hupp, the director of scheduling and 

advance for the EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, spearheaded Administrator Pruitt’s search for new housing after he moved out of 

a sweetheart deal at a condo he rented for $50 a night from the 

wife of a lobbyist who had business before the Agency. Part of Ms. 

Hupp’s search, including contacting real estate companies and 

viewing apartment options for Administrator Pruitt, clearly took 

place on official hours. 

Or this committee could look into the White House Presidential 

Personnel Office. In March, The Washington Post reported that 

that office, which has struggled to fill vacancies throughout the 

Federal Government, has become, quote, ‘‘a social hub where young 

staffers throughout the administration stop by to hang out on 

couches and smoke electronic cigarettes.’’ PPO leaders regularly 

host happy hours in their offices that include beer, wine, and 

snacks, but not only PPO employees, but also White House liaison 

who work for other Federal agencies. And in January, they played 

a drinking game in the office called ‘‘icing’’ for one employee’s birthday. I’ve been informed that icing involves hiding a bottle of 

Smirnoff Ice and demanding that the person who discovers it drink 

it as quickly as possible. 

Now, these individuals may be able to guzzle a 12-ounce bottle 

of flavored malt liquor in 40 seconds, but it’s still an infinitely less 

productive use of company time than official time. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on their perspectives regarding the impact of official time on the efficiency and 

effectiveness of Federal Government, and for that matter, the use 

of any time by any Federal employee on government time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for his statements. And I 

agree that some of the behavior that was talked about is certainly 

something that we do need to look at, and I’d be glad to do that 

in a bipartisan way. 

I’d like to thank the witnesses for coming today. I’ll introduce 

Mr. Trey Kovacs, policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute; Mr. Bob Gilson, senior labor and employee relations consultant and author. Welcome. And Mr. Darrell West, vice president 

and director of government studies at Brookings Institute. Welcome. 

Welcome to you all. 

And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in 

before they testify. If you would please rise and raise your right 

hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you God? 

All right. Thank you. You may be seated. 

Please, the record should reflect that all witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for enough questions and answers, I would 

ask that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, but your entire 

written testimony will be made part of the record. There is a clock 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

there in front of you, and so if you will just please press the red 

button when you go to speak and speak into the microphone. 

Mr. Kovacs, we recognize you for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF TREY KOVACS 

Mr. KOVACS. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing and providing me the opportunity to discuss official time in the 

Federal workforce. 

My name is Trey Kovacs, and I am a labor policy analyst at the 

Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 

public policy organization that focuses on regulatory issues from a 

free market and limited government perspective. 

Official time grants Federal employees paid time off from their 

government duties to perform union business. This taxpayer-funded subsidy to Federal employee unions enables them to file grievances, bargain, and even lobby Congress, among other activities. 

Unfortunately, the reality is that no one really knows how much 

time and money is spent by the Federal Government on official 

time. In addition, the lack of transparency surrounding the practice 

makes it impossible to know what specific activities are performed 

by Federal employees on official time. However, the Office of Personnel Management does occasionally produce a report that estimates the cost of official time. 

According to the latest data available from the OPM, in fiscal 

year 2016, official time cost approximately $175 million, and employees spent 3.6 million hours conducting union activities instead 

of their assigned public duties. 

Problems with official time, other than poor recordkeeping, have 

been recognized by administrations from both political parties. 

During the Clinton administration, the OPM explained when Federal employees are on official time they are not available to perform the duties associated with their regular positions. This can 

hamper the agency in accomplishing its mission, as certain assignments must be either be delayed, covered by other employees, or 

accomplished through the use of overtime. The use of significant 

amounts of official time may adversely affect an employee’s ability 

to keep his or her technical skills current. 

Given these problems associated with official time, it is past time 

to consider legislative reforms. Congress should enact legislation to 

eliminate the practice of official time. One potential reform could 

eliminate official time and nullify a frequent union argument in 

favor of the union subsidy. 

Unions contend that official time is necessary because Federal 

employee unions are required by law to represent nonmembers who 

do not pay dues. This problem can easily be solved by lifting the 

legal requirement for Federal employee unions to represent nonmembers. Congress should consider implementing what is known 

as Workers Choice, a members-only union policy that relieves 

unions of the obligation to represent nonmembers, and as a result, 

eliminates the need for official time. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Membership in and representation by a union should be voluntary. Nonmembers should not be forced to work under a unionnegotiated agreement they do not want, and unions should not be 

forced to represent employees who do not pay dues. A policy of 

Workers Choice addresses union concerns, eliminates the need for 

official time, and protects workers’ freedom of association. 

Short of eliminating official time, Federal agencies must track 

and record official time in greater detail and with more precision. 

Under the current accounting regime, the cost of official time is severely underestimated. Further, the true cost of the union subsidy 

is difficult to determine because of poor tracking and recording of 

when employees use official time. 

Across the Federal Government, what activities Federal employees engage in while on official time is relatively unknown. The enactment of H.R. 1293, sponsored by Representative Dennis Ross, 

would increase transparency regarding official time. Specifically, it 

requires OPM to furnish a report on the cost of official time 

throughout the Federal Government on an annual basis, which includes information presented in the current OPM report, details 

the specific activities for which official time was granted, details official time’s impact on agency operations, and determine the 

amount of office space granted to unions to conduct official time activities. 

