|
NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX
|
| Inside The Fishbowl
Official Newsletter of NTEU 280 May 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS REMINDER FOR MILITARY
VETERANS....................................................................1
SPECIAL NOTICE TO RETIRING MILITARY VETERANS Those of
you who may be veterans may remember that you had the opportunity to pay into
the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) for your years of military service.
This, they told us, would increase your CSRS benefits when you retire. NTEU
Chapter 280 has now learned that you must produce a receipt or other evidence of
payment in order to collect these benefits. Here's hoping you kept good records.
ANTI-PRESELECTION INITIATIVE Federal law and
regulation require that promotions and the filling of vacancies be conducted in
a fair and objective manner, relying on objective criteria such as education,
experience, accomplishments, and maybe even plain old hard work. Preselection is
a term used to define the illegal practice of choosing ones friends or other
favored individuals to fill these vacancies, while ignoring or bypassing
superior qualifications of others. Preselection is against the law. But as
almost everyone who has been at EPA for any length of time knows, preselection
is the norm and not the exception. This is to formally announce implementation of my anti-preselection
initiative. Although these are the waning days of this presidency, I have full
confidence that this initiative will continue and, indeed, gain momentum as time
passes. The initiative was passed by a unanimous vote of the Executive Board,
and, with the exception of the less competent of management's "favored
children," enjoys almost universal support among staff. Male, female, white, and
those of color all favor objective qualifications as the only selection factors.
Most minorities don't want special treatment, all they want is fair treatment.
Fairness is a basic human value. Are people at EPA HQ promoted on the basis of merit? Aside from a few pockets
of fairness within the Agency, most employees would respond, "No." Even white
males complain of discrimination. As most government wide surveys show, cronyism
blows away both sexism and racism as the premier complaint of unfairness. With a
90% plus concurrence about the problem and its cause, one would think the days
of the EPA plantation would be "gone with the wind." But old ways die hard, as a
management elite continues to promote large numbers of compliant,
non-threatening subordinates. Those whose purpose at work is largely to promote
their career and get ahead, while those who work hard expecting to be recognized
often rot in place. We have already fired our opening salvos. Starting with the worst first, a
preselection grievance against the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
been filed by V.P. Richard Nalesnik and me. ORD management represents the
epitome of the old-line/hard-line white-male middle aged elitists. A softer
approach has also been initiated in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. In this office, V.P. Linda Martin and I have initiated a request to
meet and discuss with Deputy Assistant Administrator Michael Shapiro. Mr.
Shapiro, who has already earned a good measure of respect within Union and
employee ranks, has agreed to meet with us to discuss this issue. Preselection
is also a major issue presented in a memo to Deputy Administrator W. Michael
McCabe. Thus far the D.A. has yet to respond. (See below.) (LATE BREAKING NEWS) By the time Dr. Nalesnik and I
met with ORD's Jack Puzack in 2 the face to face meeting for the above ORD Union grievance, several elements
of relief requested had already been implemented, viz., the jobs at issue were
announced with an increased response time authorized, and they are now open
EPA-wide rather than ORD-wide. Mr. Puzak seemed, as were we, more interested in
problem solving than in confrontation. SMASHING "IRON-GATE" - by Dwight Welch and Marsha Coleman-Adebayo
A couple of years ago, our sister HQ Union, AFGE Local 3331,
undertook a bold and creative approach to fighting discrimination at EPA. They
published a list, the inspiration of Patsy Stewart which she dubbed "Iron-Gate",
a who's who of racial discrimination at EPA HQ. The controversial list caused
quite a stir. While I might take exception with a few names on this list (for
instance Rich Lemley is one of the most equal opportunity managers I know at
EPA), the rest was pure "dy-no-mite." Those engaging in discriminatory practices
were named for everyone to see. The Browner Administration's response to alleged inequities have been to hold
a number of "cultural diversity" town meetings. As reported previously in this
newsletter, these meetings have been unmitigated disasters. Both Union and Civil
Rights leaders on campus have been largely kept on the outside of processes for
change. The worst of these disasters, held last summer at Arena Stage, is still
the subject of intense criticism. While some have commented that the Union
leaders should have been up on the stage, along with senior management, I thank
my good fortune, in this specific instance, that I was once again ignored by
Browner and company. However, the fact that I was denied access to a microphone
to ask questions, still sticks in my craw. Currently in Never-Never-Land, also known as the Office of the Administrator,
a most unfortunate Mr. Ray Spears has been placed in between our out-of-touch
Administrator and angry employees. Mr. Spears would be better off protecting the
World Bank and IMF from protestors. Many Civil Rights leaders (as well as Union
leaders) openly question whether we are better off under the Clinton/Gore and
Browner EPA, than the (real) George Bush and Bill Reilly EPA. In fairness to the
current Administration, I believe we are somewhat better off (in some ways, a
little bit), but that expectations were much higher for this Administration than
previous ones and reality has fallen far short of these expectations. While Ms.
