Greetings,

BAND TOGETHER
COMMUNIQUÉ

January 11, 2007

• Q&A from the Interim Council

• PDP PRG Raises

• SRS Scores to be Released Friday, January 18, 2008

• About the Interim Council

• Contacting Interim Council Representatives

• Disclaimer

From the Interim Council

Hello friends,

We wanted to share an update on what’s happening with your union. Below, we answer the some of the questions we’re getting. Please keep them coming and keep reading the Communiqué sent via email most Fridays, contact any member of the Interim council, listed on the last page of this newsletter; and check our website at www.gaoanalysts.org.  We appreciate your patience, especially in this time of transition, while we form our new union and our first government.

Q&A from the Interim Council

When will the union and management meet again, and when will negotiations be completed?

A next meeting date has not been set, but both management’s and the union’s negotiating teams share a tentative goal of completing this process by the end of January. The next step is for the interim council to begin evaluating data provided by management (at the union’s request) late yesterday (Jan. 10^th), sharing that information with the bargaining unit, and putting together a counterproposal that has the bargaining unit’s (all of your) support. You can help by sharing your views with your Interim council members, and submitting your thoughts and suggestions to ICquestions@ifpte.org.  Please be aware that no agreement will be final until it is ratified by a vote of the bargaining unit.

What is management’s 2008 pay adjustment proposal and why is it necessary that it be negotiated? Isn’t this just slowing down the works, delaying our raises?

For the first time ever, GAO employees have the opportunity to sit down with management to negotiate the terms of our annual pay adjustment.

On December 14, 2007, representatives from GAO management presented the Interim Council with a proposal for fiscal year 2008 pay adjustments. In sum, management proposed:

• A 3 percent “across-the-board” salary increase for eligible bargaining unit employees, subject to and constrained by applicable pay caps and speed bumps, as in the last two years. Related salary ranges for each band and geographic zone would also be adjusted by 3 percent under this proposal.
  

• Using 2.5 percent as the “Performance Based Compensation (PBC) budget factor” used in the formula for determining performance pay for eligible analysts (those that received at least “meets expectations” on all competencies).  

So, what’s “wrong” with those numbers?

• The 3 percent “across-the-board” salary increase proposal by management compares with a budget signed by the President that includes an average 3.5 percent across-the-board increase for executive branch employees. (Management’s offer was made before Congress passed the omnibus appropriation bill that set the 3.5%, a previous proposal included a 2.5% across-the-board increase offered by President Bush.
  
• When locality pay is factored in, executive branch employees may receive an even larger increase. In Washington, D.C. for example, most executive branch employees will receive an annual increase of 4.49 percent, not including merit-based pay adjustments. (One of the important pieces of data we have requested concerns locality pay and how it works, currently, at GAO, compared to the executive branch. We will keep you appraised.)
  
• This across-the-board adjustment would still be subject to applicable “speed bumps” and pay caps, as in the two prior years.
  
• Further, the proposed 2.5 percent PBC budget factor does not mean GAO employees will receive an average 2.5 percent raise in performance-based compensation for GAO employees. Rather, this is one variable in a calculation used to determine performance pay, which also takes into account SRS scores and analysts’ current pay in relation to the competitive rate for their respective pay bands.
  
  For example, analysts paid below the competitive rate (roughly the halfway mark for each range, which varies by band and geographic zone) or that have higher SRS scores receive a larger percentage increase, while those paid above the competitive rate or have a lower SRS score receive a smaller percentage increase. (The PBC budget factor is applied to the competitive rate, not to an analyst’s actual salary).
  
  In order for the union to ensure that positions taken by the union are based on sound and relevant information, the interim council requested salary data from management. This data will enable us to better evaluate the impact of management’s proposal, as well as potential alternatives.
  
• The request included, for example, information on the distribution of percentage pay adjustments by band levels, numbers of staff in the bargaining unit who might not receive all of the across-the-board or PBC, and the costs related to paying annual adjustments under varying scenarios, including how much it would cost GAO to give pay raises at varying across-the-board percentages.
  
• We also asked for information that would help us understand the basis for comparisons that GAO uses with executive branch pay increases. We will keep you posted as this data comes in.

I'm hearing that management’s proposal is that we be paid less than our peers in the executive branch. Can you explain this a little more? How does this proposal compare to prior years’ raises?

• The budget signed by the President includes an average 3.5 percent across-the-board increase for executive branch employees. These employees’ actual percentage increases will vary depending on locality. In Washington, D.C., for example, federal executive branch employees will receive a total annual across-the-board (not including merit-based pay) increase of 4.49 percent when adjusted for locality. This is roughly 1.5 percent above what management has proposed giving GAO employees that work in headquarters in across-the-board pay.
  

• Last year, eligible GAO employees received a 2.4 percent across-the-board increase, and PBC was determined using a budget factor of 2.15 percent. Pay adjustments were made retroactive to the pay period that began February 18, 2007, the year’s fourth pay period. Because the across-the-board increase was not applied for the full year, eligible employees received only 2.12 percent more in gross pay for 2007 based on the across-the-board increase. Last year, GAO employees did not receive their merit or across-the-board increases for the first six weeks of 2007.  This will have a permanent impact on salary calculations for retirement purposes.
  