Taxpayers have a right to know how much tax dollars are used 

to finance official time and what activities Federal employees undertake instead of the job they are hired to do. I applaud the subcommittee’s inquiry into the use of official time, and I would welcome any questions. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kovacs follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 31272.001
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 31272.002
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 31272.003
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 31272.004
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 31272.005
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 31272.006
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 31272.007
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 31272.008
15 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Gilson, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BOB GILSON 

Mr. GILSON. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for the opportunity—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. If you’ll hit the red button there. 

Mr. GILSON. Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee. I’m a retired Federal employee. I’ve worked in this area 

for over 40 years. As an agency representative, adviser, advocator, 

and negotiator, I regularly write for FedSmith, a website devoted 

to Federal issues, and have done so for over 10 years. I currently 

train, advise, and bargain on behalf of Federal agencies as a contractor. 

The Civil Service Reform Act was passed in 1978, and I was at 

the Civil Service Commission at that time as a labor relations person. Its labor relations provisions were touted by its sponsors as an 

encoding of President Nixon and President Ford’s executive orders. 

It was to establish basic employee rights under a law continuing 

as it did before. The law has turned into a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. 

One result, and why we’re here today, is the evolution of a concept of official time no one 40 years ago either intended or would 

believe. 

The law’s creation of a Federal Labor Relations Authority and 

general counsel to administer government labor relations has had 

far-reaching consequences on Federal Government. The case law 

expanding the statute’s official time and the creation of other broad 

and costly union subsidies is only one such sequence. 

Recently, OPM issued a report on official time for fiscal year 

2016. OPM admits the report relies on agencies’ submissions and 

that some agencies didn’t even submit reports. This report, frankly, 

should not be relied upon. No one knows what official time costs. 

No one. 

As an example, the report says the Justice Department unions 

use the same official time as the Department of Defense. Justice 

has about 120,000 employees. Defense has 750,000. I believe DOD 

is more organized than Justice is in terms of labor relations. It also 

reports that VA, the Department of Veterans Affairs, is almost 

three times as much as DOD or DOJ, but yet VA has less than half 

the number of employees of the Department of Defense. VA’s numbers are probably closer to the truth, but are also unreliable. 

Based on my 44 years representing agencies and interacting with 

program managers, I bet OPM’s gross total is low by a factor of 5 

or 10, and that’s not a percentage figure. No one knows. 

By the way, labor relations official time is not the only official 

time representatives get. In 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13522 requiring agencies to engage in predecisional involvement on agency decisions and other activities. The unions 

complained that agencies would hold them to official time in labor 

agreements. They were advised by OPM that since they were complying with a Presidential order, duty time, not official time, would 

be appropriate for union involvement in order activities. Many 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

thousands of hours were used under this order. No one knows what 

it cost. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity regulations creates what it 

also calls official time. A Federal employee representing an EEO 

complainant in any stage of the process is on EEOC’s official time. 

EEOC also specifies the activities warranting its official time. 

There are literally hundreds of thousands of EEO allegations a 

year. No one knows what this costs. Also true of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board and Workers’ Compensation. I did not include 

EEOC, MSPB, or OWCP time in my estimates. 

In agencies you might ask why don’t they hold people accountable for this? Well, if you’re a supervisor and you have a union 

steward, are you going to risk the ULPs and grievances if you try 

to hold their feet to the fire? In addition, if somebody is representing someone in an EEO complaint and management holds 

their feet to the fire on reporting time, what they’ll get is a reprisal 

complaint. That’s a fact. 

Official time, however defined, and other free services have never 

been accurately reported. All of the costs—office space, furniture, 

computers, internet space—all of these costs are covered by labor 

agreements in the government. Nobody knows what they cost. 

Federal unions pay nothing inside an agency to represent employees, not a single penny. When they walk in the door, their official time, their offices, their space, in many cases their travel, their 

training of the representatives is all paid for by the taxpayer. 

In closing, no one in 1978, not even the unions themselves, would 

have believed that the cost of Federal employee union representation would be entirely borne by the taxpayer and that virtually all 

union dues would be available to those unions as discretionary 

funds. The taxpayer has paid many billions of dollars over the last 

40 years for Federal labor union activity and growth. I for one don’t 

have a clue what they got for their money, because nobody knows 

what this actually costs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gilson follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 31272.009
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 31272.010
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 31272.011
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 31272.012
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 31272.013
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 31272.014
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 31272.015
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 31272.016
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 31272.017
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 31272.018
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 31272.019
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 31272.020
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 31272.021
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 31272.022
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 31272.023
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 31272.024
33 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Gilson. 

Mr. West, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DARRELL M. WEST, PH.D. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you. 

Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am 

vice president of governance studies at the Brookings Institution 

and the author of several books. My newest book is The Future of 

Work: Robots, AI, and Automation, and it looks at the impact of 

new technologies on the workplace, education, and public policy. 