Browner's media stardom has been a positive force in protecting EPA from mean
spirited budget cutters on the Hill, many wish she would pay more attention to
her most vital resource-EPA employees. As Spring progresses to Summer, it is not only the air temperature that is
rising. EPA African-American Civil Rights leaders' patience is at an end.
Feeling that they are cut out of the process and that their specific issues have
been diluted in a general "cultural diversity" soup, general complaint seems to
be blossoming into specific action. These activists have formed an EPA Victims
of Racial Discrimination (EPAVRD) group and are putting their money where their
mouth is. The group is affiliating with the NAACP. This is not a free ride;
admission is $500 and the activists have ponied up. This summer is predicted to
be a warm one. There is no accountability or liability for breaking the law at EPA. Racist
managers face no 3 consequence for discrimination. The Browner Administration has not halted the historic practices of racism at the Agency. The EPA operates as a 21st Century plantation, replete with Masters and Black Overseers. The NAACP Federal Task Force on Discrimination
has indicated that the track record of federal agencies defending the rights of
employees is virtually inoperative. These agencies actively defend racist
managers by frustrating, delaying and rejecting the just complaints of victims.
In fact, the track record of the Office of Administrator is one of benign
neglect and failure to remove unqualified individuals and racist managers. It
seems that the Office provides a protective shield for these racist practices.
Because of the unjustified, unethical and unnecessary pressure inflicted upon
many qualified African-American and decent white employees, numerous premature
illnesses and deaths have occurred. The NAACP has long complained about environmental. racism. It is obvious to
the NAACP Federal Task Force on Discrimination that those in charge of EPA , by
their racist employment practices, are major contributors to environmental
racism, in poor and especially African-American neighborhoods. The NAACP Federal
Task Force has stated that unless the Browner Administration does "the right
thing" it will publicize the Agency's racist policies and treatment of its
employees, both nationally and internationally. The EPAVRD meetings have been attended by AFGE Local 3331 officers and by Jim
Murphy and me for Chapter 280. Activists from other agencies have also been in
attendance. The Iron-Gate is rusting. And like the Berlin Wall before it, it is
going to come down. PARTNERSHIP REPORT TO OMB & OPM In a
Presidentially directed April 16, 2000 report on Agency Partnership progress,
EPA management gave themselves a B plus, but most EPA Union evaluations were
more like C minus. Among the major complaints by our Chapter, failure of Carol
Browner to meet not only with local Union leadership, but even snubbing then
NTEU National President Robert Tobias. Unions were concerned about the lack of
local partnership councils, the continued activity of illegal HRCs, lack of
pre-decisional involvement, lack of bargaining on numbers, types and grades of
employees assigned to work units, failure to put any teeth into the scientific
integrity policy, as well as their failure to engage on substantial issues such
as the poisoning of America's children with toxic waste via the nation's
drinking water. Bill Hirzy took the lead and did most of the work on this
report. For a more complete account, see his article below. ORD WASTING MONEY IN AN ERA OF TIGHT BUDGETS Anyone
who is half-way paying attention should know by now that Human Resource Councils
are illegal. Employee input on working conditions is the exclusive domain of the
Unions. The Unions and management acting in Partnership Councils are supposed to
be accomplishing this task. None the less, illegal HRCs continue. Unions are
offered token representation on them. The way it is supposed to work is that the
Unions, not management, appoint ALL bargaining unit employees
to committees dealing with working conditions. The worst of the HRCs is the ORD HRC. They send me all their correspondence,
