Happy Mother’s Day everyone!

For Mother’s Day, because I am such a nice lady and I still care about public service, I gave the Bureau of Labor Statistics positive publicity for its programs.  (See Paul Nyhan’s article on work/life issues for mothers, as well as his plea for continued funding for the beleaguered American Time Use Survey (ATUS)) My kids gave me a runaway hamster.  Yay.  I guess I’ll be spending Sunday crouched in front of the refrigerator with a peanut. 

I’ve asked Paul why he still asks me for economic information.  He said that it’s because I’m one of a select group who can interpret the question and provide useful numbers.  Muchos gracias, amigo.  It’s nice to know quality still counts, and that one warm body is not always like another.

(P.S.   I’ve spent two decades of my career as either a statistician or economist.  Now that I’m writing an analytical book and compiling MSPB statistics, I’ll just re-anoint myself with a title.  Then Paul won’t have to take up valuable space with the extra long — and somewhat awkward — moniker he’s currently using.)

Federal employee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hearing statistics for FY 2007 have been posted.  In FY 2007, for all agencies, 7,876 hearings were requested.  This represents a slight uptick from 2006, when 7,812 were requested.

Of the hearings requested in FY 2007, 19 percent of all requested hearings alleged termination based on discriminatory actions.   The average processing time for hearings was 248 days.  (The statutory deadline from the time of filing is 180 days)  Of the hearing requests received, 48 percent were not completed in regulatory time.  It is important to note, that much like the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), many of these cases are dismissed without hearing.  No EEO statistics are provided on how many cases are not granted a hearing, although anectdotal evidence suggests the rate is much higher than it is with MSPB.  Even with throwing out a large number of cases, the EEOC still only manages to get half of its workload completed in time.

The bottom line on EEOC cases is this: 182 EEOC cases resulted in a finding of discrimination.  Of the total requested, this represents two percent of all cases filed.  In the case of termination, the rate was lower, less than one percent.   As a reasonable person, one must ask:  are all of these aggrieved federal employees really so off the mark?  There is a range in which administrative courts lose their credibility. 

Additionally, I also have a few issues with the EEO data that have been presented.  While these numbers are not attractive, I also believe that they also understate the problem which underlies the EEOC process.  For instance, I have a case that is five years old sitting out there.  I haven’t inquired about it: there’s no real need for me to, although I may revisit the issue at some point out of academic curiosity.  The point here however, is that I doubt that this case is being counted in the statistics.  Rather, it has been conveniently lost.  My understanding is that mine is not an isolated case.  When one starts to average five year old lost cases into the statistics, the numbers change drastically.

Hold your disbelief, but it is my opinion that EEO is more broken than MSPB.  There is no transparency, and the aggrieved are not entitled to a swift resolution of their complaint.  Further, under the EEO process, the administrative judge offers a decision with little clout.  Although Title VII of the Civil Service Act of 1972 clearly states that the EEO “shall have authority to enforce” appropriate remedies, agencies often subject these findings to its own interpretation.

With the EEOC, the Agency can notify the employee that it will not accept the findings of the administrative judge; the Agency then files an appeal with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO).  Appeals judgment coming out of EEOC’s OFO is more skewed toward the Agency than it is with MSPB; The difference is Congress has clearly marked MSPB as public record.  The complainant can appeal OFO’s determination, and while civil courts regularly uphold the initial opinions of EEO administrative judges, this just represents another layer of time and expense for the complainant.

To be fair, with the exception of the Postal Service and a few corrupt others, most agencies do comply with initial findings of the EEO administrative judges, but if you can imagine how bad it is to be a MSPB administrative judge disrespected by the Agency, imagine how bad it is to be an EEO administrative judge disrespected by the agency.  Imagine too, how humiliating it must be to have your decision overturned by your own agency.