What I want to do today is to summarize my testimony on official time, and I’m going to talk about three points: How much it 

costs the Federal Government, the benefits of official time, and how 

proposed changes would affect Federal employees. 

In its April report, the Office of Personnel Management estimated that official time in fiscal year 2016 totaled 3.6 million hours 

and cost around $174.8 million. That comes to 2.95 hours per employee each year, and that compares to 2.88 hours in fiscal year 

2014. Based on that, the report concluded that the overall 2016 

hourly total represents an increase in official time over that of fiscal year 2014. But based on my reading on the report, I don’t believe that conclusion is warranted by the data. 

The difference between 2.95 hours and 2.88 hours in 2014 is 

seven-hundredths of an hour or 4 minutes per employee for the 

year. A GAO analysis indicated concern about the OPM methodology and notes that the OPM estimate could be higher or lower. 

Given those data limitations, it’s impossible to know if official time 

costs are rising, staying the same, or actually decreasing. 

There are a number of benefits of official time. Among the activities that take place through that mechanism include things such 

as the discussion of grievances, dispute resolutions, labor relations 

training, and new department initiatives, among other things. 

These activities are important for labor management relationships 

and they promote a public purpose. They establish vehicles for communications. They provide opportunities for employees to air grievances, and they offer a mechanism to resolve conflict. As such, they 

are vital for agency operations. 

There have been several efforts to alter current rules on official 

time. For example, the U.S. Department of Education has eliminated official time as part of its new labor contract. In addition, the 

Official Time Reform Act of 2017 proposes major changes in the existing law. For example, it says that an employee may not be 

granted official time for purposes of engaging in any political activity, including lobbying activity. 

In my view, adoption of this provision would weaken labor management relations in the Federal Government, would reduce the 

ability of government employees to air their concerns with management, and undermine agency performance. Like every other American, it is important that Federal employees have the right to express their viewpoints and petition government for a redress of 

grievances. I think curtailing those rights would deny Federal 

workers important privileges that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Thank you, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Mr. West follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 31272.025
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 31272.026
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 31272.027
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 31272.028
39 

Mr. HICE. [presiding.] Thank you very much. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair? 

Mr. HICE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m sorry. Just a unanimous consent request. I 

have four documents I would ask to enter into the record: a statement of the National Treasury Employees Union, the statement of 

the American Federation of Government Employees, the statement 

of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and a copy of an unfair labor charge filed by the American 

Federation of Government Employees against the Department of 

Education. 

Mr. HICE. Without objection. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

Mr. HICE. You’re welcome. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I thank each of the witnesses for being here. We’ve got—do I 

have a graph? Is it available? If not, I’ll go over some of the basics 

of it. 

There’s been an increase in official time since 2010 through 2016 

of over 17 percent. 3.6 million hours were used on official time in 

2016. 

Mr. Kovacs, Mr. Gilson, do those figures sound somewhat accurate to you from, what you’ve tracked? 

Mr. KOVACS. Yes. I mean, that does sound accurate, but as I said 

in my testimony, as well as Mr. Gilson, you know—— 

Mr. HICE. Severely unreliable. 

Mr. KOVACS. Yes. 

Mr. HICE. Underestimated. 

Mr. Gilson, does that sound ballparkish to you? 

Mr. GILSON. No. The OPM admits that its report is inaccurate. 

Mr. HICE. All right. So more or less? 

Mr. GILSON. I’d say it’s—as I said in my testimony, it’s low by 

a factor of 5 or 10. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. All right. So we’ve got, based on what OPM has 

given us, we’ve got somewhere—if you take an average 8-hour day, 

we have almost half a million days a year that the taxpayers are 

paying. 

Mr. GILSON. Easy. 

Mr. HICE. And as your testimony is what you’re saying today, 

Mr. Kovacs, that is severely underestimated. This is quite disturbing to many of us because it’s all riding on the backs of the 

taxpayers. 

Now, just for an example, the Department of Veterans Affairs 

has nearly 2,000 employees who are involved in official time in one 

capacity or another, hundreds of them 100 percent of their time 

doing official time. So they were hired to do a specific job and 

they’re doing none of that job, instead doing 100 percent union 

work but getting paid for the job they were hired to do. 

Of these 100 percent people on official time, who is doing the 

work that they were hired to do, Mr. Kovacs? 

Mr. KOVACS. Well, it’s unknown. Potentially, new hires would 

have to be made to do their work, overtime assignments would 

have to be given to employees who are not on official time. But due 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

to the lack of reporting, it’s unclear. Potentially, their jobs were not 

met, and potentially, the work was not done. 

Mr. HICE. Mr. Gilson, would you agree with that? 

Mr. GILSON. There’s an early FLRA case, Federal Labor Relations Authority case, which said that whatever time was negotiated, the agency—or used, the agency was obviously obliged to get 

its work done. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So with the VA, just for example, of those who 

were involved in 100 percent official time, we have nurses, addiction therapists, pharmacists, physicians, we have people who are 

very important to the care of veterans not doing the job they were 

hired, 100 percent of their time going to unions. This is very disturbing to me. 