but I don't 4 participate. While the dialogue frequently discusses subjects like cultural diversity, ORD remains a white-middle-aged-male bastion. Seldom has so much been spent to accomplish so little. Particularly annoying is the fact that during the cold months the ORD HRC meets in warm places like Las Vegas, and in the warm months they meet in cool places like Duluth. This summer's Duluth meeting will include a river cruise dinner. Is this a social club or a workgroup? CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSES The recent vote on
the NTEU Chapter 280 Constitutional Amendment to increase the term of office
from one to three years passed by a margin of 83.1% to 16.9%. This amendment
will be in effect in the next term of office. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS CLOSE AT
HAND If you have an idea for a provision you would like to see
included in the Chapter 280 Collective Bargaining Agreement, please contact
Julie Simpson at 260-7873. One item already high on the list is employee
interest in the so-called "10-4" compressed work week in which one works four
10-hour days per week. Chief Steward Rosezella Canty-Letsome and I would also
like to see some clarification in the grievance procedure language. The Labor
Relations staff often uses vagaries in the language to deny employees certain
procedural rights. AN OPEN MEMO TO EPA DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR McCABE The
following is a response to an all-employee memo from EPA Deputy Administrator W.
Michael McCabe urging employees to be unafraid of "blowing the whistle," that no
retaliation will result. (Say what?) MEMORANDUMApril 10, 2000 SUBJECT: Whistle-Blower Rights E-mail - Old Wounds Fester Thru Inattention
FROM: Dwight A. Welch, President NTEU Chapter 280 TO: W. Michael McCabe, Acting Deputy Administrator U.S. EPA Let me first introduce myself, I am an EPA professional (Biologist) who has been with the Agency for 24 years at EPA HQ. I am the current President of NTEU Chapter 280 and have been a senior officer of this Union for 11 years. I am known by working senior managers to be the "reasonable one", however, I am equally known for not mincing words. I began my Union career as a retaliated-against EPA Whistle-Blower. As you may or may not be aware, the previous EPA Inspector General, Mr. John Martin, was notorious for not only NOT assisting EPA Whistle-Blowers, but engaging in active retaliation against them. The list is far too long to reproduce here, and even includes EPA OIG employees who have been retaliated against by Mr. Martin for simply doing the right thing - their job. When Ms. Browner first assumed the role of EPA Administrator, I utilized every opportunity to complain to her about Mr. Martin and his Brown Shirt tactics. This was most difficult in that Ms. Browner has met with our Union for a total of 20 minutes in her entire two terms, contrasted with a number of meetings with our Union by her predecessor, Mr. William K. Reilly, under a hostile Administration. Ms. Browner even refused to meet with our National Union President (at the time), Mr. Robert Tobias. 5 When Mr. Martin finally left EPA, Mr. Richard Emory, a former whistle-blower,
Division Director in the Office of Enforcement, and EPA Criminal Enforcement
staff attorney, received endorsements from each of EPA's major national unions,
a number of EPA locals, as well as a number of Congressmen and Senators. But the
Clinton/Browner Administrations ignored the voices of experience and appointed
someone else, Ms. Nikki Tinsley as EPA's IG. Unlike Mr. Martin, Ms. Tinsley has not been engaged in an active course of
retaliation, but, she has not been very responsive either. She has ignored a
number of my requests to meet, including a meeting of introduction, as well as
requests to meet on issues. With all due respect, it will take more than a Mom
and apple pie e-mail from you to inspire employee confidence in the IG system in
general and the EPA OIG in particular. I request a meeting among you and our Executive Board to get acquainted. Most
of us are old hands who know what the problems are. We represent a broad
cross-section of EPA employees, diversity-wise, and are part of the creme of our
professions including Ph D scientists, JDs, an LLM, an M.D., and a former Deputy
Regional Administrator. Here are some issues we would like to discuss: 1. Preselection - Although it is against the law, preselection is so
common-place as to represent the norm. Preselection is an insidious cancer that
