Follow by Email

Friday, December 18, 2015

The Disturbing Story Of Widespread Sexual Assault Allegations At A Major Progressive PR Firm


WASHINGTON -- FitzGibbon Media, a prominent progressive public relations firm, abruptly shut down on Thursday amid allegations of sexual harassment and assault by the company's president.

Trevor FitzGibbon and his team worked with some of the biggest progressive organizations, including NARAL, MoveOn, the Center for American Progress and the AFL-CIO, as well as Wikileaks, Chelsea Manning and The Intercept. The company sponsored an event with The Huffington Post earlier this year.

Multiple female employees came forward with accusations of sexual harassment and assault against FitzGibbon, according to employees who spoke with The Huffington Post.

A joint statement from former FitzGibbon media staffers Thursday evening confirmed HuffPost's report from earlier in the day.

"The team that comprised FitzGibbon Media is incredibly sad and disappointed to confirm that allegations have been made against Trevor FitzGibbon, FitzGibbon Media founder and President, for sexual assault and harassment of multiple female staffers," the statement said. "Staffers reported over a half dozen incidents of sexual harassment and at least two involving sexual assault committed by Trevor FitzGibbon against his own employees."

(Read the full statement below.)

FitzGibbon has faced accusations of inappropriate workplace behavior before. During his prior employment at Fenton Communications, a major PR firm, a female colleague accused him of sexual harassment, Bill Werde, Fenton’s current CEO, confirmed to The Huffington Post on Thursday night.

"The firm immediately investigated the claims and brought in a nationally recognized workplace expert to conduct a day long training with all employees in the Washington office, focused on preventing and handling any incidences of sexual harassment," Werde said in a statement. "Employees were also offered follow-up consultations with the expert."

At the time of that complaint, FitzGibbon was a senior staffer, according to a source who worked with him. He was disciplined, the source said, but not fired. After the accusation and the firm’s investigation, other female employees came forward with similar harassment complaints. Fenton’s leadership closely monitored FitzGibbon’s behavior, Werde said. And for the remaining years of his tenure, which ended in 2008, Werde said that “no other complaints were brought to the company’s attention.”

“Our hearts go out to our friends and colleagues at FitzGibbon Media in this difficult time,” said Werde.

FitzGibbon later left Fenton and started his own firm. After his abrupt resignation on Thursday, several of his current employees said management reportedly looked for ways to keep the firm running, but did not think it would be feasible financially without the revenue brought in from FitzGibbon himself.

The pieces of FitzGibbon's behavior started to come together during a staff retreat a couple of weeks ago, when employees from all the firm's offices gathered in Austin, Texas.

Sierra Pedraja, 26, who lives in Austin, Texas, had been looking for a full-time job. A friend who works at the firm mentioned an opening and offered to put her in touch with FitzGibbon while they were in Austin.

Pedraja has a background in journalism and thought the opening sounded like a fantastic opportunity to continue to write. She and her friend met FitzGibbon during the day in the lobby of a hotel, where he told her about the firm and invited her to hang out with the team that evening. She agreed and sent him her cover letter and resume.

But that night, Pedraja said she had to push to talk about the job because FitzGibbon wasn't bringing it up. FitzGibbon told her that since he owned the firm, he could hire anyone he liked. She asked if that meant he liked her, and FitzGibbon told her how beautiful she was. He then asked her if she was open to having any fun while he was in town.

"I knew exactly what he meant," Pedraja said, adding that she was shocked. "I really wanted the job, but I didn't want to embarrass him and mortify him and say, 'No! Are you crazy?' So I gave a nervous laugh."

FitzGibbon then apologized for being inappropriate.

The next day, FitzGibbon asked her if she wanted to meet alone at the hotel. She declined. Pedraja figured that that was the end of it, and she wouldn't get the job.

"I was very eager to get a job, and he used that to his advantage," Pedraja said. "He tried to make me feel very uncomfortable. He made it seem like I owed him these things to get the job. ... I was not entertaining it at all. I didn't ask for it."

The news started to spread after Pedraja told several FitzGibbon Media employees what had happened. She said she was disappointed when some told her that it was probably best to keep it to herself if she wanted to get the job. A couple of people, however, took her experience seriously and went forward.

Female employees said they began sharing stories with each other about their own experiences, and they realized they were not isolated incidents.

Multiple women at the firm said FitzGibbon often became uncomfortably physical -- such as asking for hugs -- requested pictures of them and invited them to his hotel room.

"I couldn't speak up because I was afraid of retaliation -- that I would get fired if I spoke up," one female staffer told The Huffington Post, explaining why she never revealed what had happened to her.

Once the team returned from the retreat, FitzGibbon contacted Pedraja to do some contract work. But he also pressed her to send him a photo of herself. Pedraja shared screenshots with The Huffington Post of the text messages that she said she and FitzGibbon exchanged.

FitzGibbon had friended Pedraja on Facebook and told her that her photos were "insane." He asked if she modeled and requested that she send him a "maxim" style photo, presumably referring to the men's magazine that often features scantily clad women.

"I can't! I'm trying so hard to get a job with you guys. Id be tarnishing it," Pedraja told him.

FitzGibbon assured her that "just one" would be fine because he was the "boss."

"No one can know about photo!" he assured her.

"Lol no. I'm not telling anyone and I also can't send anything I wouldn't send a normal friend - if that makes me unfit for the position then that makes me sad," Pedraja wrote back.

FitzGibbon has been on leave from the firm since Monday. Employees were caught off guard when management told them that the firm would be closing Thursday and instructed them to be out by the end of the day, leaving staffers in the lurch during the holiday season with no notice.

They will receive no bonuses and no severance. Their last paycheck will be Dec. 31, and they will have health care through January. They were also told they could keep their phones and computers.

In a note forwarded to The Huffington Post, Al Thomson, the firm's senior vice president for finance and administration, emailed clients Thursday afternoon, announcing the closure without elaboration.

Employees began tweeting about what happened.

FitzGibbon sent The Huffington Post a statement Thursday confirming that he faced "allegations" and had taken a leave of absence.

It is with tremendous regret that we had to close FitzGibbon Media. Our team was at the helm of many of the most important policy debates of our time. We were the undisputed communications leader for the progressive movement. Although the company is closing, our talents and our mission remain unchanged.

The allegations against me are a distraction to the mission at hand. In order to do what is best for the company, I took a leave of absence. However, it is abundantly clear that an irreconcilable difference has arisen between the FitzGibbon team and me. We had no choice but to make the difficult decision to close FitzGibbon Media.

I apologize to my team and our clients for the impact this closing will have on them. I will work to once again regain the trust that was lost.

The allegations come from women who are not just millennials, but whose ages span decades.

Later Thursday night, a FitzGibbon staffer forwarded an earlier version of this HuffPost story to a client to inform her of the developments. The client responded by telling the staffer that the same thing had happened to her, that she'd been coaxed to a hotel room and groped by FitzGibbon.