Mr. Gilson, something you said in your testimony I want to come 

back to that caught my attention. You said, quote: ‘‘Federal unions 

pay almost nothing toward the cost of their day-to-day operations 

within the agency. This creates large surpluses that may support 

lobbying, organizing, and other internal union business since the 

taxpayer is paying operational costs.’’ 

That is quite a powerful statement. Are you saying that these 

Federal employee unions can’t afford to divert resources to other 

activities besides union operations because the taxpayer is subsidizing the union in essence? 

Mr. GILSON. AFGE currently has a $54 million set of assets that 

is able to build—and by the way, that is the national headquarters. 

That doesn’t count their councils and locals. I would say it’s probably $150 million in assets. 

Mr. HICE. All right. And those are coming from the taxpayers. 

Mr. GILSON. Coming from the dues paid because they don’t pay 

any—— 

Mr. HICE. Dues and taxpayers, okay. 

Mr. GILSON. Yes. 

Mr. HICE. So is it fair to say that taxpayers are subsidizing 

them? 

Mr. GILSON. One hundred percent. 

Mr. HICE. All right. So you mentioned AFGE. How involved are 

they politically? 

Mr. GILSON. That’s a question I don’t know the answer to, Congressman. I do know that they send—they don’t send Federal employees out, but they do send their employees out to work either 

on behalf of or against people running for office. 

Mr. HICE. Well, I can answer that question. They spent nearly 

$2 million last cycle giving to employees—or giving to candidates, 

92 percent were Democrats. The National Treasury employee, the 

IRS union, right at 96 percent of their donations went to Democrats. 

I think when all of this is riding on the backs of taxpayers, it 

seems greatly alarming that the taxpayers are paying, number one, 

for people to do union work rather than the job they were hired to 

do, but then the union turns around and is involved in lobbying 

and political activity. Is that something that the unions are supposed to be involved with? Mr. Kovacs? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

Mr. KOVACS. Well, certainly labor unions have every right to engage in political activities. I would just say that, you know, the taxpayer shouldn’t have to subsidize their representational activities. 

Mr. HICE. All right. That’s the point I’m getting at. I realize my 

time has expired. 

I will now recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

Of course, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If 

we’re going to talk about political support, I wonder what kind of 

tax payoff Sheldon Adelson got and the Koch brothers got in the 

recent tax cut bill, and who do they support? Almost exclusively 

Republicans. 

So if we’re going to talk about, you know, quid pro quos or the 

implication of quid pro quos, we can certainly have that discussion. 

I’d be glad to have that discussion. 

I assume labor unions support people who support them. They 

act in their own self-interests, like any other donor. Mr. West, 

might you agree with that? 

Mr. WEST. I would certainly agree with that. And all of the activities that we’re talking about, the establishment of official time, 

the activities that are taking place, were authorized by the Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978. And I would just like to remind members of the subcommittee that Act passed the Senate on an 87-to1 vote, and the House agreed to the conference report on a 365-to8 vote. So it was passed on a purely bipartisan basis. Almost nobody in Congress opposed it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. But Mr. Gilson makes a point. He says, 

yes, that’s true, but in 1978, nobody foresaw the expansion of the 

use of official time. No one had that in mind, when they passed 

that bill, that it’s evolved into something that would not be recognizable to those people. Would you comment on that? 

Have I got that accurate, Mr. Gilson? 

Mr. GILSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. Mr. West, what about that? 

Mr. WEST. I mean, what the legislation allowed was for representatives to assist their colleagues when their colleagues had 

grievances. If there was some disagreement in the workplace, if 

there is a sexual harassment charge, if there is a grievance that 

needed to get fired. So these individuals who are being supported 

through official time are helping their fellow employees. I see nothing wrong with that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. I want to explore that a little bit, because 

you talked in your testimony about the benefits of official time. 

Now, to listen to the narrative so far in this hearing, with the exception of you and me, one would assume that official time is a, you 

know, just a sinkhole. No good comes out of it. It’s all on the taxpayer dime. It’s a rip-off. It’s, you know, unions exploiting the taxpayer and, once again, not really putting in a full day. In some 

cases not putting in a day at all. 

Now, are there specific benefits that come from official time? For 

example, does official time cover whistleblowers, Mr. West? 

Mr. WEST. The legislation did actually set up the whistleblower 

process, and it enabled those working on official time to assist others who were helping to protect the Federal Government in terms 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

of the waste of taxpayers’ money, fraudulent activities that might 

be taking place, or any type of misconduct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So it’s not just a cost, there’s a benefit. We recover costs. Now, I take Mr. Gilson’s point and actually certainly 

am prepared to work with my Republican friends in trying to have 

more accurate data so that we know what we’re dealing with. I 

think that’s a totally fair point. But it has to work both ways. It 

can’t just be about the cost of the official time itself and how we 

calculate it; it’s also got to be some estimate of the benefits. What 

is the dollar value of the benefits? 

Now, in 2017, long after 1978, the GAO did a report about whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it said it actually—it actually praised official time that facilitated the whistleblower process at the VA. What did that whistleblower process entail? Well, it uncovered the overprescribing of opioids, which is a 

huge problem across the country and certainly with some of our 

veteran populations, and long wait times for veterans, which also 

then led to the uncovering of fraudulent form filling so that the VA 

looked better than, in fact, it was. 

