Approximately 1,400 Analysts employed at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ‘banded together’ and are fighting for union representation after the agency changed its personnel policies, and ‘restructured’ the Analysts’ positions, effectively lowering their wages, responsibilities and morale.  Now GAO’s Comptroller General (CG), David M. Walker, has initiated an anti-union campaign trying to prevent the Analysts from holding an election.

As ‘Congress’ watchdog’, GAO’s primary charge is to serve Congress and the public interest by keeping a close eye on virtually every federal program, activity, and function.  Its investigative work leads to laws and acts that improve government operations, and save the taxpayers billions of dollars.  Yet, the CG has chosen to deny these dedicated employees their right to representation.

The organizing campaign, the first in GAO’s history, was initiated by Analysts in Bands I and II.  This happened because the CG misled the Analysts and Congress when seeking the authority to restructure.  At a July 13, 2003 hearing, he told the House Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization that GAO would “guarantee annual across-the-board purchase power protection” and “address locality pay considerations to all employees rated at a satisfactory level or above.” 

Prior to the restructuring, Analysts were grouped into three categories:  Band I referred to Analysts and Investigators; Band II - Senior Analysts & Investigators; and Band III - Assistant Directors (GAO classified Band III Analysts as management because of their responsibility for rating the Band I and II Analysts and their work products.)

Falsely presented as an opportunity for advancement for those who had frequently lead research jobs, i.e. Analysts-in-Charge (AICs), and repeated assurances from management that pay would not be reduced, the Band IIs supported the restructuring effort.   By most informal estimates, approximately two-thirds to three-fourths of the Band IIs had been the AIC on several research jobs; therefore they believed they would be moved to the higher IIB ranking and the restructuring would positively, not negatively, affect them. 

When the restructuring was complete, the Band II Analysts had been broken into three distinct categories:  Band IIB (highest of the Band IIs); Band IIA, and Band IIA-T (T meaning ‘transition’).  The latter Band was created as a sub-category of the Band IIAs.  After the restructuring, 308 analysts (Is, most IIs, and some IIIs) had their salaries frozen and their COLAs for FY 2006 denied—on the grounds they were “overpaid.”

The CG justified restructuring the Band IIs because of a 2004 management-commissioned Watson-Wyatt (WW) pay compensation study, which found that the Band II category was too broad, and that some Band IIs were overpaid relative to their responsibilities. 

The WW study bought new pay scales for each newly created Band II designation.  Since about 260 Band IIs reassigned as IIAs were paid over the IIA ‘pay cap’ (the cap was lower than their existing salaries), GAO created the IIA-T.  This flawed restructuring process resulted in two-thirds of all Band IIs being “reassigned” downwards to IIA status instead of most being assigned to IIBs.  Even more egregious, the Band IIA-Ts were denied their COLAs in their entirety for FY 2006, and many lost up to 50% of their performance-based pay bonus, which they would have been entitled to on the grounds that they were ‘overpaid’.

The CG not only deceived and mislead the Band IIs, but also Members of Congress—those charged with oversight of GAO.  In seeking the authority to restructure the Band IIs, the CG promised in sworn testimony before Congress that GAO Analysts “would receive protection against erosion of purchasing power due to inflation, and some consideration of locality at a minimum.”  In contrast to repeated promises by management and statements by the CG to Congress, 308 analysts (Is, most IIs, and some IIIs) had their salaries and COLAs frozen for FY 2006.

In a strongly worded letter sent to the CG on September 28, 2006, nine Members of the House of Representatives called on Walker to explain why he denied Cost-of-Living-Allowances to hundreds of GAO employees.  The letter also reminded Walker of his repeated assurances to the House Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Reform.  The Members strongly rebuked Walker for failing to follow through on his public comments and statements to the Subcommittee, and asked him to explain his decision to deny COLAs he had previously committed to.

As Congress sought answers from the CG to their questions, the Analysts continued their efforts to unionize.  The Analysts, located at the Headquarters in Washington, DC and in 11 regional offices across the United States, engaged their coworkers in the effort by holding bi-weekly lunchtime meetings, Q&A sessions with guest speakers, with informational newsletters, and the like.  As the campaign picked up steam and went public, major media outlets began reporting on the Analysts organizing campaign.

On May 8^th, after receiving a clear majority of the authorization cards, the Analysts ‘banded together’ and marched to GAO’s Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) and filed a petition for an election.  On May 9^th, at the PAB pre-hearing meeting, the CG’s representative announced that GAO was challenging 461 (almost one-third) of the 1,386 signatures on the petition.  Additionally, taking a page from the private sector, GAO retained private legal counsel on May 22^nd to represent the Agency in the organizing effort.  The basis for GAO’s challenges:  management's assertion that the challenged employees are "supervisors" as defined by labor law.  In addition, Venable LLC, the legal counsel hired by GAO, is a national law firm whose labor law practice includes “union avoidance”. 

Given the CG’s record of misleading Congress, arbitrarily cutting the employees’ wages, and hiring a private law firm to challenge the Analysts right to an election, Congressional members with oversight over GAO convened a joint hearing.  Entitled “GAO Personnel Reform:  Does It Meet Expectations?”, Members of the House Federal Workforce and Postal Service and the Senate Government Management, Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, soundly admonished Walker for misleading them in earlier testimony prior to seeking the authority to restructure.

In his opening statement, Chairman Danny Davis shone a bright light on the reason for the Band II split.  “The Subcommittee determined that splitting the Band II Analysts arose with the results of a job questionnaire administered to GAO employees by Personnel Decisions Research Institute (PDRI) in 2000.  Furthermore, in its 2004 contract with Watson Wyatt, GAO requested compensation ranges not for the three bands that existed at GAO at the time, but for four pay bands:  Band I, IIA, IIB, and III.  The fact is the idea of splitting Band II predated the Watson Wyatt study by approximately four years and Watson Wyatt provided compensation ranges that reflected a split in Band II because that was what GAO asked them to do.”

The CG’s actions are a blatant display of disrespect to Congress’ directive and government interference in the Analysts right to a fair election and union representation.  At the writing of this article, the appropriations bill funding GAO is expected to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  While not legislation itself, instructions are written at the end of the legislation directing the CG not to interfere with the Analysts election process.  Additionally, it also directs the CG to refrain from using taxpayers’ dollars to pay legal counsel to fight the unionization effort.  We remain hopeful that the CG will take these directives to heart and stop his anti-union campaign efforts against the Analysts, and allow them to hold the vote.

The GAO Analysts deserve a fair and expeditious union election.  If the CG is successful in his efforts, this could have very wide-reaching implications and set a dangerous precedent for employees looking to unionize in the federal and public sector governments.  We will report any movements in this situation on our website, www.ifpte.org.  If necessary, messages will be posted on the website urging you to contact your legislators to demand Comptroller General Walker refrain from union-busting on the taxpayers’ dime and to halt his effort to exclude eligible employees from joining a union on the false ground that they are supervisors.