"I just thought he was in a needy moment," the client told HuffPost, confirming the account. "I got a phone call, I was literally on the phone, he came over and stuck his hand right down and grabbed my breast. I was on the phone, it was a business thing so I couldn't say some obscenity. I said, 'What are you doing?'"

A second client reached out Friday morning to recount a similar experience of assault by FitzGibbon.

The news of the firm's abrupt closure shook up the Washington progressive community. Former clients, such as MoveOn and UltraViolet, expressed their shock and disappointment. Many organizations immediately began looking at ways to help or hire the former FitzGibbon employees, and some individuals started a document listing job openings.

Pedraja said she never expected the series of events to unfold as they did, and she was dismayed to hear that so many people were out of jobs now.

"The hardest part for me," she said, "is that because of something that happened to me and something that I said, [it] caused people to lose their jobs."

The full statement from the company's employees:

Former FitzGibbon Media Staffers Respond to Sexual Assault and Harassment Allegations Against Trevor FitzGibbon

"The team that comprised FitzGibbon Media is incredibly sad and disappointed to confirm that allegations have been made against Trevor FitzGibbon, FitzGibbon Media founder and President, for sexual assault and harassment of multiple female staffers. Staffers reported over a half dozen incidents of sexual harassment and at least two involving sexual assault committed by Trevor FitzGibbon against his own employees.

“For decades, Trevor presented himself a champion of the progressive movement, claiming to support and respect women and feminist issues, from equal pay to reproductive rights, but his actions prove a hypocrisy so great that FitzGibbon Media closed its doors today, as we could no longer continue working under his leadership. We lost our jobs standing up for what’s right, to ensure a safe workplace for all — and while we may have been left without jobs, benefits and long-term healthcare, we have our integrity and each other.

"We are devastated to see our beloved place of work closed at the hands of such a coward and hope to continue working on the social and political issues we love and care so deeply for in the future.”

This was a breaking news story that has been updated throughout.

Tyson Foods' Secret Recipe for Carving Up Workers' Comp

Friday, 18 December 2015 

by Michael Grabell, ProPublica

About five years ago, one of the nation's largest corporations, Tyson Foods, drew a bullseye on the official who oversaw Iowa's system for compensating injured workers.

As workers' compensation commissioner, Chris Godfrey acted as chief judge of the courts that decided workplace injury disputes. He had annoyed Tyson with a string of rulings that, in the company's view, expanded what employers had to cover, putting a dent in its bottom line.

So when Republican Terry Branstad ran for governor in 2010, vowing to make Iowa more business-friendly, Tyson hosted an event for him at its headquarters and arranged another meeting for him to hear from large companies who were frustrated with the workers' comp commission.

Within weeks of his victory, Branstad demanded Godfrey's resignation. When Godfrey refused, the new governor did the harshest thing in his power: He cut Godfrey's salary by more than 30 percent.

Amid the fallout, Tyson drafted and hand-delivered 14 pages of talking points criticizing Godfrey to help Branstad defend his decision.

Godfrey quickly grasped just how much sway Tyson and other big companies can have over workers' comp. "It's just chilling that someone would go to that level to try to influence the system," said Godfrey, who is now the chief judge of the federal employees' workers' comp appeals board.

Tyson's tactics, pieced together from depositions and documents in a lawsuit Godfrey filed — many of which have never been released — are far from unique to the Hawkeye State. Over the past 25 years, as the Arkansas company grew to be one of the world's largest meatpackers, Tyson has taken a lead in reshaping workers' comp, often to the detriment of workers, a ProPublica investigation has found.

Tyson's story also tells a broader one about American politics: How time after time, one determined company, facing a challenge to its profits, can bend government and the law to its will.

Using its economic leverage — combined with time-honored wining-and-dining and behind-the-scenes arm-twisting — Tyson has helped steer legislative changes through several states in the South and Midwest. It has urged officials, often successfully, to remove or appoint workers' comp judges. And the company's lawyers have crafted novel legal arguments for limiting the rights and benefits of injured workers.

Rather than advocating for benefit cuts outright, Tyson has often pushed for subtle changes, such as giving employers more say over medical care, raising workers' burden of proof or limiting the scope of activities judges have deemed work-related.

These changes have had a comparable effect to cutting benefits, excluding people whose doctors say have legitimate work injuries — especially the costly musculoskeletal disorders like carpal tunnel syndrome that poultry workers are prone to.

Tyson declined to make company officials available for interviews. In response to written questions, the company denied its involvement in workers' comp was out of the ordinary.

"Like other major companies," Tyson wrote in an email, "it's important for us to monitor state regulations that affect how we make sure workers hurt on the job get the care and benefits they deserve."

Tyson, which supplies chicken, beef and pork to supermarkets and fast-food restaurants like McDonald's around the world, employs about 113,000 workers at more than 400 facilities and offices.

With job titles that describe a worker's place in the processing chain, like "live hang" and "throwing jowls," meat plants like Tyson's pose an array of risks. Workers face everything from crippling hand injuries from repetitive cutting motions to catastrophic amputations in grotesquely named machines like fat suckers and neck breakers.

Curbing the expense of such injuries is important to Tyson, whose former chairman Don Tyson developed a storied cost-cutting reputation as he built his father's company into an empire. The company spends about $105 million on workers' comp every year, according to court documents, making it among the top corporate payers. It's an amount equal to more than 10 percent, and sometimes nearly 20 percent, of the company's annual profits.

Over the past year, ProPublica and NPR have examined how many states have been quietly dismantling their workers' comp systems, leading to cataclysmic consequences for injured workers. The cutbacks, often driven by business, have landed workers on public assistance and forced them to fight insurers for medical care their doctors recommended.

Every state has its own history and politics. Businesses large and small complain about the cost of workers' comp. Unions lobby to increase benefits and doctors fight cuts in medical fees. Bo Pilgrim, the founder of rival chicken giant Pilgrim's Pride, once handed out $10,000 checks on the floor of the Texas Senate during a debate over a workers' comp bill. Even in Iowa, Tyson was far from the only business bending the governor's ear.

But unlike most companies, Tyson has asserted an unusually high level of control over its workplace-injury program, giving it a nitty-gritty perspective on issues other employers leave to insurance companies.

Tyson self-insures, meaning it pays nearly all of its claims from its own pocket. When workers are injured, they're usually sent to a Tyson nurse at the plant. Their claims are processed by Tyson adjusters. And in many states, the company even has its own managed-care unit, handpicking the doctors that workers can see and advising those doctors on light-duty jobs injured employees might be able do.

Tyson said the system allows it to provide better medical care for its workers and help them get back on the job.

Worker advocates say Tyson's approach allows it to deny workers necessary medical care and force them back to dangerous jobs before they're ready.

A look back on the past quarter-century reveals that Tyson has influenced workers' comp much in the same way it reshaped the poultry industry, famously steering every step of production from the breeding of the birds to the Chicken McNugget.

The Playbook

The seeds of the workers' comp laws being pushed today — when insurance companies' profits are at historic highs and employers' costs at modern-day lows — were sown during a legitimate crisis in the late 1980s.