Does that ring a bell with you, Mr. West, what I just said? 

Mr. WEST. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And is there a value to that? 

Mr. WEST. There is great value in that. Activities that take place 

under official time save the Federal Government money, so all the 

efforts to increase transparency and collect better data do need to 

identify not just the cost side but the benefit side. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Helping our veterans and maybe to the tune of 

millions of dollars. 

Mr. WEST. We all remember the problems of the veterans hospitals several years ago, and some of those were uncovered because 

Federal employees spoke up about those. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that’s not just our opinion, that’s the GAO 

finding in 2017. 

My time is up. I thank the chair. 

Mr. HICE. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize Mr. Ross for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROSS. I thank the chairman, and I thank the panel for being 

here. 

A year ago today, the House passed on suspension my bill, which 

Mr. Kovacs referred to, H.R. 1293, which is a very fundamental accountability transparency bill that would require OPM to submit a 

report each year, including the total amount of official time granted 

to employees. It doesn’t pass judgment on what that time was used 

for, what it should be used for, nothing. All it does is create the 

transparent process of accounting for all official time. 

And in furtherance of that, I would like to submit for the record 

an editorial from The Ledger, a newspaper in my district, discussing the benefits of that particular legislation. 

Mr. HICE. Without objection. 

Mr. ROSS. And so my first question is, is there any reason not 

to have a transparent accountability process, such as set forth in 

H.R. 1293, for the purpose of reporting official time? Mr. Kovacs? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

Mr. KOVACS. I think it’s an excellent idea. Taxpayers certainly 

should know what Federal employees are doing while paid by the 

public. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Gilson? 

Mr. GILSON. I honestly don’t think that you’d get an accurate report even under a statute. 

Mr. ROSS. But it is better than what we have today. 

Mr. GILSON. Absolutely, Congressman. 

Mr. ROSS. So you would have no objection to that? 

Mr. GILSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. West? 

Mr. WEST. I certainly support efforts of greater transparency in 

getting a better handle on the costs, but we also need to identify 

the benefits and how much money has been saved through this activity. 

Mr. ROSS. And, in fact, Mr. West, I think you helped me prove 

my case. In your testimony you say: ‘‘Given the data limitations, 

it is impossible to know whether official time costs are rising, staying the same, or decreasing.’’ 

So in that sense, it would be good to at least have that baseline 

accountability. Now, we have that accountability in sick time, in 

vacation time, health benefits, TSP submissions. So this is mainly 

just another accounting procedure to account for what time is being 

used on union time as opposed to being used in taxpayer business. 

And my next question, you know, we’re 435 Members of a board 

of trustees of a large organization that has the public trust as our 

foremost interest. And that public trust is exactly what we do with 

the taxpayer dollars it appropriated to us. 

Mr. Kovacs, can you say what benefit the taxpayers gain by the 

use of official time? 

Mr. KOVACS. I cannot. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Gilson? 

Mr. GILSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROSS. And, please. 

Mr. GILSON. Mr. West is correct in one regard, and that is that 

there is a benefit in some circumstances for labor and management 

to sit down and solve problems, and to negotiate and to work on 

employee grievances. Official time has gone so far beyond that, that 

that’s not just what it covers. 

For example, since the law passed, there have been over a quarter of a million unfair labor practice cases filed with the Federal 

Labor Relations Authority. The agencies have no say on them. And 

also, the use of official time in those cases is mandated by the Federal Labor Relations Authority for every witness, for everybody assisting one of their attorneys, for any employee that’s engaged in 

that gets official time. 

Mr. ROSS. Including whistleblowers. Whistleblowers don’t need 

official time, do they? They’re protected by statute. 

Mr. GILSON. Right. Whistleblower time is not the official time 

we’re here to talk about. It’s a separate matter under the law. 

If we’re here to talk about the labor relations official time, that’s 

all I’m talking about in terms of union abuse. And there is a great 

deal of union abuse of official time, at least in my experience. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Mr. ROSS. Is there any such similar process in the private sector 

in dealing with unions with regard to collective bargaining and the 

use of official time that anyone is aware of? 

Mr. GILSON. Some companies, some companies allow union stewards on the shop floor time to work a grievance. 

Mr. ROSS. And would you say, if you know, that there is an accountability of that time that’s being used in the furtherance of 

that private concern? 

Mr. GILSON. I think the company is going to exact a cost for that 

across the table if it’s hurting productivity. 

Mr. ROSS. Precisely. And so when we have a collective bargaining 

opportunity, how does it begin? What evidence is used by the 

unions to say this is how much we need in official time? Can you 

say, Mr. Gilson? Or how that process works. 

Mr. GILSON. I’m sitting at the bargaining table right now with 

a couple of agencies as their chief negotiator, and I’ve done this my 

whole career. What the unions—what the unions put on the table 

is a proposal, and what happens eventually is trade-offs are made. 

