McCain plan bad for wounded GI
By John Gages
SPECIAL TO THE ARIZONA DAILY STAR
With 1.6 million American heroes returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, never has it been more urgent to strengthen the veterans' health-care system.
A Rand Corporation study found that 300,000 veterans of these wars suffer from symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, while 320,000 may have experienced injuries ranging "from mild concussions to severe penetrating head wounds."

Yet only 53 percent of traumatic-stress sufferers have been treated by medical professionals.
The Veterans Administration has been subjected to budget cuts and rampant outsourcing. As a result, 1,8 million veterans could not get care at a VA facility, according to the American Journal of Public Health.
This is unacceptable. Aker asking America's finest to risk their lives, our government should hold up its end of bargain and give every veteran world-class health care for life.
The treatment of our veterans should be an election issue that all the candidates transcend partisanship to agree on. Astonishingly, the person who should be leading the charge — a war hero who is the presidential nominee of his party — is doing the opposite.

Sen. John McCain voted against increasing funding for veterans' health care from 2004 through 2007. He voted against providing funding for veterans' health care. He has consistently supported outsourcing VA jobs — costing many veterans who work for the VA their livelihoods — and backed the outsourcing at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, site of the scandalous mistreatment of injured soldiers.

The centerpiece of McCain's veterans agenda would abandon the Veterans Health Administration system for a plastic card that veterans would use to get care from private medical providers. This would lead to disaster.
Despite a recent lack of support from the White House, the Veterans Health Administration is a national model that provides better care at lower cost than any other health system in the country. Various independent reports, from the New England Journal of Medicine to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, have lauded the VHA for its unrivaled quality of care and high patient satisfaction. Yet it does this while spending $540 less per patient than the national average.

How has the VHA succeeded? By adopting electronic records, enabling veterans to access their medical files at any VA facility or even from their home computers. By using its purchasing power to negotiate low prices from prescription drug makers. By hiring first-rate doctors and nurses.
McCain would undo these gains. His card would direct veterans outside the VHA (often, into HMOs), where they will face worse care and (along with taxpayers) higher costs.
The more patients who use the card, the more pressure there will be to close VA medical facilities, sending America's most successful health care system into a death spiral — a betrayal of the young men and women fighting so bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Any candidate who is serious about supporting our veterans should build on the VHA's innovations and achievements, end underfunding and understaffing, and expand its capacity to meet the new demand.
Surely, that is the least the next president can do for those who have already sacrificed so much. Write to John Gage at gagej@afge.org.

AFGE Applauds Sen. Akaka for Bill Enhancing VA's Ability
to Recruit & Retain Nurses
(WASHINGTON) — The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) today applauded Sen. Akaka (D-HI), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for introducing the proposed Veterans' Medical Personnel Recruitment and Retention Act of 2008, to address key staffing issues within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The bill, S. 2969, is aimed at making the VHA the "employer of choice" for medical professionals, increasing its ability to be competitive in actively recruiting and retaining quality personnel.
"Sen. Akaka's legislation gets to the heart of the critical staffing needs facing frontline employees in the Veterans' Health Administration. A recent study noted that as many as 300,000 returning service members may be battling forms of post-traumatic stress and an additional 320,000 have suffered a traumatic brain injury while deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. These veterans need to know that we are here for them and that we can provide for them," said J. David Cox, a retired VA nurse and national secretary-treasurer of AFGE. "This legislation will go a long way in helping frontline employees meet their needs."