A growing recognition of occupational diseases and repetitive trauma had expanded the types of injuries companies had to cover. Medical costs were rising and insurers had undercut themselves competing for business. Insurance companies went bankrupt, and some carriers bailed on unprofitable states. In some, average insurance rates had doubled, while in others, employers were paying an average of $6 for every $100 they spent on wages — more than three times what they pay today.

In 1993, Tyson's home state of Arkansas became one of the first to overhaul its workers' comp system after rates rose 60 percent from 1986 to 1992.

By then, the company founded during the Great Depression had become America's largest poultry processor, as well as Arkansas' biggest employer and political contributor.

Tyson and the state chamber of commerce pushed lawmakers hard for a package of reforms to cut employers' costs. Until then, business and labor had always negotiated changes to the workers' comp law, often with Tyson serving as a management representative.

But this time, the chamber bypassed a labor-management committee set up by the governor and drove a bill over the objections of the state AFL-CIO.

"The business community in particular and people in general were concerned about the rising rates," said former state Rep. Mike Wilson, who sponsored the bill. "Tyson as a large employer with people who had a lot of workplace injuries or were exposed to dangerous conditions, they had a large interest in workers' comp."

The new law drastically changed rules considered part of the bedrock of the system.

It narrowed the list of injuries that were considered work-related, raised the bar for workers to prove their jobs caused their injuries, required more objective medical evidence, gave employers and insurers more control over workers' medical care and made it harder for workers to qualify as permanently disabled.

Labor leaders decried the new law. "Congratulations to business and industry; let them enjoy their bloody victory," said state AFL-CIO president J. Bill Becker. "God help the widows, orphans and injured workers of Arkansas!"

A national insurance ratings bureau estimated at the time that the law cut benefits for the most severely disabled workers by 20 percent and medical and lost wage benefits for all workers by more than 10 percent.

While other states such as Oregon had adopted some of the provisions before, Arkansas' package provided a comprehensive playbook for other states to follow.

But even some on the employers' side worried that legitimate injuries would go uncovered. Summing up the consequences in a law review article, John Copeland, a business defense lawyer and University of Arkansas professor, said the law left him with an "uneasy feeling."

"There is no question," wrote Copeland, who later went to work for Tyson, "that the new act severely curtails and even eliminates many workers' compensation claims."

The law didn't specifically eliminate repetitive stress injuries like carpal tunnel, which were becoming an epidemic in the early 1990s. But some critics say it effectively accomplished the same thing by making it tougher for workers to qualify.

"That was really the thing that was costing Tyson," said Laura McKinnon, an attorney who represented workers opposing the bill. "That's why Tyson got so involved back then because they were having so much trouble with carpal tunnel at the time."

Tyson said, "The purpose of the reform act was to streamline workers' compensation."

The Oracle of Workers' Comp

Following its success in Arkansas, Tyson took its involvement with workers' comp to another level. The company formed a subsidiary to specialize in workers' comp managed care and sold the system to other companies.

And to help direct its efforts, Tyson hired Allyn Tatum, an Arkansas workers' comp commissioner who had drafted many of the 1993 law's provisions and had recruited and guided the business representatives who hammered out the final version, according to multiple people involved in the effort.

Tatum was already a legend in the industry. He'd served on the commission since 1977 and had recently been president of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions.

"He was the most powerful workers' comp commissioner in the country," said Michael Clingman, CEO of Arkansas' comp commission in the mid–1990s. "He was hired because he knew commissioners in all the states."

Tyson and Tatum pressed for regulations that would make it mandatory for companies to contract with managed-care organizations — like the one Tyson had formed. But Arkansas employers opposed the requirement, and the commission made managed care voluntary.

Despite the setback, Tyson continued to hold sway over the workers' comp commission, especially when it came to the judges charged with interpreting the new law.

In 1997, Wilson, the lawmaker who sponsored the workers' comp bill, was appointed as the management representative on the commission, which decides appeals. The business community, he recalled, "went to the governor and said 'Here's our boy,' and the governor said 'You're it.' " A few months later, a Tyson employee and former Walmart lawyer named Max Koonce was hired as a workers' comp judge.

With business-friendly representatives on board, Tyson and other employers took aim at the ones they believed weren't interpreting the law correctly.

The final paragraph of the new workers' comp act had delivered a warning to judges: The changes were necessary because courts had "broadened the scope and eroded the purpose" of workers' comp, it said. To ensure judges got the message, the chamber of commerce sent them a memo noting that it would not only be watching but asking to be copied on any decision addressing the new law.

In 1998, a judge named Eileen Harrison was fired following a pattern of business pressure similar to what Godfrey faced in Iowa, according to depositions obtained by ProPublica in a lawsuit she filed.

Earlier that year, Tatum, Walmart lobbyist Stephen Carter and others had complained to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's staff and appointees that commission decisions were "eroding" the new law and hurting business.

In one meeting described in a deposition in Harrison's lawsuit, Carter said he pointed his finger at the commission's chairman and demanded he resign. The business community was concerned about some administrative law judges as well, he said, and wanted Harrison terminated. In an interview, Carter, now in private practice, said his concerns "had nothing to do with anything other than her performance."

As complaints mounted, Tatum requested his own meeting with Huckabee's chief of staff, according to testimony and exhibits in the case. Shortly after, the chief of staff sent word to the commission that it was time for Harrison to go. Harrison ultimately obtained a settlement from the state, but the forces behind her departure weren't lost on the judges who remained.

"We were already feeling the pressure," recalled C. Michael White, an administrative law judge at the time. "Now we had proof of what would happen if we didn't decide cases in favor of employers."

Over the years, Tatum became the business community's go-to workers' comp guru, speaking at conferences across the country and advising employers how to craft workers' comp provisions and make their voices heard. He is now retired, but still has a phone line and email at Tyson, and is listed as a Tyson representative on national workers' comp boards.

Tatum originally agreed to meet with a ProPublica reporter in Arkansas. But he later declined, sending a text message that said, "from what I hear, you already have lots of folks to talk to, and I'm sure they will tell you the story you want to hear."

Those who have taken on Tatum describe him as daunting.

"He's one of the more dangerous characters in workers' comp in my view," said Jim Ellenberger, a longtime AFL-CIO workers' comp expert who often debated Tatum. "Paying a worker any sum of money for any injury is going to get his ire up. That tells you something about how serious that issue is for that company."

"It's Almost Like They Wrote the Law"

As Tyson and other companies have assumed more control over workers' comp, injured workers say they've faced the consequences.

Billy Shawn Walkup was working at a Tyson bacon factory in Vernon, Texas, in 2011 when he slipped walking down wet stairs and hurt his back.

About two weeks later, Walkup said, a Tyson employee handed him a form waiving his right to sue. If he didn't sign it, the employee said, his medical care would end and he'd have to go back to full duty within two months.

"When I have a wife and a 4-year-old son at home — at the time, he was 2 — what am I supposed to do?" Walkup said recently. "I didn't know what was fixin' to happen. I was scared. I was afraid of losing my job."