has transformed EPA from a first-class to a third-class Agency. It is my
intention to launch an all out offensive against this illegal practice. 2. Discrimination - Although Ms. Browner seems to be well intentioned in this
area, racial and ethnic discrimination continues to be a large and ongoing
problem at EPA. The Office of Civil Rights continues to be an agent against
those with legitimate complaints. Senior management and OCR continue to undercut
the Union's role as the legitimate representative of racial and ethnic
minorities. 3. Whistle-Blower Protection - While whistle-blowers are no longer actively
retaliated against, they do seem to be ignored and brushed aside. 4. Failure to accommodate disabled employees - From shuttle-bus drivers who
don't have a chair lift key to those whose health was compromised by toxic
indoor air at EPA, this remains an important and unresolved issue. Despite the
fact that most HQ employees are now at the new building complex, management has
yet to set up a clean space for our chemically injured employees. 5. The existence of illegal Human Resource Councils - Despite White-House
pronouncements of Partnership, illegal HRCs continue to flourish and waste
taxpayer money. The most egregious HRC is that in ORD. In an era of budget
cutbacks, ORD seems to have money to throw away on fun trips for an extensive
list of ORD-HRC members, yet it is one of the most unproductive of any such
groups in the Agency. Problems such as preselection and discrimination are
probably the worst in ORD than in any other office, while senior management
there continues to flaunt their excesses, and thumb their noses at the Unions.
If ever there was an issue on which to "blow the 6 whistle", ORD is a prime candidate. 6. Children's health and the continued use of the nation's drinking water as
a toxic waste dump - Despite extensive scientific evidence to indicate that the
introduction of hydrofluosilicic acid, a toxic waste product of industry, has
little or no efficacy in preventing tooth decay, but does cause adverse effects,
especially to children, the elderly, and those with compromised health, EPA
continues to support the poisoning of our populace. 7. Management's heavy handed compromise of the employee's rights to a fair
hearing on legitimate complaints, while at the same time it displays relative
impotence in disciplining truly non-productive or counter-productive employees.
8. The conflict of interest inherent in the Office of General Counsel's
taking charge of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process. We feel that the
only gains realized are higher grades for a few OGC employees. OGC staffers are
supposed to be management's representatives in cases against the Agency, and
they are hardly in a position to be objective in running the ADR program. The
Unions have been denied effective input on key aspects this process ever since
the pilot program was agreed to last year, nor have they had access to needed
training. The Browner Administration can continue to dwell in Never-Never-Land or come
to grips with what is really happening in this Agency. I would be more than
happy to report to our bargaining unit that the results of this requested
meeting show the latter to be the case. In closing, I would like to report that Mr. Romulo Diaz and Mr. James Aidala
have been good partners with the Unions. MORE NEWS REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON PARTNERSHIP - by Bill
Hirzy In October 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order
12871 mandating "partnership" as the new labor-management paradigm for Federal
Executive Branch agencies. It was the dawn of a new day, greeted with cautious
optimism by union leaders who recognized the Order as partial payment by the
President for unions not raising too much hell about the planned 250,000 FTE cut
in Federal employment roles. By 1998 if not earlier, it was clear that the
300,000 person cut in federal employment was real, but that
"partnership" between federal unions and agency management was, with a few
exceptions, largely a chimera. Complaints to the White House culminated in a
meeting among Vice President Gore, other Executive Branch officials and national
union leaders in October 1999. The meeting resulted in a re-statement of
President Clinton's commitment to the partnership paradigm and another Order.