In the face of a national nurse shortage the VHA must be able to attract and retain employees in all nursing positions, and support current employees who wish to pursue a VA nursing career. The proposed legislation addresses these critical areas by strengthening the process for setting nurse locality pay, limiting mandatory overtime to true emergencies, lifting the pay caps for licensed practical nurses and certified registered nurse anesthetists, providing part-time nurses with increased work place protections and increasing educational loan assistance.
AFGE looks forward to discussing these and other provisions in the bill at the Committee's May 21st health care legislation hearing.
AFGE is the largest federal employee union, representing 600.000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia

AFGE TESTIFIES ON RECRUITING AND HIRING THE
NEXT GENERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
(WASHINGTON) - The American Federation of Government Employees' (AFGE) National President. John Gaze testified today before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs about overcoming the obstacles in hiring the next generation of federal employees. In his testimony. John Gage stated that AFGE strongly supports hiring policies that facilitate the hiring of talented new employees. However, he told the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia that AFGE would continue to oppose any and all proposals that attempt to circumvent strict adherence to the merit system and veterans' preference

The federal government has been criticized by those attempting to enter the federal system for its lengthy hiring process, but the nature of work in the public sphere requires a secure process, including background checks. security clearances, and education and past employment verification. "Hiring the next generation of federal employees is a serious undertaking. Those charged with the task have both a legal and social responsibility to conduct federal hiring in the most open and fair way possible. and openness and fairness take time." added Gage
In his testimony, Gage offered several solutions to overcoming the federal governments recruitment challenges and labored hiring process. The downsizing of the 1990s and the indiscriminate contracting out conducted by the Bush Administration have left personnel offices across the federal government decimated. There are too few personnel to handle the duties related to hiring in the most expeditious way. Hiring more federal employees to work in agency human resource offices would be an enormously important step in speeding up the hiring process." said Gage.

AFGE recognizes that the federal government has made real progress in attempting to provide succession planning. as waves of baby boomers begin to retire. The most important of these reforms being the Federal Workplace Flexibilities Act of 2006, which enables agencies to entice both internal job candidates and those outside the federal sector with large bonuses equal to as much as 100 percent of salary for recruitment, retention and relocation. The law also allows agencies to provide assistance to recent graduates through loan repayment programs. Unfortunately, agencies have been unable to adequately implement these incentives because of the Bush Administration's refusal to fund the programs.

-The common thread to implementing the changes necessary to meet the challenges in hiring and recruiting quality talent for public service is money. I understand that for some that may be a concern, but not to effectively staff our federal agencies with our nation's best talent is to do us all a severe disservice," concluded Gage.

AFGE Launches Nationwide Ad Campaign to Fully Fund the VA
Union Representing VA Workers [Age Elected Officials Not to Privatize Veterans' Health Care
(WASHINGTON) — The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) today launched a nationwide radio ad campaign urging Congress to provide full, mandatory funding for the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA). In the ad AFGE urges presidential candidate Sen. John McCain to support full funding for the VA.
As the nation's highest profile veteran and a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain is now in a position to do something that will have long range impact on the health care of his fellow veterans," said AFGE President John Gage. "We feel strongly that recent proposals by Senator McCain are misguided,' he added.

In February, Sen. McCain told press in New Hampshire that he plans to offer veterans vouchers to receive care at private for-profit healthcare facilities. A move, according to AFGE, that would be tantamount to dismantling the current Veteran's Health Administration (VHA), which is widely regarded as the nation's foremost medical health care system.

The ad features veteran and AFGE member Phil Glover who expresses concerns about the McCain voucher plan calling it a means of privatizing veterans' health care and undermining the solvency of the VA. Referring the McCain's voucher plan, Clover says, That would be the end of the VA—the end of the promise and the start of a huge boondoggle for big corporations."

"While it has been argued that the VA has not been responsive to the growing needs of burgeoning veterans' population, many of the short falls can be directly attributed to a lack of funding," said J. David Cox, AFGE National Secretary-Treasurer who is also a former VA nurse. "Vouchers could cripple the system by diverting much needed funds away from veterans' health care. We are urging all members of Congress to support full, mandatory funding for the VA. But, because of his political stature we are especially targeting Sen. McCain."
The radio ads start airing May 10, 2008 in North Carolina, New Mexico, Florida, Colorado, Minnesota, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

To hear the ad go to www.afge.org
AFGE is the largest federal employee union, representing 600,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.