Walkup signed the waiver, and the doctor sent him back to work with restrictions. But struggling with pain from the injury, Walkup missed too many days and was fired a few months later.

Tyson continued paying Walkup's medical care for another year under its benefit plan. But after a spine surgeon, whom Tyson approved, determined that Walkup had multiple disc protrusions in his back and numbness in his legs that caused him to occasionally collapse, Tyson sent him for an independent medical exam.

That orthopedic surgeon was 77 years old and had previously been disciplined by the Texas Medical Board for failing to document a physical examination. According to his report, the doctor spent 35 minutes examining Walkup and reviewing his extensive medical records before concluding that he'd merely suffered a strain. No further medical care was necessary, said the doctor, who didn't return calls for comment.

Tyson terminated Walkup's benefits.

"If it hadn't been for my father-in-law bailing us out time after time, we would have lost our house," said Walkup, who was 35 when the injury happened. "The bank called us and they were fixin' to foreclose on our house. They repo'd my wife's car. They repo'd my pickup."

Tyson declined to discuss Walkup's case but said it wants to make sure workers receive "the medical care they need and the compensation they deserve."

One of the biggest trends in workers' comp over the past 25 years has been the increased ownership of risk by employers who either self-insure, paying claims themselves, or buy high-deductible insurance plans that require them to cover the cost of injuries up to a certain amount. Nationwide, employers now pay as much in benefits out of their own pockets as private insurance companies do, according to the National Academy of Social Insurance.

And they have sought a much greater say over what they have to pay for. Few companies have been more active than Tyson, which is on the executive committee of the National Council of Self-Insurers and on the boards or in leadership positions of similar groups in Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Tyson was one of the first companies to self-insure in Texas in 1993, and the following year, it lobbied the state to let it process its own claims, rather than hiring at outside firm.

As it sought permission for this approach, Tyson dangled the possibility of a $60 million poultry processing plant in East Texas, according to the Wall Street Journal. The state made the change. Tyson never built the plant, though it did open a meat plant in another part of Texas a decade later.

And despite the change, Tyson eventually dropped out of the workers' comp system, taking advantage of another Texas law that gave it yet more control. Instead, Tyson created its own benefit plan, exempt from state oversight, to handle injured employees like Walkup.

It can be beneficial for companies to hold such power and financial responsibility over workers' comp, industry experts say. Being more involved in claims forces companies to become more aware of, and fix, unsafe conditions, they say. It also allows them to find doctors who understand their workplaces and what alternative assignments may be available.

But as Walkup learned, this approach can also have negative consequences. When employers have more control over medical care, worker advocates say, they may choose doctors who see things the company's way, giving them cover to get rid of undesirable employees and expensive claims.

"They have it set up where they pay for what they want to," Walkup said.

In August, Walkup was approved for Social Security disability. He hopes to get surgery. But for now, he gets around using a cane and a motorized wheelchair.

After being cut off, Walkup sued Tyson. But the judge quickly dismissed it because of the waiver Walkup signed.

Walkup's attorney Eric Marye said it was stunning how the company's waiver process followed "the letter of the law to a T."

"It's almost like they wrote the law," he said.

In fact, Tyson and other meatpackers were heavily involved in pushing post-injury waivers. Tyson said removing the threat of lawsuits allows them to offer better benefits.

Texas lawmakers tried to ban the practice. But a deal was struck in 2005, allowing waivers so long as workers had 10 days to see a doctor and decide whether to sue or accept the company's benefit plan.

Around this time, Tyson was working on another front to limit injured workers' rights by testing a new legal theory that undocumented immigrants who got injured on the job weren't entitled to compensation for lost earnings.

The theory arose out of a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving undocumented workers who were laid off for supporting a union drive. At the time, Tyson was appealing a Texas case involving Gustavo Tovar Guzman, a chicken catcher who suffered a spinal injury when was hit by a forklift while trying to round up birds for slaughter.

The company eventually lost, but its bold strategy helped set the stage for more than a decade of similar challenges across the country.

Spreading the Gospel of Reform

Few states have seen steeper drops in workers' comp costs than Arkansas and Texas. Pro-business lawmakers and lawyers interviewed over the past year frequently referred to the two states as models while worker advocates called them nightmares. And nowhere felt the changes more powerfully than Oklahoma.

In 1996, Oklahoma Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin, who is now governor, held a meeting at the National Cowboy Hall of Fame to kick off what became a nearly 20-year campaign to change the state's workers' comp law. A Tyson personnel manager handed Fallin a check for $200 to help her campaign. Reforming the Oklahoma law, he told the crowd, would save Tyson $200,000 a year.

"Tyson's fingerprint since 1996 has been heavy on Oklahoma workers' comp," said Bob Burke, a longtime workers' lawyer who has negotiated legislation.

Fallin finally fulfilled her goal in 2013. One of the most significant changes was that disputes would no longer be heard by workers' comp courts, but by an administrative commission modeled after Arkansas.

And to tell the state how to build one, the authors brought in Tatum from Tyson.

Tyson was also involved in crafting Mississippi's workers' comp overhaul in 2012, when the state adopted many of the restrictive provisions that Arkansas had embraced in the early 1990s.

The bill limited workers' ability to change doctors, raised the burden of proof, allowed drug tests, eliminated the legal standard that judges should view evidence in a light most favorable to workers and reduced employers' liability when work injuries aggravated preexisting conditions.

Lawmakers had been trying to pass such provisions for 20 years, but a Republican takeover of the statehouse finally gave them traction. The House speaker's law firm, which represents Tyson, drafted key elements of the bill with the company's help, said Rep. Gary Chism, who co-authored the bill.

Tyson was "very instrumental in pushing this bill," Chism said. "They picked up some pro-business Democrats for us. They had some processing plants in Mississippi and, where they were, they encouraged that representative of that district to support this workers' comp legislation."

As the bill was being drafted and debated, Tyson's lobbyist treated key lawmakers to dozens of meals at steakhouses and other fine restaurants around the capital, according to expenditure reports. The six members who ultimately hammered out the final bill received 21 meals over the course of three months. The lobbyist even gave one a gift from "God Father Cigars."

"I can remember the celebratory dinner," Chism said. "It was more patting each other on the back. We had accomplished what we set out do."

Tyson Goes to Iowa

Tyson's stake in Iowa grew immensely in 2001 when it acquired IBP, the giant beef packer and hog producer. Overnight, it became one of the biggest employers in a state where workers' comp benefits have traditionally been more generous than in the South.

Back then, Godfrey defended workers' comp cases for IBP and helped train another young lawyer, Todd Beresford, now the senior workers' comp manager for the Tyson Fresh Meats subsidiary, headquartered in Dakota Dunes, South Dakota.

Godfrey eventually began representing injured workers. But he and Beresford remained close. And in 2006, when some lawmakers sought to block Godfrey's confirmation as workers' comp commissioner, Beresford wrote to the president of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry (ABI), seeking the group's support.