The October 1999 Order directed federal agencies to report (through OPM and OMB)
no later than April 14, 2000 on progress in each agency toward fulfilling the
mandates of E.O. 12871. The key mandate of E.O. 12871 for unions was its directive to agency heads to
bargain over the so-called permissive subjects of negotiation spelled out in
7106(b)(1) of the Civil Service Reform 7 Act, viz., numbers, types and grades of employees assigned to any work unit
or tour of duty, and means, methods and technologies for performing work. It was
union displeasure over the nearly universal failure of agencies to bargain over
these matters that prompted the October 1999 White House meeting. In the last issue of this newsletter, we reported on progress in partnership
operations at EPA, emphasizing headquarters issues. In that report we cited
progress toward developing a strategic plan for labor-management relations at
EPA and toward completing the report to the President. The strategic plan was not completed on time for submission with the April 14
report (and remains under further development at this writing), largely over the
on-going dispute between EPA management and unions on a process for bargaining
the so-called permissive subjects mentioned above. The report to the President,
through OMB and OPM, however, was completed. As mentioned in the last issue, the unions were not inclined to sign on to a
white-wash report, and, in the event, we did not. The full "official" EPA report
is available from the union office, and it presents - as far as it goes - a
reasonably accurate picture of the flawed but improving state of partnership at
EPA. Various unions, including Chapter 280, felt that a fuller report on the
state of partnership should be given, whether or not it ever reaches the Oval
Office or any place other than a circular file at OMB and OPM. The union's full
report is also available from the union office. One of the major items Chapter 280 wanted to bring to the White House's
attention was the nearly complete failure of EPA to engage the unions on
mission-related work, as E.O. 12871 mandated. The union's report cited several
matters, including carpet emissions risk control, use of the country's drinking
water systems as a disposal medium for waste from the fertilizer industry, and
professional ethics as things over which the union attempted to engage EPA. Only
in the ethics field has any progress been made. We pointed out the adverse
consequences for the public of EPA's failure to control risks from carpet
emissions. We did credit EPA management with engaging on quality of work life
issues, such as the Alternative Work Space program and the staff self-placement
processes used in various reorganizations. The union hopes that we have in 2001 an Administration willing to keep
working toward fulfilling the promise of true partnership, as this
Administration, however belatedly and however inconsistently from Office to
Office, seems now to be doing. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PILOT The Headquarters
pilot program for alternative dispute resolution is having a rocky start. Two
cases have come before mediators, and the mediators - from the Federal
government's Shared Neutrals Program - have gotten high marks from the
employee-claimants whose cases were undertaken. But feedback on other aspect of
the program indicate that all is not well. The manager-respondents in the cases
have hardly said a word during mediation, the sessions being dominated by Office
of General Counsel attorneys representing management's side of the issues.
Employee-claimants are asking whether EPA will budget money for employees to
hire legal counsel to put them on an equal footing with the 8 manager-respondents and OGC. This is not what ADR is supposed to be
about - just one more adversarial process dominated by lawyers OGC did not
consult with the unions about hiring a contractor to do the training necessary
for a successful program, or about what training should be conducted first. OGC
unilaterally decided who to hire and that training EPA mediators was first
priority. This, in spite of the agreement reached during development of the
program that training of ALL the parties who would make or break the program
should be conducted early. So instead of training the OGC lawyer(s) who were
supposed to be merely a resource for management during ADR (and not management's
spokesmen) this training never happened. No training was provided for other
management case intake people in the AA's Offices, nor for union stewards who
also are to do intake work for the program. Late word is that this is going to be changed; that a proper sequence of
training will be started. There is no immediate need for EPA mediators, because
mediators are available - as was the case for the first two cases - from the
Federal Shared Neutrals Program. In fact some in NTEU have serious questions
over whether in such a small shop as EPA Headquarters, it is appropriate to use
EPA employees to mediate EPA cases. The union is firmly committed to making the ADR program a success, but the
right sequence of training and keeping OGC under control will be vital to making
that happen. We remain cautiously optimistic, but watchful. SCIENTIFIC ETHICS PART I - MALATHION An early test of
EPA's commitment to its Principles of Scientific Integrity has come in the
Office of Pesticide Programs. In earlier issues of this newsletter we have
reported on the apparent interference of politics with science in the matter of
malathion, "A Big Ticket Pesticide", in the words of an OPPTS senior science
advisor. When a Congressional Committee investigating the Gulf War Syndrome requested
information on ChEI from EPA, the critical literature review section was excised
from the draft ChEI policy statement sent up to the Hill, and the union stepped
in on ethics/censorship grounds, and we negotiated a resolution of the issue.