AFGE Testifies Before House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees on Collective Bargaining Rights
Union Commends Congressional Leaders for Addressing Personnel Problems for VA Nurses and Physicians
(WASHINGTON) - J. David Cox, national secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). testified last week before House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees on pending personnel legislation. Cox, who is also a retired Veterans Affairs (VA) registered nurse, commended Congressional leaders for their attention to the concerns of frontline VA health care providers.
On behalf of our nearly 160,000 members in the VA, more than two-thirds of whom are on the front-lines of veterans' care at VA hospitals, clinics, and long term care facilities, we would like to the thank the committee members for hearing our concerns," said Cox.

The AFGE supported pending legislation aimed at increasing the VA's ability to retain and recruit nurses, restoring collective bargaining rights, providing assured funding for VA health care, and expanding access to specialized care for women veterans.

AFGE commended Senator Rockefeller for introducing S. 2824 to restore collective bargaining rights, and cautioned Committee members that VA's current assault on these rights undermines all other legislative efforts to address recruitment and retention because it deprives nurses and physicians of the ability to grieve or negotiate over management actions that fail to comply with laws on nurse schedules, physician pay and other personnel matters.

"Over the past seven years, the VA has undergone a sea change in personnel policies that now hamper efforts to recruit and retain quality staff,- added Cox. The VA's current interpretation of Section 7422 of Title 38, that establishes collective bargaining rights for providers, widely impact employees' rights to grievances, arbitrations, and labor-management negotiations, as well as employees ability to receive fair locality compensation.
Mr. Cox applauded Senate VA Committee Chair Akaka for introducing S. 2969, a comprehensive nurse bill addressing premium pay, mandatory overtime and educational loan assistance through a comprehensive bill aimed at making VA policies will be more consistent and competitive with those in the private sector.

Union issues facing the Veterans Affairs Department
What’s at stake at VA?

• Master Agreement renegotiation -- department wide
• Budget shortfalls -- the Veteran Health Administration (VHA)
• Outsourcing -- VHA
• Physician pay -- VHA
• Saturday premium pay -- VHA
• Staffing and training shortages -- the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)

Master Agreement renegotiation
AFGE represents more than 150,000 employees at VA, which has one of the most worker-friendly contracts in the government. But now the department wants to yank workers’ rights and make changes to the contract signed in 1997.
What is AFGE doing?
VA three years ago told the union it wanted to renegotiate the contract. But the renegotiation has been stalled after a series of disagreements over the ground rules that VA said are favorable to the union. The arbitrator, however, ordered VA to renegotiate the contract with AFGE in April under the existing ground rules. AFGE will make sure that we get the best contract for our members.       

Budget shortfalls
VA operates the largest health care system in the country, providing care to about five million veterans at more than 800 facilities. But budget constraints over the years threaten to undermine the whole system. In fiscal 2006, for example, facilities in half of 21 Veterans Integrated Service Networks reported budget shortfalls, some as high as $30-40 million.  
At VA, budget shortfalls mean fewer healthcare workers to care for veterans, longer working hours for employees, longer waiting time for veterans to receive services, delayed facility construction and repairs, and closing of facilities. A VA hospital in Alaska, for example, had to turn away more than 600 veterans last year. Waiting lists for veterans to access care are as high as 1,600 in Boise and 700 in Minneapolis. It takes six to eight months for veterans in Central Texas to get specialty care.  Veterans are not the only ones who suffer. VA workers are pressured to work prolonged overtime, causing stress and burnout. The VA hospital in Seattle, for example, saw 93 nurses leave the agency last year due to chronic short staffing and pressure to discharge patients sooner. The problem will only get worse because half of the work force in many VA hospitals is eligible to retire in the next few years.   
What is AFGE doing?
Even though President Bush proposed a $2.9 billion budget increase for VA in 2007, it’s still not enough to address severe staffing shortages because of growing demand for healthcare from aging veterans and soldiers returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And underneath the proposed budget increase, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found a 13 percent cut in medical care dollars over the next five years. AFGE supports the 2005 Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act (H.R.515) sponsored by Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill, which would require that annual VA health care funding be based on the number of enrollees and medical and hospital inflation. The House has yet to take up the bill.