"I can personally attest to his good character and integrity," Beresford wrote. "I believe that Mr. Godfrey would approach every case before him as commissioner impartially."

But the relationship soon soured as Tyson grew concerned that the commission's decisions were stretching the purpose of workers' comp and increasing its costs, according to Beresford's deposition in Godfrey's lawsuit.

When ABI remained neutral on Godfrey's reappointment in 2009, Tyson formed the Iowa Self-Insurers Association to advocate for large employers on workers' comp issues. Beresford became president.

The following year, Branstad, a Republican who'd been governor from 1983 to 1999, mounted a campaign to retake the governor's office.

"When I first ran for governor in the '80s, our workers' comp system was working very well and we were one of the lowest-cost states," Branstad said in a deposition. "It was only in the 2010 campaign that I was really hearing a lot of concerns about workers' comp."

In fact, premium rates in Iowa had been fairly stable under Godfrey. And they were nearly half what they were when Branstad was governor. But as other states cut benefits or saw their economies sink further than Iowa's, Iowa jumped from the seventh-cheapest state in 2006 to the 16th in 2010 — the same ranking as when Branstad first ran for reelection in 1986.

But that wasn't the impression Branstad was getting from the business community, which donated millions to his campaign. Branstad specifically recalled a meeting with the founders of Beef Products Inc., which makes the finely textured beef that some have dubbed "pink slime." They contributed $152,000.

Before even taking office, Branstad summoned Godfrey to a meeting.

That morning, ABI sent Branstad's chief of staff, Jeff Boeyink, an email titled "Issues with Chris Godfrey." In forwarding the message to Boeyink, ABI's president Mike Ralston added a thinly veiled threat that the state could change a law to prevent Godfrey from practicing before the commission after leaving office. "Actions have consequences," he wrote.

Ralston said in an interview that he didn't intend it as a threat and that ABI never suggested Godfrey be terminated.

At the meeting, Branstad ticked off the business community's complaints and requested Godfrey's resignation.

Godfrey dismissed the concerns and said he intended to serve his full term. Because his appointment was independent of the election cycle to insulate it from politics, Branstad was barred from simply firing him.

Branstad asked his legal counsel to look into the cases businesses were complaining about and explore his legal authority for dealing with Godfrey.

Six months later, Godfrey was called to another meeting. That morning, ABI again emailed Boeyink information. The governor's chief of staff asked Godfrey again to resign. And when he said no, Boeyink informed him that the governor had decided to cut his pay from $109,000 a year to $73,259 — the lowest amount allowed by law.

"It's one of those situations where you feel your mouth go dry, you feel your hands get sweaty, and it just kind of seems like the world comes to a stop," recalled Godfrey, 43. "It was devastating. It kept us from buying a house. It impeded my ability to care for my parents."

Tyson Defends the Governor

Publicly, ABI denied involvement in trying to oust Godfrey. So Tyson decided the governor needed its help.

Tyson's government relations team asked Beresford to put together a list of cases that employers felt were unfair.

In a memo to the governor, Tyson claimed that costs had increased significantly under Godfrey and that workers' lawyers often dropped Godfrey's name as leverage during settlement negotiations.

"If Godfrey continues as the Iowa commissioner," Tyson warned, "it is not only going to continue increasing current employers' w.c. costs, but it also is likely going to impact other employers as they look to locate in Iowa or expand current operations in Iowa."

In an email to Tyson's senior vice president of fresh meats, Beresford noted that the company's lobbyist had dropped off the memo and that the governor's chief of staff was "very appreciative" and "thought it would be very helpful."

The governor's office referred calls to his attorney, who didn't return calls.

Tyson's memo detailed a gallery of cases that seemed silly on the surface — injuries that occurred at a company bowling tournament or while bench-pressing at the office fitness center, workers with seemingly minor injuries ruled permanently and totally disabled.

The cases all fell into a large gray area of workers' comp law that judges have sought to define over the past century. Such injuries that aren't clear-cut may be deemed work-related depending on the circumstances. They include such things as slipping on ice in company parking lots, aggravating conditions related to aging and recreational activities that serve a business purpose.

Godfrey said he had followed precedent in ruling for the workers and hadn't even made all the decisions listed. Many had also been upheld by higher courts.

One of the cases that stuck most prominently in the minds of the governor and his staff was the slip-and-fall injury of Tyson employee Shawn Durkop — which Branstad remembered in his deposition as an injury "while shopping for clothes for work."

Durkop had just started orientation at Tyson's meatpacking plant in Waterloo, Iowa. The company had arranged for new employees to buy the required white uniform with Tyson's logo through a payroll deduction. After work, Durkop went to the store to get the uniform, where she slipped on ice and injured her ankle and back.

A deputy commissioner ruled that Tyson was responsible for her medical care and lost wages because, even though she was off work, she was on a special errand at the direction of her employer.

Godfrey affirmed the decision, adding that the clothing was federally mandated equipment for meatpacking work that couldn't be worn off the job. Tyson could have easily shipped the uniforms to the plant. And the company benefited from the arrangement, he said, allowing new employees to be "ready to work upon completion of the training period even if they do not have money to purchase the uniforms."

After Godfrey left for Washington in 2014 to become chief judge of the federal employees' workers' comp appeals board, Beresford applied to become Iowa's new workers' comp commissioner and was interviewed by the governor's staff. They talked about his vision for the agency and what Tyson thought should be changed.

But when the discussion turned to salary and moving his family, "I believe I said, 'Yeah, I probably wouldn't consider the job at that time,' " Beresford said in his deposition.

Instead, Beresford, who declined to comment through a Tyson spokesman, was named to a key labor-management committee that advises the legislature and the commission on workers' comp issues.

"Obviously they had a very open phone line to the governor's office," Godfrey said. "People expect fairness. They expect a judge to be a judge, not to be a puppet for some other interest."

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Working People Must Be Protected in 'On-Demand Economy'

December 16th, 2015 | Kenneth Quinnell

   Today, the AFL-CIO released its “Statement of Principles on the On-Demand Economy” laying out ways to protect working people in an ever-changing work environment.

AFL-CIO Director of Policy Damon Silvers said:

“The AFL-CIO is committed to making sure that the on-demand economy leads to better lives for working people. New technologies must not be an excuse for old-style injustice. Workers in the on-demand economy, no matter what their titles, must have decent wages and benefits, safety and, most of all, a collective voice on the job.”

Here are the principles:

1. Use technology to empower, not weaken, workers.

2. Promote economic and social inclusion.

3. Establish rules to achieve binding corporate accountability, regardless of where or how people work.

4. Make portable benefits available to all workers.

5. Safeguard the employment relationship to ensure workers’ job protections.

6. Increase opportunities to access good jobs.

7. Ensure a level playing field for business.

Read more about each of the principles.

The AFL-CIO is committed to working with business, government and communities to find solutions that work for employers and working people in the on-demand economy. Today, AFL-CIO General Counsel Craig Becker is participating in a forum with The Hamilton Project

AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler will speak on a panel at the U.S. Department of Labor’s “Future of Work” symposium on Thursday.