I hesitate to say this, but I believe it’s true. I have yet to see a 

Federal sector union take a—anything less than a union institutional benefit over an employee benefit in negotiations. So what 

happens is, if an agency wants to accomplish something, it often 

trades the union benefit to get something done. 

Mr. ROSS. Got you. 

Mr. GILSON. I’ve seen this happen over and over again. And 

that’s how unions have managed to leverage the amount of official 

time and other costs that the agencies pay, is the agencies want 

to accomplish things—by the way, in this city, to get a space move 

done within the beltway, I’ve known agencies to take 6, 7, 8 years 

in negotiations because the unions don’t want the change to happen. So they delay, they file complaints, they file unfair labor practices. Eventually, the agency has to play let’s make a deal if they 

want the move to occur at all. All of that costs official time. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Gilson. My time has expired. 

Mr. HICE. I thank the gentleman. 

We will take some time for a few more questions if any members 

have any further. 

Let me ask you this: There are hundreds of employees making over $100,000 a year, and they’re involved with official time. The 

Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, 472 employees, 100 

percent official time. What does this do for an agency when you 

have this many people not doing the job they were hired to do? 

Mr. KOVACS. Well, I would assume that it makes it more difficult 

to achieve the agency mission when you don’t have—when you 

have that many employees who, you know, don’t perform any agency activity. And I think this is one of the things where official time 

is supposed to be given if it’s reasonable and necessary and in the 

public interest. And I’m not sure how an employee who never does 

their regularly assigned duties can achieve the public interest. 

Mr. HICE. Mr. Gilson? 

Mr. GILSON. What I’ve seen in my career is agency leadership 

sometimes says to the line supervisor don’t mess with the union official. We don’t want to hear the noise. Keep the noise down, number one. Number two is that supervisors and managers would rathVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31272.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

er have someone who wants to cause them problems away from the 

job. So what do they do? Other employees cover. If they can hire 

somebody, they try. 

There’s an expression in the business that I’m in, he’s not heavy, 

he’s my colleague, which a lot of people apply to in situations of 

100 percent official time, especially in places where the union is 

less than 20 percent of the people pay dues, which is very common 

in the Federal service, less than one in five employees pays dues. 

Mr. HICE. Just out of curiosity, I mentioned the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, and we’ve got a host of other agencies, but the 

VA seems to have a large number, 100 percent on official time. Do 

any of you have any information regarding other agencies where 

there seems to be an unusually high number of individuals on 100 

percent? 

Mr. GILSON. I think that there’s quite a number in HHS, Social 

Security, and the other HHS agencies. I think in the Bureau of 

Prisons, there’s a number—wherever the union activity is great. In 

Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. In 

places where you see a lot of grievances, a lot of unfair labor practices filed, you see people with 100 percent. 

In addition, Mr. Congressman, the most highly paid Federal employees are in FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; 

the Securities and Exchange Commission; National Credit Union 

Administration; and the Comptroller of the Currency. Those folks, 

when you say $100,000, some of those people in those agencies are 

make $200,000 a year. 

Mr. HICE. Right. 

Mr. GILSON. The other thing that you may not know is that those 

agencies bargain pay without a specific authorization from the Congress to do so. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Several months ago, in fact, in January, I joined 

with Chairman Gowdy and Chairman Meadows and others writing 

a letter trying to request information from various agencies on official time. It took months and months and months, over 5 months, 

and then when we finally got a response, it was so difficult to compile. Staff worked countless hours trying to get all that information 

in such a way that it could even be remotely understandable. And 

we’re still going through it. 

Do any agencies really keep track of official time usage, to your 

knowledge? 

Mr. GILSON. Some agencies have, as part of the time and attendance system, the employees go into their computer and put their 

hours in. If you’re a union steward or official, one of the blocks is 

official time. 

Mr. HICE. And do we know, for those that use official time, what 

they are using it for? And I’m not talking about collective bargaining, all that kind of stuff that we know they’re supposed to be 

using. What other activities are utilized during that time? 

Mr. GILSON. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has, generally, over its case law years made it an unfair labor practice in 

many cases for an agency to inquire what the union is using the 

official time for. 

Mr. HICE. So the agency doesn’t even know? 

Mr. GILSON. Oh, no clue, in many cases. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

Mr. HICE. Okay. All right. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman recognizes Mr. Connolly for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gilson, you talked about representing agencies on one side 

of the table and the unions are on the other side. Is that correct? 

Mr. GILSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is that what you do for a living? 

Mr. GILSON. Yes, sir. Well, not for a living. I’m retired. I do it 

part time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. But have you ever been hired by a 

union to represent them? 

Mr. GILSON. No, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ah, okay. 

Mr. GILSON. However, I was a high school teacher union representative for 6 years before I became a Federal employee. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Good for you. Some of my best friends are union 

members. 

So we have a hearing here with a very partisan memo that was 

not cleared on our side that’s filled with factual errors and misrepresentations. We have Mr. Kovacs who has an idealogical point 

of view about unions and what they ought to be doing, which is apparently very little. Even saying, just now, well, people are doing 

work they weren’t hired to do, meaning official time. And yet when 

I check the law, official time is actually—I mean, it is actually protected by the law. Not like they’re doing something wrong. 