Outsourcing
VA is prohibited by a 1981 law from using money from the Veterans Health Administration to conduct outsourcing studies, including A-76 public-private competitions, unless the department receives specific funding from Congress. Congress passed the law so that scarce medical dollars for veterans wouldn't’t be used to conduct expensive outsourcing reviews. But the Bush administration has been trying to lift the ban. Last year, it worked with Sen. Larry Craig, R-ID, to introduce a bill that would do so. But thanks to AFGE’s hard work and bipartisan support from lawmakers, Craig’s proposal was shot down and replaced with a plan to allow limited A-76 studies of jobs held by VA employees and jobs that have been contracted out. This would make it the first time ever that Congress told an agency to hold A-76 studies on jobs that have been outsourced. The Senate passed the bill with this two-year pilot project in January. The House has not yet taken up the issue.  
What is AFGE doing?
AFGE doesn’t believe that VA should waste its scarce money to hold outsourcing competitions at all, but if the House passes the bill, the job competitions should be held in a fair manner by allowing VA employees to submit their best bids and prohibiting contractors from gaining a cost advantage by providing inferior healthcare packages to their employees, as required under a 2006 law. AFGE is concerned about VA’s ability to oversee the competitions because, according to a recent GAO report, VA lacks accounting structure to adequately track funds and labor used to conduct cost comparisons. AFGE is keeping a close eye on the bill.   

Physicians pay:
In December 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act was enacted to establish a new pay system for doctors and dentists. The pay system comprises three parts: base pay, market pay, and performance-based pay.
The law, which took effect January this year, requires that doctors and dentists get to participate in the compensation panels that are currently working to set the market pay portion of the system.  
What is AFGE doing?
AFGE is concerned about the way VA is implementing the law as VA managers ignored our locals’ recommendations on doctors and dentists who will be on the market pay panels. AFGE is monitoring the situation and if VA doesn’t change its stance, we will file a grievance. AFGE is also concerned that funding may not be enough for pay raises.
       
Saturday premium pay
Because of high demand in services, healthcare workers often times work on the weekends. Everybody who works on Sundays receive 25 percent more over their hour wages. But only “professional workers” such as doctors and nurses get the premium pay if they work on Saturdays. This is disturbing because every healthcare worker – white or blue collar – works hard to serve our country’s veterans.  
What is AFGE doing?
About 600 occupations, all of which are white collar, in the Veterans Health Administration are eligible for Saturday premium pay. AFGE has been fighting for several years to get Saturday premium pay for all staff. The hard work paid off when Congress in 2003 passed the law that requires VA to expand Saturday premium pay eligibility to workers who provide “direct patient-care services” or “services incident to direct patient-care services.” But VA narrowly applied the definition of “services incident to direct patient-care services” and came up with 22 more occupations in 2004, leaving more than 800 occupations ineligible. AFGE filed a grievance and the arbitrator in 2005 sided with AFGE, forcing the department to go back and review the list. VA, however, came back a year later with only 10 more job categories. AFGE is protesting and awaiting the arbitrator’s decision.    

Staffing and training shortage
Processing compensation claims is one of the main responsibilities of VBA. But due to chronic staffing shortages, the backlog of claims has gone up over the years, greatly delaying benefits our country’s veterans are entitled to. The claims backlog is predicted to reach 396,834 at the end of fiscal 2007, far exceeding 250,000 pending claims VA considers to be a normal pending workload. Despite the growing backlog, the Bush administration’s 2007 proposed budget would cut the number of employees who process these claims by 149. That is a disservice to veterans and hardworking VBA employees and AFGE is strongly opposed to that.  
Inadequate training has also been an issue at VBA. Employees often times have been assigned to work with little training. Telephone services, for example, are viewed as a low priority. Many employees assigned to answer phones have other duties and some end up doing phone duty as a punishment for failing other jobs. As a result, employees are not adequately trained to specialize in benefits issues and sometimes give wrong answers to veterans. This is evident in a recent VA report which shows that 22 percent of answers given to veterans are completely incorrect.            
What is AFGE doing?
AFGE supports the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ proposal to add 200 new employees to help reduce the claims backlog. We’re also calling for VA to make sure employees are well trained before they’re assigned to do their work.

