STATEMENT BY KENNETH T. BLAYLOCK, NATIONAL PRESIDENT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFL-CIO) BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL SERVICES, POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ON

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 13, 2013
• Sequence Number: 43
• Publication Date: March 18, 1988
• Content Type: MISC

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Affiliated with AFL-CIO
80 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001
STATEMENT BY
KENNETH T. BLAYLOCK
NATIONAL PRESIDENT
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(AFL-CIO)
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FEDERAL SERVICES, POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ON
LEAVE SHARING
S.1595 AND S.2140
MARCH 18, 1988
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
My name is Kenneth T. Blaylock. I am the National
President of the American Federation of Government Employees
(AFGE), AFL-CIO. AFGE represents over 700,000 government
employees across this country. I am pleased to appear here
today and to address S.1595, the Federal Employees Leave Act of
1987, introduced by Senator Peter Domenici (R-NM), and S.2140,
The Federal Employees Leave Bank Act of 1988, introduced by
Senator David Pryor (D-AR).
The spectre of being confronted with the choice of either
holding one's job or tending to a seriously ill spouse or child
haunts too many federal employees. It is a cruel choice and a
choice that need not be faced if there are appropriate
personnel policies in place.
We commend both Senator Domenici and Chairman Pryor for
their innovative approaches to this problem and commend the
Committee for holding these timely hearings.
Essentially, both of these bills set up a five-year
experimental program whereby federal employees would be
authorized to contribute their annual leave to other employees
who are facing medical or family emergencies when the recipient
employees have used up their own leave. In both bills, leave
sharing is limited to annual leave; we encourage the Committee
to consider broadening the pool of potential donated leave to
include sick leave as well as annual leave. This may violate
the cost neutrality of the bills, but such costs would likely
be quite small given the limited number of employees who would
qualify for the leave.
There are other alternatives and approaches to this problem
such as those contained in H.R.925, the Parental and Medical
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
.)
Leave Act introduced by Representative William Clay (D-MO), or
S.249, the Parental and Medical Leave Act of 1987 introduced by
Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Arlen Spector (R-PA),
which provide mandatory leave without pay for such situations.
We see S.1595 and S.2140 as complimentary with such approaches,
not as an alternative to H.R. 925 or S.249.
The basic difference between S.1595 and S.2140 is that with
S.1595 leave is donated and received on an individual case-by-
case basis while with S.2140 employees generically contribute
to a leave bank and contributors are eligible to receive the
banked leave for medical emergencies. Conceptually, S.1595 is
more like charity with employees contributing their leave to
those who have the misfortune to need such leave. S.2140, on
the other hand, is more like insurance with employees
voluntarily contributing a small portion of their leave to
cover their own risk of needing such leave. By and large, AFGE
favors the approach taken in S.2140.
When we testified in the House on H.R.2487, which is
similar to S.I595, we raised several concerns which are also
relevant to S.1595. One related to the issue of coercion.
Section 6337 of S.1595 explicitly forbids direct or indirect
coercion of employees to contribute; however, there are no
penalties attached to such action. But on a more fundamental
level, whenever the leave recipient is in a managerial position
and in the future will have a major say in employee's
promotions and job evaluations, there is fertile ground for the
appearance, if not the reality, of favoritism. It is difficult
to see how this appearance can be avoided unless the
legislation explicitly bars the donation of leave to one's
2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
direct supervisors. There also seems to be an existing
statutory ban on supervisors accepting items of value from
their employees which may create some problems for this
legislation.
Another concern is with the design of the program on a case-
by-case basis where donors and recipients are linked. It is
our understanding the leave donors would be contributing to a
particular recipient who qualifies under agency guidelines.
The actual mechanics of how this would occur is difficult to
envision. Would the recipient be expected to solicit such
leave from his friends or co-workers? This could be a
demeaning and embarrassing procedure. Would the agency
publicize the employee's particular case and accept donations?
This could be disturbing to the employee, especially in
sensitive illnesses such as AIDS.