Many of my EEO-aggrieved readers have been asking me to write more about the oppressive process they are put through.  This post represents just a small fraction of the total process.  There is so much more that precedes even filing for a hearing.  There is an informal process, then a formal process, the filing for a hearing, etc. . .  To read more about it, check out this website’s link to the Department of Transportation’s flowchart of the EEO complaint process.  Ultimately, just getting to the civil complaint phase takes nearly three years if an employee really pushes hard for it.  Throughout the process, the employee experiences continuing discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

The person who searches for this site by typing the letter “t” is still at it.  I still don’t get it.  However, Mr. “T” is not this week’s award winner.

This week’s award winner is the person who found this site by typing “Charlotte Yee MILF.” You’re lucky I’m somewhat thick-skinned about this whole thing.  Next time, could you please search for this site by typing “delusional Department of Labor men” instead?

I mentioned that on Wednesday, I took the depositions of a number of people.  As you might imagine, the past week has been a bit restless for me.  I swear, I really did have the following dream on Monday.  It was so vivid, that had to write it down right away so I wouldn’t forget it.

In my dream, I was ordered back to work.  Why I went, I don’t know, but I did.  The Agency gave me a conspicuously less prestigious role at a desk in the middle of an open office.  When I got there, the area had not been prepared, and the computer had not been set up.  I spent the morning greeting coworkers and reacquainting myself.  Everyone acted like nothing out of the ordinary had happened, and that everything was fine. I did not see Alf.  I was told that he was having a meeting with the new hire, a woman I had not met.

Later that day, I went down the hall and met the new judge.  (I don’t know why we had a judge in our office.  It was a dream.  It doesn’t have to make sense.)  She was a giant of a woman, a dark-skinned lady seven feet tall or taller, by the name of Robert Robertson.  She was gracious and cordial and had an interest in people and in me.  People flocked to her, a symbol of both power and of compassion.

I returned to the office, and my computer had been set up. I sat at my new desk, which was situated with the secretarial pool.  I had been given a terminal-style computer with two monitors, the WANG type that was used in the early 1980’s.  I immediately recognized the Agency’s attempt to reduce my status, but I pretended not to care.  As I started working with the system, I realized that I had been hooked up to a plethora of resources, a database of unimaginable proportion. I was ecstatic.  Within minutes, I discovered why. Etched onto each monitor, were the letters, “R. Robertson.” This was our secret, her gift to me — a way to let me know that I had not been abandoned in this forsaken place.

The door to Alf’s office opened.  A moderately attractive woman of about 30 emerged.  She was visibly shaken by what Alf had done to her, but I pretended not to notice. At the end of the workday, I departed.  In the BART parking lot, a man had just maimed a woman, whom was motionless and crumpled up on the sidewalk.  I stepped over the body without stopping.  Other passerbys were screaming and trying to help.  I didn’t give a second thought to abandoning the situation.  Someone else would take care of it.  It wasn’t my problem.  My needs were taken care of.  I had received the solicitude of someone in power, and it wasn’t my duty to take care of others.  I had learned my lesson.

From today’s Washington Post:

A veteran Republican lawmaker called on Office of Special Counsel chief Scott J. Bloch to resign yesterday, one day after nearly two dozen FBI agents raided OSC headquarters and carted off boxes of documents and equipment that officials said were related to a probe of Bloch’s activities.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA) has asked Bloch to step down.  What amazes me is this:

Bloch, who was in his office working yesterday, spent part of the day consulting with his personal lawyer, former U.S. attorney Roscoe C. Howard, said James P. Mitchell, an OSC spokesman.