Use It and Abuse It (Using your sick leave)
By Stephen Barr Wednesday, October 31, 2007; D04
       Some federal employees nearing retirement seem to be taking sick leave at higher rates than their younger counterparts, recent studies show, raising concerns about possible abuse and whether a use-it-or-lose-it rule needs to be modified. When employees covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System retire, they don't receive a benefit offered to those retirees covered by the old Civil Service Retirement System -- the ability to convert unused sick leave into a pension benefit. The different policies may explain why FERS employees are using more sick leave than their CSRS counterparts as they approach retirement, a report by the Congressional Research Service said.
       That pattern of use "lends credence to a longstanding hypothesis – that FERS employees, who get no value for their unused sick leave, will use that leave rather than simply forfeiting it back to the government at retirement," the report said. If that is the case, a substantial number of FERS employees may be gaming the system -- treating sick leave like vacation time. It's relatively easy to take sick time in small amounts. If an employee is absent from work for three days or less, most federal agencies will take the employee's word that it was because of illness or to care for a sick child. For longer absences, agencies may require a doctor's note or other evidence before approving sickleave requests. William L. Bransford, general counsel at the Senior Executives Association, said federal managers have developed the perception "that you can't count on FERS employees as much as they get near retirement" because FERS does not offer them an incentive to bank sick leave for conversion into a pension credit or cash. As more employees in FERS near retirement over the next two decades, managers will face tough decisions on how far to go in questioning employees who call in sick but do a good job when they are at work, Bransford said. "You don't want to accuse someone of abusing sick leave when you don't have the evidence," he said. The Senior Executives Association and other groups, including the Federal Managers Association and the Professional Managers Association, have formed a Government Managers Coalition to address issues of mutual concern, such as the FERS sick-leave policy. Darryl A. Perkinson, president of the Federal Managers Association, said the FERS policy can hamper productivity and may even encourage some employees, as they near retirement, to use up their sick leave beyond levels that are prudent for themselves and their families. FERS, which features a 401(k)-type savings plan, was created by Congress in 1986 and covers more than 1.2 million employees. It is replacing the Civil Service Retirement System, a traditional pension program, which covers about 352,000 employees. By 2014, almost all civilian government employees will be in FERS.
Federal employees in both plans receive 13 days of sick leave each year, and may carry over unlimited amounts from year to year. It's only at retirement that the difference kicks in. The sick-leave problem is not new. In the 1960s, about half of CSRS employees retired with zero sick-leave balances because of a use-it-or-lose-it rule. On average, retiring employees used 40 days of sick leave in their last year of employment.