See issues of Inside the Fishbowl of 1998. The result of the union's
intervention was that the literature review was placed back into the draft
policy document before it went out for public comment in November 1998. Congress
also got to see it. When the draft ChEI policy next surfaced, however, in August 1999, important
assertions that had been endorsed by the SAP had been overturned completely, yet
accompanying documents implied that the new, distorted version had in fact
passed muster with the SAP - a blatant falsehood, and the union filed a
grievance. Meetings were held in October, November and December, 1999 attempting
to reconcile the scientific disputes and to work out a mechanism for ensuring
that the public would have access to Dr. Dementi's views, even if EPA's policy
call were to be contrary to his (and the SAP's) views on certain aspects of the
ChEI policy. Some progress has been made regarding the issue of preserving and publishing
dissenting views on the policy, but an ominous development occurred in early
May, 2000. The important literature review section - vital for understanding the
context in which the ChEI policy applies and the scientific rationale for its
validity - has once again been stricken from the ChEI policy document. This
signals a management reversal regarding an important, overarching pesticides
policy matter as far as openness and commitment to the EPA Principles of
Scientific Integrity. In addition, one of the science committees in OPP working on The Big Ticket
Pesticide earlier recommended applying the 10-fold safety factor to residue
limits on the product mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act. When the
registrant (and perhaps politicians) complained, the science committee
crawfished and struck down its recommendation. An ethical quagmire is apparent.
There is more. Carcinogenicity Controversy At issue in particular
are five lesions of the liver in female rats, originally diagnosed by the Study
Pathologist as carcinomas. Four of these were confirmed as carcinomas by the
Reviewing Pathologist, the fifth diagnosed by him as an adenoma (a non-malignant
lesion). OPP sent a copy of the draft risk assessment on malathion to the
registrant, Cheminova A/S, "For Error Review Only" in February, 2000. The
registrant convened (as it has a right to do) a "Pathology Working Group" (PWG)
to review these lesions. The registrant picked the pathologists to conduct the
review, which was held on March 15, 2000. The registrant called OPP to ask if
the Office wanted to have an observer present. No one in the OPP management
chain thought it was worth the trouble to pick up the telephone and ask Dr.
Dementi, the lead toxicologist on the Big Ticket Pesticide, whether he thought
it would be a good idea for him to be at the PWG review session. Dr. Dementi
only even found out about the existence of the PWG on the very day the
review was conducted! So he never had a chance to ask questions of the
group, to nominate academic pathologists for the work who were completely
independent, satisfy himself about diagnostic criteria to be used in the review, etc. In an earlier PWG
review of mouse tumors in 1997, both Dr. Dementi and his supervisor attended as
OPP observers, which was a valuable experience for them and the Pesticide
Programs Office. Three guesses about the outcome of the March 2000 industry-dominated PWG
review. All the female rat liver lesions were downgraded to non-malignant status
- adenomas. There then followed a rushed review by an OPP science committee of the PWG
work and other carcinogenicity data, in spite of a plea from Dr. Dementi to
permit him time to review and comment on the report of the PWG. This committee
then voted to reverse its earlier Probable Human Carcinogen call on The Big
Ticket Pesticide. The risk assessment just released now says there is
"suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but the evidence is not sufficient to
assess human carcinogenic potential." There will be more on this subject in future issues of Inside the
Fishbowl. Given the quality (or lack thereof) of EPA's answers to the May 1999 round of
questions, and the "Iron-Gate" solidarity of Federal Executive Branch bodies in
protecting this pollutant, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment has
sent around another set of questions, saying that if more forthcoming answers
are not received this time, a Congressional hearing will be the next step.