This blog originally appeared at on December 9, 2015. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Kenneth Quinnell is a long-time blogger, campaign staffer and political activist. Before joining the AFL-CIO in 2012, he worked as labor reporter for the blog Crooks and Liars. Previous experience includes Communications Director for the Darcy Burner for Congress Campaign and New Media Director for the Kendrick Meek for Senate Campaign, founding and serving as the primary author for the influential state blog Florida Progressive Coalition and more than 10 years as a college instructor teaching political science and American History. His writings have also appeared on Daily Kos, Alternet, the Guardian Online, Media Matters for America, Think Progress, Campaign for America’s Future and elsewhere.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

A Big Win for Senate Cafeteria Workers

December 16th, 2015 | Isaiah J. Poole

  A sustained campaign on behalf of Senate cafeteria workers – including a 63-year-old employee who was homeless because he could not earn enough money to afford an apartment – has succeeded this week in getting these workers a desperately needed boost in pay and benefits.

Thanks to the organizing efforts of Good Jobs Nation and other allies, Senate officials signed a new contract with the workers that raises their minimum pay to $13.30 an hour and brings the average pay to workers close to the $15 an hour that the workers were demanding.

News of the agreement was published Monday by The Washington Post.

The Senate cafeteria workers were held up as a prime example of the kinds of poverty-wage jobs held by people under federal contracts. The company with the contract to manage the Senate cafeteria, Restaurant Associates, is part of a multinational corporation that boasted in its 2014 annual report that it had done well enough to offer to increase its dividend payments to shareholders by 10.5 percent as well as return 1.5 billion pounds – more than $2 billion – to shareholders via share buybacks and other means.

There was plenty of room to give a raise to stockholders, but not to the Senate cafeteria workers – at least not until the Senate cafeteria workers put their own jobs on the line to call attention to their plight. Their bold decision to hold one-day strikes, lead demonstrations and tell their stories led to several Democratic senators – including Minority Leader Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders – and their staffs announcing a boycott of the cafeteria every Wednesday until the demands of the cafeteria workers were met.

The pressure on behalf of the workers appears to have made an impression on Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, who when signing the new contract said that he was “glad their concerns were heard and taken into consideration in the new contract.”

One concern, though, remains unaddressed: the workers’ demand for the ability to form a union. Restaurant Associates remains subject to complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board that they have improperly interfered with the ability of the cafeteria workers to organize. Paco Fabian, a spokesman for Good Jobs Nation, was quoted in The Washington Post as saying that the cafeteria workers “won’t stop fighting until they get a voice on the job.” And neither should we.

This blog originally appeared at on December 15, 2015. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Isaiah J. Poole worked at Campaign for America’s Future. He attended Pennsylvania State University and lives in Washington, DC.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

6 Questions to Ask During a Startup Job Interview

Interviewing for a startup is mostly about making sure you want to work there rather than making them to want you on board.

After hiring for my own startups, I’ve learned a lot about what hiring managers look for in a startup setting. The following six questions will help you stand out from other candidates. Also, they’ll help you decide if the startup is the right fit for you, which is equally important.

What are the first projects that I will need to complete in the first three months on the job?

Everyone thinks they know what a fast workflow is like — until they work at a startup. Priorities change by the day. The whole direction of the company could shift in a week. Force your interviewer to think about the job and talk about details as if you’re already in the role. This question forces your interviewer to talk about the job as if you’re already in it, which gives you an opportunity to ask smart follow-up questions about the work you would likely be doing on the first day.

What performance metrics would I need to meet and exceed, for me to score an A+ on my first evaluation?

You’ve already placed yourself in the role. Now assume you’re a Pro Bowl hire. Asking about your performance review shows that you have the confidence not only to think you’ll get the job, but also to do whatever is expected to be a high achiever. Also, this is a practical question to ask. The way a startup executive judges success, may differ from your previous employer. Get insights into expectations and learn about the priorities of your future boss all at same time.

Do you see any areas in my experience or skill sets that would prevent you from hiring me for this position right now?

It’s a bold question, but also one that, if asked with finesse, can add some levity to the interview. You want your interviewer to see your ambition and confidence, and you also want to put them in a position where they see you as a natural fit. In a worst case scenario, they sum up what you’re lacking and at the very least, you have the opportunity to counter their negatives with positives.

What companies are our biggest competitors? What are our strengths, both corporately and culturally, compared to these competitors? What are our weaknesses?

The preceding questions are focused on the work and about your skill sets, but this question lets the interviewer know that you’re already thinking about the position as if you owned it. This question also shows that you think like a leader — someone who knows how to put the company first. In the startup, world leaders are forged in fire. Demonstrate that you’re ready for the challenge from day one.

How would you describe your leadership style?

You’ve heard it before — in interviews, about getting the interviewee to talk about herself. People always like to discuss their accomplishments, and by asking about a specific leadership style, you’re teeing it up for the interviewer to hit a home run to pat themselves on the back all the way around the bases.

What do you like the most about working for Company X?

The last big question you should never forget to ask on an interview pertains to the actual quality of life at the company where you’re seeking employment. What does your interviewer like about working there? How are the hours? Does it fulfill a life mission to work in X field? Why should you want to work there as well?

Remember, interviews are two-way conversations. At this point in the interview, your interviewer should want to convince you to work for them as much as you’re trying to secure the job.

The Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC) is an invite-only organization comprised of the world’s most promising young entrepreneurs. In partnership with Citi, YEC recently launched BusinessCollective, a free virtual mentorship program that helps millions of entrepreneurs start and grow businesses.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

5 Things to Know Before You Interview With a Cannabis Company

by Todd Michem

NOVEMBER 16, 2015

I was a successful leader of one of the largest consulting firms in the world. I coached some of the world’s top business leaders. Then I left corporate America to work in the cannabis industry, where I assumed my decade-plus of leadership experience, corporate design knowledge and other skills would be of value.

I was both right and wrong.

To be sure, many of the people I met in the industry appreciated the help I could offer their emerging companies. But it was my initial approach, and my lack of intimate knowledge of the industry and culture, that nearly killed my budding -- no pun intended -- new career. So, I began working around the clock to make myself expert in this new industry.

And, eventually, my newly humble approach helped me gain the knowledge and experience (as well as respect) I needed to become an industry leader. Here are the top five things I’ve learned about landing a job in the cannabis world:

1. We don’t often call it weed, pot, or marijuana. It’s 'cannabis.'

One of the first things I learned is that this industry is shaking off the stigma of “weed” and “stoners” and replacing those images with the more professional one of “cannabis.”

When you are in this industry (or interviewing for it), be mindful of the words you use and the jokes you toss off. We hate the typical “stoner” jokes the media makes. It’s a plant first, and its name is cannabis. 

2. Don’t assume anything . . . and ask lots of questions.

I made some pretty big assumptions about the industry back when I started. Number one, I assumed that all owners drove Ferraris and were among the richest people in the world. This is dead wrong. Many of the leaders aren't wealthy, live modestly, drive the same cars they have for years and put all their profits back into their businesses.