Even if Bloch fights the multitude of charges against him, his credibility is nil and in the end he will be a blip in history.  I’m aghast at how little shame these notorious public figures have.  How long does Bloch think he can cling on?  And doesn’t he care about what’s right for our Country anymore?  (Okay, that was a strange question to ask of Bloch) Perhaps – rightly – Bloch thinks that we, the taxpayer, will be giving him a golden handshake for going away and taking his bad behavior with him.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some distinct regional differences between Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decisions.  None of the regional offices were particularly generous with their outcomes;  I still question why MSPB exists at all.  Still, everything is relative.  On this sad scale, a five percent rate of success for appellants translates to the PATRIOT AWARD, which goes to the Atlanta office and Chief Administrative Judge Thomas J. Lanphear.  At least the Atlanta Office is trying to give the appearance of earning its keep.  In the first quarter FY 2008, of 203 cases, the Atlanta office found 10 decisions in favor of the appellant and mitigated one. /1

The AMERICAN TRAITOR AWARD is a virtual tie.  The award goes to the New York Office, headed by Chief Administrative Judge Arthur S. Joseph, and to the Chicago Office, headed by Chief Administrative Judge Martin W. Baumgaertner. 

To the winners of the AMERICAN TRAITOR AWARD:
Among your two offices, you heard 202 cases, and mitigated one.  You found none in favor of the appellant.  That must be because 201 former and current federal employees were wrong in their belief that they deserved some type of relief or were improperly fired, and one was only partly wrong. 

Because I believe an office conveys team spirit, here are the names of your team players.  From the New York office: Barry Booker, Milagros Farnes, Joseph A. Hallock, Arthur S. Joseph, and Joann M. Ruggiero.  From the Chicago office: Howard J. Ansorge, Martin W. Baumgaertner, Gay F. Chase, Scott D. Cooper, Stephen E. Manrose, Gregory A. Miksa, Julia Packard, Nina Puglia, and Kasandra C. Robinson.

When America wonders why the federal government can’t help them, I hope they at least give partial credit to you.   When federal workers can’t work, all Americans suffer. 

==========

/1 personnel action cases, a population of 1090 records consisting of all (I) and (W) types, less OPM cases. 

There’s a good reason for depositions.  It is much more difficult for people to coordinate answers in oral form, especially when they don’t know the questions.  It’s not as though Andrew Schultz didn’t try though.  

All in all, the depositions were a big thumbs up.  Today’s experience will really help the general public understand the internal federal government culture that exists.  Sometimes, I wonder if these employees understand how silly (and simultanously scary) they look to the rest of society.

Good Morning Prospective Employers:

I noticed you have been searching the web looking for information on a very loyal and dedicated attorney currently employed by the Department of Labor. May I give you my finest recommendation for William W. Thompson II, Associate Solicitor for Management and Administrative Legal Services at the Department of Labor?

I consider Mr. Thompson to be one of the most allegiant employees an employer can have, to be compared favorably to others whom have come before him and also served his current employer, the United States Government.  One might even rank him among great and notable attorneys like Alberto Gonzales and those who worked for him at the Justice Department.   By the way, I believe that Mr. Gonzales is also looking for job.  You may be able to get a great deal on a lawyer twofer.

From NPR:

A half-dozen FBI agents swarmed into the OSC’s Washington offices, grabbing documents and seizing computers. By 1 p.m., more than 20 agents had arrived in the agency’s D.C. bureau.

What I want to know is, how did this happen?  Amazing.  Both Scott Bloch’s office and home were searched.  According to the article,  “One official close to the investigation said that today’s action was “significant” and that other field offices would also be included in the investigation.”

My biggest fault is that I’m too trusting. Yup. Okay. I take it back. Remember that post I did a few hours ago? Well, consider it gone:

I can’t believe it. I just got a decent email from Andrew Schultz. And, he was respectful of the Merit System Protection Board’s (MSPB) authority. He’s backing down from his original assertion that the Department of Labor has the discretion to accept or reject MSPB’s determinations.

Wow. I feel good knowing that this court has been given back some of its lost dignity. At least one agency bully is beginning to act in a more socialized manner.

(It’s good to see that Schultz is beginning to see Administrative Judge LuNell Anderson as a figure of authority. Ultimately, I prefer the mutual respect model myself, but it doesn’t work for everyone.)