• For comparison purposes, employees should keep in mind that GAO’s pay system is quite different from the General Schedule (GS) system used by most executive branch agencies. While GAO employees are eligible for PBC pay, executive branch employees are eligible for other increases based on merit or years of service, such as step increases, time-off awards, and bonuses. This is one of the reasons we so very much need data to be able to determine how our pay adjustments really do compare to the executive branch. 

PDP PRG Raises

Some PDP staff contacted the union because they were informed that management would delay PRG raises until the annual pay adjustment negotiations are resolved. This possibility was never raised in any union/management discussions regarding the annual pay adjustment.  Indeed, management made no proposal with regard to any change in the normal PRG pay cycle.

Management now indicates that it (the Executive Committee) has made no decisions on the timing of PDP pay adjustments. The union's bargaining committee had the clear understanding from meetings with management that the only aspect of the current pay negotiations that impacted PDP staff was the annual pay adjustment. It is the position of the interim council that there should be no delay; it important to note that any delay being considered from management is separate from our ongoing 2008 pay adjustments. As a result of these inquiries and confusion, the union contacted management to make clear its position that the PDP PRG raises should take place on the existing schedule without change.

Similarly, HCO staff have been informed by management that if they get inquiries about PDP pay increases, they should respond that no decisions have been made. It is our understanding that some erroneous information was given.

Management also agreed to notify the union as soon as it arrives at any decision related to the timing of PDP PRG raises.  Management indicated that it is still processing pay period 26 so there is still some time as GAO will not be processing pay period 1 of 2008 for several weeks.

SRS scores to be released Friday, Jan. 18, 2008

Management has informed us that GAO plans to make available to employees their individual Standardized Rating Score (SRS) in CBPS on Friday, January 18, 2008. As in the year past, it will allow an employee to see their SRS, individual appraisal average, comparison group, comparison group average, and comparison group standard deviation.  It will not include salary information until the 2008 pay adjustment has been finalized.

About the Interim Council

A 39-member interim council for our union was elected through a ballot that ended on December 10, 2007 and was open to the entire bargaining unit. Its members represent each Mission Team and Field Office, Staff Offices, PDP staff, Communications Analysts, Band Is, and diversity groups. The bargaining unit ratified the structure and purpose of the council in an email ballot in early November. The Interim council was charged largely with drafting a proposed constitution for bargaining unit approval and setting in place interim measures for addressing employees’ immediate concerns and issues. In addition to these charges and the important work of setting up a fair and democratic governing structure for the first time, the IC was presented with an important and time-critical challenge: negotiating with management on our 2008 pay adjustments, a noteworthy first negotiation between management and the union.

We greatly appreciate your patience during this time of transition. There is much to be done and the decisions we make now are critical to ensuring the best negotiation outcomes and the best mechanisms for hearing and responding to your concerns GAO wide. Specifically, over the last few weeks, the interim council:

• Dec 14:  received a briefing on management’s 2008 pay adjustment proposal and shared that information with all of you via the Communiqué.
  
• Dec. 17: met to be trained on negotiating and discussion of how best to set a bargaining agenda; began work on a data request to assist in negotiations.
  
• Dec. 20: delivered union data request to management and elected 6 members of the Interim council -- Ron La Due Lake (ARM), Alfonso Garcia (Diversity – Hispanic Employees / Norfolk), Carolyn McGowan (Congressional Relations), Chris Langford (PDP), Dan Meyer (Chicago), Jonathan Tumin (HS&J) – and a seventh person, Julie Clark (IFPTE General Counsel) -- to a Negotiating Committee to meet with management on the 2008 pay adjustments.
  
  Management team included: Joan Hollenbach, GAO Managing Associate General Counsel for Legal Services; Barbara Simball, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services, General Counsel; Margaret Braley, GAO Director, HCO Performance and Compensation Management; George Strader, GAO Controller/Deputy Chief Financial Officer in GAO's Controller and Administrative Services Office (CASO); Eric Adams, GAO newly hired Director of Labor Relations; Robert G. (Bob) Ames, partner with the law firm of Venable, LLP.
  
• Dec. 21: Held our first negotiation with management at which we requested key data to enable us to make informed decisions, and successfully reached agreement with management that all pay adjustments would be retroactive to Jan. 6, 2008, the first pay period of the year.
  
• Dec. 21-Jan. 3: Were available throughout the holiday period to review any data from management, communicate critical information to all members of the bargaining unit, and begin establishing processes for developing the union’s bargaining proposal.  Due to the holiday period, management was unable to respond to the data request during this time frame.
  
• Jan. 9: Held first full meeting of 2008, at which: a regular IC meeting schedule was established (every Wednesday, alternating between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. EST),a committee was established to examine rules and procedures for running the council, and a committee was established to draft and propose interim employee protections provisions, such as a grievance and arbitration procedures, that the Council might seek to negotiate prior to commencing negotiations on a Master Contract covering a broad range of issues on GAO working conditions. (To join this committee, please send your name and a brief description of your interest to your council representative.)
  
• Jan. 10:  Received a hard copy version of their response to the data request.  An electronic copy that would allow union negotiators to evaluate the data is promised today, Friday, Jan. 11.
  
• Jan. 11 – 13: Negotiating committee members will begin to review management’s data submission today and over the weekend and determine how best to share it with the bargaining unit.

Contacting Interim Council Representatives

Please email questions and comments to your Interim Council Representatives and/or to ICquestions@gaoanalysts.org.