Vol. III • No. 4 • June, 2000

DOL implements child care subsidy program without union agreement
Public Law 106-58, Sec. 643 authorizes federal agencies to use funds normally available for salaries to assist lower income employees with their child care cost through September 30, 2000 as a pilot program. Neither the law nor the OPM implementing regulations define “lower income.” However, “income” is defined as family income. As guidance, OPM provided five models for those seeking to establish pilot child care subsidy programs. One of the OPM models provides child care subsidy to families with income up to $80,000.

In its initial negotiating proposal, AFGE 12 tried to get DOL to agree to provide some child care subsidy for all eligible employees represented by AFGE 12, classifying the family income for all such employees as lower income. The initial DOL proposal had the maximum family income for the child care subsidy at $34,999. AFGE 12 dropped its maximum family income figure to $80,000 and finally to $69,999. DOL raised its maximum figure to $39,999. The parties were at impasse and AFGE 12 called the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for assistance which is required by law when a Federal agency and a bargaining agent for employees (a union) reach an impasse in negotiations.

DOL has refused to cooperate with the FMCS and, instead, has opted to put its proposal into effect without AFGE 12 agreement or without using the impasse procedure required by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

DOL reached an agreement with the National Council of Field Labor Locals (NCFLL) based on the above guidelines, but AFGE 12 has said absolutely no to DOL’s proposed guidelines. The NCFLL represents DOL employees everywhere in the nation outside the DC metro area. The DOL guidelines obviously work for the NCFLL. The AFGE 12 goal is to give some child care subsidy to the largest number of employees it represents, while the DOL proposal seems to be aimed at giving more child care subsidy to a very small number of employees represented by AFGE 12.

DOL indicates that it has set aside $2,600,000 for child care subsidy between April 1 and September 30, 2000. Under the proposed DOL guidelines, the union estimates that 95% of the child care subsidy actually paid would go to employees who are not represented by AFGE 12.

The Department of Energy child care subsidy program covers family income from $20,000 to $65,000 with subsidy ranges from 50% to 85%. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation program covers family income from $50,000 to $75,000 with subsidy ranges from 30% to 40%.

The average individual income of AFGE 12 members is between $40,714 and $52,927; the average family income is unknown. However, the leaders of AFGE 12 believe that an extremely small portion of its membership has family income of less than $40,000 with annual child care costs of $7,000 for one child (GSA estimates average child costs are $7,000 per year). The child care subsidy program applies to licensed child care providers only. The costs by such providers in the Washington DC metropolitan area will easily average over $7,000 annually. The bi-weekly costs of child care in DOL’s Frances Perkins Building ranges from $268 to $362 per child ($6,695 to $9,045 annually).

Employees with family income of less than $40,000 cannot afford such high child care costs.
Rather, they must find alternative, nonlicensed sources of child care and often with children caring for their own siblings. It is obvious to the union that the DOL child care proposal is not based on the real world.

Child care is a major cost for all families that have such responsibilities. Federal employees are underpaid based on the Government’s own calculations under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. Yet, DOL wants to deny AFGE 12 the right to represent its members with family income of $40,000 and more when it comes to one of a family’s most expensive costs.

AFGE 12 has requested DOL to rescind its child care subsidy notices to employees represented by AFGE 12. To date, DOL has refused the request. AFGE 12 leaders say that they will continue to work with the assigned FMCS mediator to get DOL to return to the bargaining table so that the parties can reach an agreement on child care subsidy for the employees represented by AFGE 12. The same leaders say they want to avoid filing an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the Federal Labor Relations Authority based on DOL’s actions related to child care subsidy.

$50 - $100 That’s what any new member will receive. It’s also what any AFGE 12 member will receive for recruiting a new member, plus an extra $50 until August 17. Yes, $100 for each new member you recruit So, if you are not yet a member of AFGE 12, sign up today and get $50. If you are already a member, sign up a co-worker and get a $100 rebate.union agreement.

Secretary Herman increases transit subsidy to $65 effective June 1
The elected leaders of AFGE 12 set a goal of increasing the transit subsidy to $60 (the tax-free legal maximum at the time) the day they signed a transit subsidy agreement with Acting Secretary of Labor Cynthia Metzler on April 10, 1997. AFGE 12 applauded Ms. Metzler at that time and applauds her now, for her foresight in agreeing to provide transit subsidy to DOL employees represented by AFGE 12. Subsequently, transit subsidy was extended to all other DOL employees nationwide.

By Executive Order on April 21, 2000, President Clinton mandated Federal agencies to implement a transportation fringe benefit program (by no later than October 1, 2000) that offers qualified Federal employees compensation for commuting costs using mass transportation and vanpool transportation, but not to exceed the maximum level allowed by law (Sec. 1). The purpose of the order is to reduce Federal employee contribution to traffic congestion and air pollution and to expand their commuting alternatives. Because of the April 10, 1997 transit subsidy agreement with AFGE 12, DOL is already in compliance with Sec. 1 of the order.

Sec. 2 of the order requires Federal agencies in the Washington DC metropolitan area to provide qualified Federal employees, in addition to current compensation, transit passes in amounts approximately equal to employee commuting costs, but not to exceed the maximum level allowed by law. The order provides for the implementation of Sec. 2 by no later than October 1, 2000.

Secretary Herman elected to implement Sec. 2 of the Presidential order on June 1 and raised the $50 maximum transit subsidy to $65 per month, notifying employees by memorandum dated May 10, 2000. The Secretary chose to exceed the requirement of the order to raise the transit subsidy to the legal maximum for employees in the DC metro area by raising the maximum to $65 for DOL employees nationwide.

Sec. 3 of the order requires DOT, EPA, and DOE to implement a “transit pass” transportation program fringe benefit program as described in Sec. 2 of the order for all of their qualified Federal employees, nationwide, as a 3-year pilot program by no later than October 1, 2000. The pilot is intended to ascertain, among other things, if it is effective in reducing single occupancy vehicle travel and local area traffic congestion.

Special Membership Meeting
Subject: AFGE Convention Resolutions
and Membership Rebates
12:00 Noon, Tuesday
June 13, 2000
Room N4437A-D
Frances Perkins Building
Membership Meeting
12:00 Noon, Thursday
June 22, 2000
Room N4437A-D
Frances Perkins Building