I also assumed that I would be surrounded by people who were not particularly professional. Also false. In fact, this industry is producing very passionate, innovative and professional people.

The best way to avoid these same mistakes is: Ask lots of questions. Determine if the company you hope to work for is structured or not. Find out how its team manages day-to-day operations, and who has decision-making power (sometimes it is the founder, and sometimes others in the company).

3. Be ready to work hard . . . maybe harder than you have before.

Another surprising aspect of the industry, I found, was the speed at which it operates. I often say the cannabis industry is "like the dotcom era meets the industrial revolution and is moving at the speed of light." In fact, a month in the cannabis world is like a year in the corporate world, and that’s no exaggeration.

If you work in this industry, you can expect long hours and hard work.

The good news is that you’ll have a purpose. It feels like we are changing the world, which means we are focused on success, ideas and innovation every minute of every day. Just remember that once it takes hold of you, it won’t let go. If you want the most exciting career of your life, strap in, hold on and be ready to work.

4. Self-starters are wanted here.

In the corporate universe, workers have leaders, and those leaders often give direction. Sometimes, leaders give clear direction, but oftentimes people run around their offices wasting their days in a land of indecision, committees and meetings, with little to show at the end of the day.

This industry is different. We demand your best ideas every day to make us better, and we always expect a self-starter attitude. Make your own way, help us find better solutions and contribute.

At High There! our head of social media and marketing, Megan, is young, smart and educated. She shows up every day with a million new ideas, suggestions and improvements. She has a seat at the table, which is more than most people her age have in most companies. But that is because she comes in every morning ready to contribute. That is how you win in this industry -- by being humble, ready to work and excited to be on board.

5. Prepare to be around cannabis a lot.

Simply put: We like cannabis. And we use it as a medical and recreational product. In fact we call it a “medicreational” product, since it’s fun and good for us.

While of course it's not a requirement to consume cannabis to work in the industry, be prepared to articulate your personal relationship with it when you’re interviewing.

One of the questions I ask all people I interview is, “What is your relationship to cannabis?” The answer is very important because it tells us your attitude in regards to the plant.

Warning! If you have an aversion to cannabis, go no further. If you’re simply looking for the opportunity to make money or build a career in this space, but don’t believe in the plant and all it can do, I suggest you save yourself time and energy.

We are a very unique industry that stands firmly in the belief that cannabis is good and has amazing health benefits. We have built a multibillion dollar industry on this, and we’re not stopping any time soon.

House Passes Bill Capping Fiscal 2016 VA Senior Executive Bonuses

by Kellie Lunney, Nov. 17, 2015

This story has been updated.

The House on Monday unanimously passed legislation capping fiscal 2016 bonuses for Veterans Affairs senior executives at $2 million.

The measure amends the 2014 Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act to specifically limit the total amount of performance awards and bonuses given to top career executives at the department in fiscal 2016. 

The language in the Choice Act required the department to cap the aggregate amount of award and bonuses doled out to all VA employees at $360 million in each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2024. 

The VA had nearly 360,000 employees as of June 2015, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management’s Fedscope; of that total, 335 were listed as career senior executives.

The provision was inserted into H.R. 1338, which requires the department to study the burial of veterans’ unclaimed remains in national cemeteries run by the National Cemetery Administration.

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., praised lawmakers for “reining in VA’s outrageous, everyone-gets-a bonus culture,” calling on the Senate to follow suit.

The Senate companion bill to H.R. 1338 was folded into a larger measure aimed at improving VA’s disability compensation claims backlog, which the Senate passed last week. Neither one of those bills contained a provision that would cap senior executive bonuses in fiscal 2016, as H.R. 1338 does. 

Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., unsuccessfully offered an amendment earlier this month to the fiscal 2016 Military Construction-VA spending bill that would have prohibited senior executives at the Veterans Benefits Administration from receiving bonuses.

A Nov. 11 USA Today report found that the VA paid out more than $142 million in performance-based bonuses in 2014 to senior executives and other employees despite the department’s wide-ranging management problems.

“Among the recipients were claims processors in a Philadelphia benefits office that investigators dubbed the worst in the country last year,” the report said. “They received $300 to $900 each. Managers in Tomah, Wis., got $1,000 to $4,000, even though they oversaw the over-prescription of opiates to veterans – one of whom died.”

The newspaper’s editorial board on Monday criticized the department for rewarding employees involved in mismanagement with bonuses.

“Misbegotten bonuses are not the VA’s most vital concern, but they're a troubling sign of ongoing dysfunction,” the piece stated. “If the agency can’t even stop handing out rewards to employees implicated in scandals, prospects seem poor that it can fix its far more complex problems.”

VA has argued that performance awards and bonuses are an important way the department recruits and retains a talented workforce. "We are making every effort to recruit more quality people to help us care for those who 'have borne the battle,' particularly health care professionals," wrote VA Secretary Bob McDonald, in a separate op-ed published in USA Today on Monday. "We need every tool to compete and attract exceptional people to serve veterans as well as they served our nation."

McDonald pushed back on the criticism over the newspaper's report on performance awards, saying that "severely curtailing" such incentives only at the VA would be a "mistake." He also noted that the bonuses mentioned in the story were "more than a year old" and adhered to Office of Personnel Management standards.

"They are based on performance during that period, not on events occurring after it. The majority who received awards were rank-and-file workers," he said.

Yet Another Agency Head Asks for More Firing Authority

by Eric Katz, Nov. 17, 2015

The embattled Secret Service should have an easier time firing misbehaving employees, agency director Joseph Clancy told a bicameral panel of lawmakers on Tuesday.

Clancy continually agreed with members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and House Homeland Security committees as they deplored recent scandals involving Secret Service employees, a lack of leadership at the agency and the need for increased accountability. 

He promised that some employees have already been disciplined and promised to further punish supervisors as external investigations are concluded.

Among non-Senior Executive Service employees, Clancy said the agency will propose 42 suspensions ranging from three to 12 days. He added the Secret Service must do more and repeated many of the criticisms lobbed by the lawmakers.

“Reprehensible, embarrassing,” Clancy said, summarizing the committee members’ assessments of some of his employees’ actions. “I agree with everything that’s been said today, and so does my workforce.”

He acknowledged, however, his words would not be sufficient.

“I also understand that apologies and expressions of anger are not enough,” Clancy said. “Appropriate discipline is being administered in accordance with [Homeland Security Department] and Secret Service policy. I am confident that the actions regarding the individuals involved will be prompt, fair and appropriate.”

Several lawmakers made clear they were not satisfied with the actions proposed by the Secret Service, saying employees should be fired. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the governmental affairs committee, said, “there’s nothing more corrosive in an organization with a cultural problem” than allowing malfeasance to go unpunished. Johnson specifically asked Clancy if he would like Congress to provide additional authority to take disciplinary action more quickly, to which the director said he would.

In dealing with recent scandals at their own agencies, leaders at the Veterans Affairs Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Drug Enforcement Agency have all asked Congress for more authority in removing employees. To date, Congress has only made good on VA’s request.