       To reduce the use of sick leave, Congress in 1969 decided to permit CSRS employees to receive credit for unused sick leave when their pensions were calculated. For example, a 30-year employee earning $50,000 in salary who converted his sick leave to obtain credit for 31 years of service would increase his pretax pension by about $1,000 a year, according to the Congressional Research Service report.
       To pay for that policy change, Congress increased the amount employees and their agencies pay into the civil serthey are at work, Bransford said. "You don't want to accuse someone of abusing sick leave when you don't have the evidence," he said. The Senior Executives Association and other groups, including the Federal Managers Association and the Professional Managers Association, have formed a Government Managers Coalition to address issues of mutual concern, such as the FERS sick-leave policy. Darryl A. Perkinson, president of the Federal Managers Association, said the FERS policy can hamper productivity and may even encourage some employees, as they near retirement, to use up their sick leave beyond levels that are prudent for themselves and their families. FERS, which features a 401(k)-type savings plan, was created by Congress in 1986 and covers more than 1.2 million employees. It is replacing the Civil Service Retirement System, a traditional pension program, which covers about 352,000 employees. By 2014, almost all civilian government employees will be in FERS.
       Federal employees in both plans receive 13 days of sick leave each year, and may carry over unlimited amounts from year to year. It's only at retirement that the difference kicks in. The sick-leave problem is not new. In the 1960s, about half of CSRS employees retired with zero sick-leave balances because of a use-it-or-lose-it rule. On average, retiring employees used 40 days of sick leave in their last year of employment. To reduce the use of sick leave, Congress in 1969 decided to permit CSRS employees to receive credit for unused sick leave when their pensions were calculated. For example, a 30-year employee earning $50,000 in salary who converted his sick leave to obtain credit for 31 years of service would increase his pretax pension by about $1,000 a year, according to the Congressional Research Service report. To pay for that policy change, Congress increased the amount employees and their agencies pay into the civil service retirement trust fund.
Why Congress did not permit FERS employees to get retirement credit for unused sick leave is unclear, but such a benefit is costly and the sponsors of FERS wanted to create a system that would make it easier for employees to come and go. As CSRS employees retire, leaving a greater percentage of FERS employees in the federal system every year, agencies are studying the impact of the shift.
A review by the Office of Personnel Management, for example, found use of sick leave increased by more than 10 percent between 1994 and 2001. A study at the federal Bureau of Prisons found FERS that employees in that agency used more sick leave than those in CSRS, even with controlling for other possible factors, from 1994 through 2003. And a CRS analysis of payroll data on nearly 500,000 employees showed that FERS employees eligible to retire used nearly 35 percent more sick leave than comparable CSRS employees.
       In hopes of creating an incentive for FERS employees to keep their sick leave rather than use it up, Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) is drafting a bill that would provide a retiring worker with a one-time payment, based on a formula that would take into account salary and hours of sick leave accrued. Moran's staff plans to work with the OPM, manager associations and unions to come up with a formula that saves the government money while providing an incentive for FERS employees to retain sick leave. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) plans to partner with Moran on finding a solution, aides said. Moran would like to have a bill ready by late November, an aide said.

AFGE NATIONAL PRESIDENT JOHN GAGE TESTIFIES BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Gage Expresses Concerns over Scope and Enforcement of Hatch Act
       WASHINGTON—John Gage, National President of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to express concerns over inconsistencies in interpretation of the Hatch Act. AFGE believes that the appropriate application of the Hatch Act, which was designed to limit political activity of federal workers in the workplace, helps to preserve a politically neutral workplace while balancing the First Amendment rights of government workers.
       At the same time, AFGE strongly urges Congress to exert its oversight role during the next election cycle to monitor Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Hatch Act investigations against federal workers for inconsistencies, disproportionate penalties for minor infractions and retaliation against union officials.
AFGE specifically contends that the Hatch Act’s policies regarding computer communications, penalties, and statute of limitations must be amended to reflect today’s ever-changing workplace environment.
“Federal workers have a right to participate in partisan political activities fully and freely, except when that participation impacts the integrity of a competitive civil service free from political influences.” said Gage. “The Supreme Court has held that actions to restrict the right of government employees to be politically active must be limited and must rest upon a clear showing by the government of a need for restriction, and that such restrictions be clearly defined and narrowly tailored to address only that particular need.”
       The Hatch Act was passed in 1939 with the intention of ensuring that the federal civil service would be politically neutral and the spoils system would be eliminated. It is also important to note that the Hatch Act also serves to protect civic participation of federal workers, including the right to register and vote for the candidate of their choice; run as candidates for public offices in nonpartisan elections; assist in voter registration drives; contribute money to, and engage in, fundraising for political organizations or candidates; attend political fundraising functions; and express opinions about candidates and issues.