Finally, we note that section 6339(a) allows for collective
bargaining on the leave transfer program where organizations
hold exclusive recognition. We encourage the Committee, if it
decides to pursue S.1595, to include language which clarifies
that all aspects of the program, including the decision-making
process on an employee's eligibility to be a leave recipient,
are subject to such negotiations.
While having the leave transfer program of S.1595 in place
would be a clear improvement over the status quo for those
unfortunate to have such a medical emergency, such employees
would still be faced with large uncertainties; for example,
"Will enough co-workers contribute?" or "When will the leave
run out?"
3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
\.2
The approach envisioned by S.2140 addresses most of these
concerns. By establishing leave pools, donors and recipients
are not directly linked. [In this regard, we do not see the
need for section 6335(2).] Problems of coercion and propriety
are basically removed.
Also, by establishing that to qualify as a leave recipient
an employee must have also been a leave contributor, a strong
incentive is created to establish sufficient donations to cover
recipient needs. Given sufficient donations, recipients would
be relieved of the uncertainty which we noted under S.1595.
Given this general support for the approach taken by
S.2140, we offer the following as areas the Committee may want
to consider:
O First, the Committee may want to consider a government-wide
leave bank
instead of agency specific leave
banks. A small
agency which has a disproportionate share of leave
recipients may find the hour standards in section 6336(b)1
insufficient to meet the agency's needs while another
agency with few leave recipients may be able to sharply
reduce the hour standards thereby setting very different
standards of leave recipient eligibility between agencies.
A broad principle in insurance is to spread risk as widely
as possible. Following this principle in this case would
argue for a government-wide approach instead of the agency-
specific approach. In addition, consolidating the
administration costs may provide some economies of scale to
the program.
O Second, while we applaud the inclusion of employee
representatives in the administration of the program, if
- 4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
such representatives are to play a full and meaningful
role, provision should be made for "official time" (release
time) for such employee representatives who are employed by
the agency for their work on the leave bank.
0 Third, care needs to be exercised so that ,employees do not
become donors only when they are intending to be
recipients. While section 6336(2) clearly intends to
establish this criteria, we are not sure if it is
sufficient to avoid such adverse selection action.
0 Fourth, while this may be stepping beyond the scope of the
proposed legislation, there may be merit in considering a
mandatory donor program in the context of liberalizing the
annual leave program. Our thinking is that if everyone
contributed to the bank, the required contribution would
likely be quite low, and one would avoid the case of a non-
leave donor being denied eligibility even though they had a
certifiable medical emergency. But given the overall
abysmal state of compensation of federal workers, a cut in
such compensation (through a required leave contribution)
could not be sanctioned. However, since it appears
unlikely that Congress is likely to address the
compensation gap directly through increased pay, a case
could be made for liberalizing federal leave, and, in that
context, a mandatory leave bank contribution could be
considered.
Finally, if the Committee would like to use the five-year
experimental program as an opportunity to examine a variety of
leave-sharing programs, we would strongly recommend that the
5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
1/4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9
Committee simply make leave sharing a mandatory subject for
bargaining. In this way, workers and management could sit down
and work out such programs to meet the widely varying needs at
the federal worksites across the country. Often, legislating a
personnel matter on a nationwide basis is less preferable than
allowing the affected parties to work out the best solution
through collective bargaining.
From a broader perspective, as this country moves toward
the twenty-first century and as our economic system becomes
more entwined with the world economy, several trends are self-
evident. First, there has been a tremendous growth in the two-
earner family. No longer can it be assumed that the family
unit will have an adult available for full-time health care in
the event of a medical or health emergency.
Second, it becomes clear that those countries which provide
for a flexible work life which allows for the world of work to
be integrated with education, child care, and families have an
edge in competitiveness.
For these reasons, we think legislation which meets the
intent of S.1595 and S.2140 is both humane and good personnel
management.
Thank you.
6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/02/13: CIA-RDP90M00005R000700040043-9