From an e-mail from Witold Skwierczynski, the head of the labor union that represents most Social Security employees, to Social Security Regional Commissioner Bea Disman:
I found the regional memo that you issued regarding SSA’s “Going Green” initiative particularly disingenuous. ... Increased use of mass transit will result in less carbon emissions, less pollution, less ozone layer depletion and a diminished greenhouse effect. ...
The economic stimulus package that recently passed Congress provided SSA [Social Security Administration] with an additional $1 billion in administrative expenses. The FY 09 budget resulted in an $834 million increase in SSA’s administrative expenses over FY 08. The stimulus package also contained an increase to $230/month for transit subsidies for federal employees. Other agencies increased their transit subsidies for their employees as a result of the stimulus legislation. SSA’s current transit subsidy is $105/mo. in the Washington DC area and $60/mo. everywhere else.
The Union asked Commissioner Astrue to increase the transit subsidy to the amount provided in the stimulus package. Despite the large amount of additional revenue that SSA is receiving in the stimulus package, the Commissioner refused to increase the transit subsidy. AFGE requested bargaining with SSA regarding the new legislation which increased the amount that agencies could pay to employees for transit subsidies. SSA issued a letter to the Union refusing its bargaining request. ...
So you can tout your horn regarding SSA’s “Going Green” accomplishments if you wish. Unfortunately the notes of your horn are flat and are not in sync with the instrumentation of other agencies of the government. ...
2 comments:
Regardless of anyone's opinion of the Union, he makes good points. I have already expressed the opinion to my coworkers that SSA should be investigated for failing to use the additional funding described by Witold for the purposes intended. Is SSA hoarding the money for some unknown purpose? Why is there no massive hiring going on, as occurred in the mid-to-late 70's after SSA took on the SSI program? Our FO is completely underwater, and would need at least a doubling of staff(double-digits) to address backlogs, but there are no hires on the horizon for the rest of this fiscal year. Astrue should be canned.
Green issues are important, but not as important as hiring. Where are the hires? Looks like Astrue doesn't want to spend the money. I too would like to know why. This isn't private industry, you know. You don't get to -- ummmm, what's the diplomatic way to say this?--write your own bonus check. On the other hand, it's almost June. There are only 3 months left in this fiscal year. I suspect there will be a general panic when CO figures out they have to spend it or lose it. What *is* going on here, anyway? Something happened between the election and now. Isn't anybody supervising Astrue?
Post a Comment