Mr. Gilson makes a point I do concede and I think is valuable, 

that it has to be captured accurately. There has to be transparency. 

We’ve got to know how much time. But that’s not really what this 

hearing is about. 

This hearing is about attacking unions, and we heard it from our 

chairman, whom I respect. He don’t like the fact that they give 

money to the Democrats. And he doesn’t like the fact that they’re 

active. And we’re going to have a hearing where we don’t acknowledge any possible benefit from official time. And that disturbs me 

because that’s not an intellectually honest enterprise. That’s something else. That’s union bashing, and we’re apparently willing to 

distort facts and make assertions irrespective of the fact of the law 

Mr. West cited, which passed overwhelmingly. 

Mr. West, am I correct that contrary to sort of the image we’re 

kind of allowing here in this hearing, that we got out of control 

union members who are running around doing things they 

shouldn’t be doing and calling it official time? In every agency is 

there not an agreement that circumscribes official time? 

Mr. WEST. There are agreements. Supervisors have to approve 

the use of official time, so presumably, if these individuals were engaging in abhorrent acts, the supervisor would not be approving it. 

There are a number of good uses of the union time. We’ve recently 

seen a big increase in sexual harassment claims. That’s something 

that employees are subject to and often need assistance in drafting 

those types of grievances. Unions often are the first line of defense 

for those individuals. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is there also sort of informal troubleshooting that 

those people engage in so that it doesn’t even get to the official 

grievance stage? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

Mr. WEST. There certainly are preliminary efforts to resolve disputes that take place in the workplace. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And might that be something management might 

actually welcome? 

Mr. WEST. Management should welcome that because that would 

improve the operations of the agency. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And make the manager’s life a little easier? 

Mr. WEST. Exactly. And, of course, there are lots of efforts to reorganize, to introduce new administrative processes, there are new 

technologies coming to the workplace, all of which I applaud. Sometimes management needs help from union officials to get those 

things adopted. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, you know, Mr. Gilson talks about management just throwing in the towel sometimes saying just appease 

them because it’s easier than fighting. And I can see that. By the 

way, that happens in the private sector too with workforce. 

But what about that, Mr. West, is that something that we ought 

to be concerned about that management just—my words, not Mr. 

Gilson’s, you know, allowing unions to run amuck and kind of run 

the agency instead of the other way around? 

Mr. WEST. Well, there should be cooperation between labor and 

management, and if that doesn’t happen, we need to look at why 

that is not happening. But in a time period where I think all of us 

want the Federal Government to do a better job, we all want agencies to function much better, we need ways for employees to be able 

to communicate to management what is taking place. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And so another way of putting that might be 

labor management relations are kind of an important part of managing an agency toward its mission and its effectiveness. Sometimes it’s done well, sometimes it’s not in the public and the private sector. But the idea that there’s a labor management dynamic 

that has to be addressed is not a new concept, is it? 

Mr. WEST. It is not a new concept. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you, Mr. West. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a second round. 

Mr. HICE. I thank the gentleman. 

And we’ll now recognize Chairman Meadows, and we’ll be lenient 

on time since you missed the first round. If you have some extra 

questions, you’re welcome to. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. West, let me come directly to you because in your opening 

testimony, I was listening very closely, you would agree that we 

have no idea whether official time has increased or decreased. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. WEST. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And so—but you think official time is 

a good thing? 

Mr. WEST. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so if official time is a good thing and we don’t 

know whether we have more or less of it, do you not see that that’s 

a problem? Because if it’s a good thing, shouldn’t we have more of 

it? 

Mr. WEST. I’d like to see better data that actually captures both 

costs and benefits. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Because you have someone here who actually had the head of a union working with me in a previous career, 

and I can tell you that the relationship was extremely good because 

official time—I recognize the law and the contractual reason for official time. 

Here’s where I have a problem. When you have so many people 

on 100 percent official time, your statement you just made to the 

ranking member from Virginia about, well, they’re supposed to 

check in with their supervisor, if they’re on 100 percent official 

time, they don’t have to check in. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. WEST. No. The statute says that official time has to be approved by the supervisor. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So let me ask it a different way. Listen, I 

know the answer to the question, so I’ll ask it a different way. 

Those people, individuals that are on 100 percent official time, do 

you believe that they have the same accountability that someone 

who may be on 25 percent official time to their supervisors? 

Mr. WEST. If their supervisor has approved it, the answer would 

be yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. They have the same accountability? 

Mr. WEST. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And what quantifiable data do you have to back 

up that claim, Mr. West? Do you have anything from Brookings 

that would prove that? Because I would venture to say you do not. 

So what do you have? I’ll look at the numbers. What do you have 

to back that up? 

Mr. WEST. I mean, my sense is if someone is working 100 percent—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m not asking for your sense. I’m asking for real 

data to back up your claim. 

Mr. WEST. We’ve done a lot of research through our public management center. I spent 40 years kind of looking at governance 

questions. We do a lot of work on Federal agencies and how to improve their performance, and if supervisors are approving this—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Good, so you spent 40 years. Do you have any 

quantifiable data to suggest that someone who’s on 100 percent official time has the same accountability to their management as 

someone that is on partial official time? 