While Clancy blamed civil service protections afforded to federal employees for holding him back from taking more immediate or severe actions, some lawmakers did not buy the excuse.

“Why so slow?” asked Rep. Curt Clawson, R-Fla., of the time it has taken for the Secret Service to hold employees accountable. “Systematic, shmysteshmatic. You’re the chief; you’ve got the head of Homeland Security [on your side]. Let’s go.”

Clancy said the Secret Service would publish all the final disciplinary actions to the entire workforce to boost transparency and demonstrate he is dealing with the bad apples. In addition to heightened staffing levels and training, Clancy said accountability would improve the sinking morale at the agency. He conceded part of the issues stem from the top ranks.

“It starts with me,” Clancy said.

Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., said the misconduct at the Secret Service -- and what the congressman saw as insufficient discipline -- could signal more pervasive problems throughout the federal workforce.

“If it happened at the Service, what’s to say any other federal agency is any better?” Perry asked.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., called for a cultural shift at the agency -- as did just about ever lawmaker present at the hearing Tuesday -- but defended federal employees at large.

“We have a tremendous number of people that work in the federal workforce that are great people,” Lankford said, “that generally love the country and love what their job is.” 

The problem, he added, is the small fraction, “the 1 percent,” that engage in misconduct. Lankford also said if the tables were flipped, there would be a lot more than 1 percent of Congress involved in embarrassing activity.

To turn things around at the Secret Service, Lankford proposed making the overtime system more consistent, holding managers accountable, providing agents with the newest technologies and providing a more consistent career track. The situation, he said, could be worse.

“No one’s been shot,” Lankford said. “There’s just some things that are messed up.”

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Federal Managers Want to Know What Will Become of Union’s VA ‘Hit List’

by Kelley Lunney, Nov. 11, 2015

Advocates for senior executives and federal managers want to know what the secretary of Veterans Affairs plans to do with a union report detailing the alleged bad behavior of several department supervisors.

Citing a “growing concern on the status of labor-management relations at the VA,” the Senior Executives Association and Federal Managers Association sent VA Secretary Bob McDonald a letter on Tuesday asking that he give “little creedence [sic]” to a July report compiled by the American Federation of Government Employees Local 17, allegedly at McDonald’s request. The 40-page report details alleged incidents of harassment, discrimination, bullying and incompetence by “disruptive and ineffective” managers who work in VA’s Central Office.

“We ask that you examine the personnel records of those managers and supervisors listed in the report before any actions are taken,” the groups wrote. “We call upon you to examine charges filed against them and the failure to find supportive evidence.”

SEA and FMA said they had been contacted by several managers named in the report. “While they corroborated the fact that complaints have been filed against them, complaints were often found to be unsubstantiated. Because these managers and supervisors had repeated, yet groundless, accusations against them, FMA and SEA worry that instead of thoughtfully examining constructive means to improve VA, Local 17 is personally targeting managers and supervisors and perpetuating labor-management hostility,” the letter stated.

The groups also said that since the report surfaced, they have heard from “several VA managers and supervisors who have been verbally threatened and harassed by union representatives and members.”

Some of the allegations against the managers detailed in the report are specific examples of abuse or intolerance, while others are more general criticisms of managers’ leadership abilities and communication skills.

One senior executive allegedly directed subordinates to sign documents indicating that mid-year performance reviews had taken place even though they had not; another manager played favorites with employees who share his religious beliefs, according to the report. Another supervisor, who is described as a “disgrace” with a “disordered personality,” harasses female employees, the report claimed, while others have allegedly made disparaging remarks about a subordinate’s sexual orientation, forced employees to ask for permission to use the bathroom, yelled and cursed at subordinates, and ignored requests for reasonable accommodations and advance sick leave – some from disabled veterans.

“Secretary McDonald has yet to confirm whether or not he specifically asked for this report, or even if he has received it,” said Tim Dirks, SEA Interim President. “We're seeking clarity at SEA and FMA, and if the secretary does read the report, we are kindly reminding him that the union’s report only presents one side of the story and their list of grievances should be taken with a grain of salt.”

VA responded to an inquiry about the letter on Wednesday, but could not answer whether the department had received it, or what the secretary planned to do with the report. A call to VA Secretary McDonald’s cell phone was not immediately returned. AFGE also did not immediately respond to questions about the SEA-FMA letter.

In addition, SEA and FMA have asked the leadership of four congressional committees, including Veterans’ Affairs, to investigate whether the report was compiled on official time. “While official time provides for federal labor organizations to conduct representational activities, it does not cover a union investigating agency managers and executives for the purpose of creating a ‘hit list’ of those it seeks to have removed from the agency,” the groups said in the Nov. 10 letter.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Despite Drugs, Sex with a Minor and More, EPA Employees Still Got Paid

Insubordination, disruptive behavior, falsifying documents, threatening colleagues—those were the least egregious reasons employees at the Environmental Protection Agency were placed on extended administrative leave as documented in a recent audit by the agency inspector general. Administrative leave is an excused absence without loss of pay or benefits, including personal leave time.

There was the employee jailed for felony drug possession, and another who admitted to knowingly having sex with a minor—both of whom spent months away from work while still pocketing pay as EPA managers and administrators determined their employment status.

The audit follows an “early warning report” the IG issued EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in November 2014 about excessive costs the agency was incurring while employees were under investigation.
That report found that among a sample of employees, eight had totaled nearly 21,000 hours of paid administrative leave, costing taxpayers more than $1 million. Four of the eight employees had been on leave for longer than a year.

The subsequent audit, released yesterday, details seven of those cases (the eighth remains under investigation and was therefore not included in the audit).

A major problem was a lack of documentation to explain why the leave was authorized. In one example, and employee received 5,881 hours of administrative leave. Despite two separate efforts to remove the employee for hostile and disruptive actions in the workplace, the employee was ultimately allowed to take disability retirement.

“This was a significant and costly offer, but there was no documentation in the file as to how the settlement agreement terms were arrived at. During interviews, agency officials said litigation risks and other factors were considered in the decision, but those factors were not documented,” the audit said.

Retirement was also offered in the case of the employee who went to jail for drug possession (the worker was indicted for third-degree felony possession of marijuana). The employee signed a separation agreement after months of receiving paid leave, under which the employee voluntarily retired and agreed not to reapply for any position with the agency for five years.

According to the Government Accountability Office, there is no general statutory authority for the use of paid administrative leave. The Office of Personnel Management condones “brief absences” in connection with disciplinary measures because employees are entitled to at least 30 days advance written notice before removal or suspension under the Code of Federal Regulations.

Where employees have committed crimes that would require jail time (or are reasonably believed to have committed such crimes), the advance notice required is only 7 days.

The regulations presume that employees will remain working during the advance notice period, unless their presence poses a threat, is too disruptive or jeopardizes government interests, the IG noted.

The IG recommended that EPA tighten the policies and procedures for approving and documenting administrative leave. Agency officials concurred with the recommendations and have begun taking steps to do so.