Ames Federal Employees Union

Dear Ames Federal Employee:

The following is a link to an article in Government Executive about NASA’s workforce proposals:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37014&dcn=todaysnews

As you know from IPFTE’s testimony last week, we support the proposals to enhance voluntary buyouts through an increase in the current $25,000 cap and an extension of medical benefits. However, we strongly oppose new “flexibilities” to convert career-permanent positions to term positions, or any other proposal that undermines civil-service protections for NASA employees. We are particularly appalled by the overtly discriminatory proposal by the National Academy of Public Administration’s to provide NASA with the “emergency” authority to force employees to retire, as it is an shameless attempt to scapegoat older employees. Older NASA employees are not a problem; they are an asset. Indeed, most provide absolutely critical capabilities and wisdom to the Agency.

We continue to argue that a fundamental mismatch between NASA’s assigned responsibilities and its budget is driving all of NASA’s current problems. We urge Congress to provide NASA with an honest budget consistent with the Authorization Act, so that NASA can move forward successfully with its broad set of missions for the nation.

NASA management has been muzzled with respect to the issue of budget as they are required to express blind loyalty to the Administration’s proposed budget even if their best technical judgement differs from this line. Fortunately, through Union representation, NASA employees (and even their silenced managers) have a public voice that can let Congress and the public know that NASA needs appropriate financial resources commensurate with its daunting responsibilities, if we are to deliver on our promises.

The Ames Federal Employees Union wishes you and your family a great memorial day weekend.

Sincerely,

–Lee
VP, Legislative Affairs
AFEU, IFPTE local 30
AFL-CIO

May 21, 2007

Mr. John G. Stewart
Fellow and NASA Workforce panel member
National Academy of Public Administration

Dear Mr. Stewart:

At the hearing, you testified that IFPTE had seriously mischaracterized the NAPA report and that, specifically, the report did not talk about giving NASA BRAC-like authority. (Indeed your exact quote was: “For example, nowhere in our report do we talk about BRAC-commission; it just isn’t there.”)

To refresh your memory, I have included one of the relevant sections of the NAPA report, which states:

“(p. 59) … if it becomes clear that the current organizational configuration of ten centers does not contribute to a healthy NASA and does not allow NASA to meet its changing mission within its available budget, the Panel believes that the Administrator should work with Congress to gain statutory authorization for a BRAC-type commission to determine whether one or more centers should be closed.”

Your testimony also emphasized NAPA’s criticism of Dr. Griffin’s “10 healthy centers” approach as too “people focused”. NASA’s greatest asset is its people. Any NASA Human Capital plan that is not “people focused” is doomed to failure. Any high-tech entity that seeks to be creative and innovative at the cutting edge of current science and technology cannot have the top-down authoritarian personnel system you seek for NASA to implement, with flexible power to reassign and fire, nearly at will, to meet short-term needs or to get rid of older employees. Many of the best and brightest engineers and scientists will simply refuse to work in such a unpleasant environment and will take jobs elsewhere where they are treated with the “people focused” respect they deserve. That would be a disaster for NASA.

In a discussion after the hearing, a member of NAPA’s senior staff (no irony intended) reiterated to me that the NAPA report does indeed advocate that NASA be given the authority to preferentially target its older retirement-eligible employees for termination in order to open the door to hire the next generation of younger employees.

” (p. 185) The Panel also recommends that, given the immediate need for NASA to begin reshaping its workforce, Congress provide the agency with limited emergency authority to invoke retirement.
… generally speaking, it is not as much of a hardship for someone who is fully eligible for their annuity to retire from their job.”

It is the premise that openly discriminating against NASA’s older employees is a necessary pre-requisite for NASA building its future workforce that IFPTE finds both false and repugnant.

In addition, the fact that the victims of such coercive, non-merit based, personnel decisions would be targeted because they are older and can supposedly handle it financially, is analogous to the calls of yesteryear to fire women employees preferentially because their husbands can support them.

The bottom line is that IFPTE fundamentally disagrees with key elements of the NAPA report and of your testimony, which speak for themselves and require no mischaracterization.

Sincerely,

–Lee Stone
Legislative Representative
NASA Council of IFPTE locals

Wired magazine’s blog has an interview with Shana Dale and Simon “Pete” Worden (our Center director.)

It’s an interesting and important read on the future of Ames.

Key excerpt:

With respect, that’s always been a real challenge with kind of allocation within NASA of both resources and personnel. The centers tend to be—tend to have political consequences around them too. Do all the centers still meet all of the needs of what NASA’s supposed to be doing?

DALE: Well, yeah, because they all have unique skills that they bring to the table. So, we’re not having any types of discussions about restructuring the centers.

Right.

WORDEN: We evolve the center expertise. So as IT becomes more and more important, for example, at this center that we’re building up our IT capabilities. I don’t try to do big rocket engines here. But it’s an evolutionary effort. Ten years ago, IT wasn’t nearly as importants. So, it’s a changing thing. So I think, like a division of a major corporation, that we have certain things we focus on.

As many of you have heard, our own VP of Legislative Affairs, Dr. Leland Stone, testified before the Subcommittee for Space & Aeronautics, a House subcommittee of the Space & Technology Committee. The hearing subject was, “Building and Maintaining a Healthy and Strong NASA Workforce”. Lee represented IFPTE employees at NASA before the subcommittee and provided written testimony to the subcommittee. This is the second time he has testified before this subcommittee.

Video of the hearing.

Audio of the hearing.

Lee’s written testimony.