Mr. WEST. If they’re helping their colleagues file grievances, resolve disputes, communicate with management, there’s accountability there. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You answered a great question I didn’t ask. I 

asked, do you have any quantifiable data to support that hypothesis, Mr. West? After 40 years, do you have any data to support 

it? 

Mr. WEST. I’m just giving you the benefits of my research and 

case studies that we have undertaken—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So yes or no, do you have quantifiable data? 

Mr. WEST. Based on our research, we think the answer to that 

is that there is evidence in support of that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So the quantifiable data, we’ll give you 

30 days to get to this committee if you’ve got it. Is that enough 

time? 

Mr. WEST. Yes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And so you’re going to commit to get 

quantifiable data on that question. 

Mr. WEST. I will give you the benefit of my impressions, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s not what I’m asking for. We already have 

your impression. You’re an expert witness. You’re here. What I’m 

looking for is data. 

Here’s my problem. I’m willing to go with the ranking member 

on acknowledging that we have to have official time. Even there 

are some who probably ought to have 100 percent official time if 

indeed they’re the head of this and they’re doing—but at the same 

time, we have to have some kind of matrix to figure out who is 

being accountable and who is not, because according to your testimony, it’s a good thing, and we need to understand when it’s a 

good thing and when it’s not. Wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. WEST. Yes, I would agree with that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So if we have to make that determination, 

I have a real concern that we have people that they don’t have to 

check in with their management. I’m on 100 percent official time. 

In fact, as a supervisor, I wouldn’t expect them to be around if they 

were on 100 percent. I wouldn’t ask them to do any work on behalf 

of the taxpayer if they’re 100 percent. 

Do you see how that accountability may not be the same as 

someone who was only there part time? 

Mr. WEST. All I know is the statute still requires supervisor approval even if somebody is working 100 percent on official time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Do you—in your 40 years of experience, 

have you ever seen anybody who did not get supervisor approval? 

Mr. WEST. I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you’ve not seen anybody ever—and you’ve 

studied this, and you’ve never seen anybody not get supervisory approval in 40 years. That’s your sworn testimony here today? 

Mr. WEST. I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, either you know or you don’t. I mean—so 

you’ve not seen anybody? 

Mr. WEST. I can’t answer that question. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Gilson, have you seen anybody, ever? 

Mr. GILSON. Over and over and over again. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Mr. Kovacs, in your experience, have you 

seen that the accountability at some times is less than robust? 

Mr. KOVACS. Yeah. I mean, 2009 National Labor Relations Board 

Inspector General report showed that consistently supervisors did 

not approve of official time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. But you weren’t aware of that report, Mr. 

West. Is that correct? 

Mr. WEST. Which report? 

Mr. KOVACS. The 2009 inspector general report from the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. WEST. I’ve not seen that report. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But you study it and you’re an expert. You 

weren’t aware of that? 

Mr. WEST. I’ve not seen that report, no. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I didn’t ask you if you’ve seen it. Were you aware 

of it? That’s a different question. 

Mr. WEST. I’m aware the inspector general does lots of reports. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Mr. Chairman, I can see that this line 

of questioning is not producing any real results for me or Mr. West, 

so I’ll yield back. 

Mr. HICE. I thank the gentleman. 

Are there any other questions? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, in the spirit of 

what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, if we’re going to 

insist that Mr. West provide data in support of official time, I’d certainly like to see data to corroborate Mr. Gilson’s anecdotal observation that over and over and over again he has witnessed—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah. I have no objection to that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And am I the goose or the gander? 

No. I’m kidding. 

Mr. HICE. We may want to end there. 

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today. We appreciate 

you taking time. And the members who remained as well, thank 

you very much. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any member 

to submit a written opening statement or questions for the record. 

If there’s no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(51) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 31272.029
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 31272.030
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 31272.031
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 31272.032
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 31272.033
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 31272.034
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 31272.035
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 31272.036
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 31272.037
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 31272.038
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 31272.039
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 31272.040
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 31272.041
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 31272.042
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 31272.043
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 31272.044
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 31272.045
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 31272.046
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 31272.047
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 31272.048
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 31272.049
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 31272.050
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 31272.051
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 31272.052
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 31272.053
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 31272.054
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 31272.055
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 31272.056
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 31272.057
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 31272.058
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 31272.059
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 31272.060
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 31272.061
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 31272.062
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 31272.063
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 31272.064
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 31272.065
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 31272.066
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 31272.067
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 31272.068
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 31272.069
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 31272.070
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 31272.071
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 31272.072
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 31272.073
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 31272.074
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 75 here 31272.075
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 76 here 31272.076
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 77 here 31272.077
101 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 78 here 31272.078
102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 79 here 31272.079
103 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 80 here 31272.080
104 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 81 here 31272.081
105 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 82 here 31272.082
106 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 83 here 31272.083
107 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 84 here 31272.084
108 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 85 here 31272.085
109 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 86 here 31272.086
110 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 87 here 31272.087
111 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 88 here 31272.088