The Hatch Act Meets the Digital Age
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
By Stephen Barr  October 19, 2007;
       The presidential campaign season is underway, so be careful what you do and say in the federal workplace -- especially in an e-mail.
That was the key warning at a Senate hearing yesterday on the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain political activities in the federal workplace.
Sending or even forwarding an e-mail on your government computer that advocates the election or defeat of a political candidate can put you in violation of the law and possibly get you fired, federal officials said.
       The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, restricts the political activities of federal employees, giving them a shield to ward off pressure from their supervisors or political bosses. Yesterday's hearing examined the law, how it is enforced and whether it may be too rigid in the age of the Internet.
Federal employees still cannot engage in political activity while on duty, in a government office, using a government vehicle or wearing an official uniform. They cannot run for office in a partisan election. They also cannot use their official authority to interfere with an election, and they cannot solicit or receive political contributions.
       In 1993, Congress eased some of the restrictions to permit federal employees to take an active role in political campaigns. The changes have allowed federal employees outside of office hours to manage political campaigns, serve as delegates to political conventions, organize fundraisers and distribute brochures for a political party on Election Day outside polling places.
The 1993 amendments, however, were put in place before the Internet, e-mail and YouTube videos began transforming how Americans communicate and go about their work. It's not uncommon these days for employees to swap e-mails that lampoon politicians and political parties, and, depending on how they are read, suggest how votes should be cast.
"The line between casual 'water-cooler' conversation and political activity that is not permitted may be unclear to many employees," said Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), who called yesterday's hearing as chairman of the Senate federal workforce subcommittee.
"Does inviting a few work friends to a campaign rally after work violate the Hatch Act? Does it matter if an employee asks his friends by e-mailing, rather than while chatting in the break room?" Akaka asked.
       Officials from the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates and prosecutes Hatch Act allegations, said they make determinations of violations on a case-by-case basis, looking at the content of the message, who sent the e-mail and how many people received the e-mail from the government computer.
James Byrne, deputy special counsel, said the agency has seen an increase in e-mails involving partisan activities since the 2000 election. Because e-mails can be forwarded, they can take on a life that goes far beyond a chat among friends, he suggested.
When it comes to the Hatch Act, he told Akaka, "There is no such animal as the water-cooler exception." E-mails advocating on behalf of political candidates appear to be a relatively small problem, at least for now.
      Chad Bungard, general counsel at the Merit Systems Protection Board, indicated in his testimony that only four e-mail cases related to Hatch Act violations have come before the board. The board usually hears about 8,400 appeals from employees challenging agency decisions each year, but only 36 Hatch Act cases have been heard by the board during the last five years, he said.
Still, federal employee union leaders told Akaka that they think the Office of Special Counsel has chilled the expression of personal opinions on political subjects and candidates by seeking penalties that are too harsh for most transgressions. Too often, federal agencies and managers wield the law to block nonpartisan voter registration drives in federal buildings or to intimidate union officials, the labor leaders said."A one-time mistake by an employee with little or no impact on the workplace should not be punished in the same manner as partisan campaigning at the federal work site," said John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees.
Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, lamented, "What happens in reality is that federal employees are often so confused about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable that they choose not to exercise their rights."

AFGE Offers Liability Insurance to Members
Just like anybody, federal employees are vulnerable to accusations and false allegations ranging from insubordination to medical mistakes. It takes only one angry supervisor, one failed assignment or one upset patient to wreck federal employees' professional lives and financial health. As lawsuits against federal employees are increasing at an alarming rate, AFGE is offering the Professional Liability Insurance program that has been developed exclusively for its members. For $11 a pay period, benefits include $100,000 for defense costs, $1 million to pay for judgments against you, and $10,000 for accidental death while on the job. Please refer to the policy for all the details. For more information and application, go to the Member Benefits section of the AFGE Web site at or call 1-800-236-1154. www.afge.org