Questions also went to the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National
Sanitation Foundation, Inc. For a complete set of these questions, most of which
bear directly on scientific integrity matters, call Bill Hirzy at 260-4683. Here
is one example question posed to EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the National Academy of Science: "Fluoride is well recognized as a general enzyme poison (arising from its
powerful hydrogen-bonding propensity that disrupts protein [and DNA/RNA]
structures) and it displays high acute toxicity (ca. 5 mg/kg as threshold lethal
dose), ranking as an acute toxicant lying between lead and arsenic. A host of
chronic toxic effects of lead and arsenic are acknowledged by EPA (e.g.,
hematopoietic effects, cardiovascular effects, neurologic effects,
carcinogenicity, etc.). The EPA view of fluoride toxicity appears to be that
ingested fluoride strengthens teeth, or will kill, or will inflict skeletal
fluorosis, but it has no other chronic toxic effects as its neighbors lead and
arsenic do. How does EPA explain this unique toxicological behavior of fluoride,
especially in light of its known effect on enzymes?" 11 In a related matter, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, the chemicals
used in fluoridating more than 90% of fluoridated water supplies in the U.S. are
produced directly from the waste gas scrubber streams of the super phosphate
fertilizer manufacturing industry, and neither has been tested for chronic
toxicity. In fact, there are virtually no toxicology data of any kind for these
materials, at least 500,000 tons of which are deliberately added to the Nation's
drinking water every year. On of the most disturbing aspects of this deliberate
exposure of the American people is that for every 1.0 mg of fluoride ion
produced by hydrolysis of the acid H2SiF6, ca. 0.53 mg of
microscopic silica - a mutagen/carcinogen - is also produced. The union has asked that H2SiF6 and its sodium salt be
tested. Jim Murphy and Bill Hirzy recommended testing in 1998 to the Risk
Assessment Division of OPPT, citing three animal studies on neurotoxicity and
two human studies on I.Q. deficits, but got no response. Bill Hirzy again
nominated these materials to the Voluntary Children's Health Chemical Testing
Program at a stakeholders meeting on April 26, 2000. The House Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment has included a question to Administrator Browner on the
status of the Murphy/Hirzy recommendation to test these substances. JUSTICE FOR JANITORS - YES! In the last issue, we
reported on the abuse dealt to the people who keep our offices clean by their
employer, USSI and on NTEU 280's actions in solidarity with their union, SEIU
Local 82. We are happy to report that through concerted union action, on the
street and in the courtroom, our janitorial staff has triumphed over their
oppressors. They have achieved restoration of their work hours and the full
benefit package that USSI was trying to deny them. The NTEU Chapter 280 members and other EPA employees who joined in picket
lines, worked on petitions, and took other actions supporting these workers can
take pride in having stood with them and not on the sidelines.. That's what
working class solidarity is about, and this workers' victory is what results
from solidarity. EPA workers should take this not-so-small lesson to heart. In
unity there is strength for all our battles. UNION ACTIVITY ON HUMAN CAPITAL STRATEGY One issue we
hear a lot about in the union office is the question of opportunities to move
into GS-14, 15 and SES-type jobs at EPA. What we often hear from management when
we take on an employee's delayed or denied promotion is, "But we're up against
the 14/15 ceiling." Union Vice President Richard Nalesnik has taken on the task
of generating some solid data on this issue. Richard and Vice President Linda
Martin are working with OCFO and OARM to find out how many filled and vacant
professional positions at EPA headquarters exist at the 14, 15, SES, SL and ST
(the latter two formerly known as "super-grade positions) levels. We seek
justice for EPA professionals who want and deserve grade levels commensurate
with their jobs, and who should not be stuck in-grade because of unsubstantiated
claims by managers of "But we're up against a ceiling." ARBITRATION ON DENIED PROMOTION DRAWS NEAR On the
same subject as above, arbitration will occur soon on a promotion grievance
dating back to the OPPT reorganization of 1995. A scientist had been recommended
by his Branch Chief and Division Director for promotion to the 14 level, just
before the change to a permanent Office Director from an Acting one. The
promotion got lost in the shuffle, then denied because of technical details of
the re-organization. The union got involved a couple of years later, and the
situation has been brewing since then as management has made a number of
promises and proposals that the union and the employee took in good faith. The
situation came to a head last Fall, and we look forward to a final resolution
soon. UNION AIDS EMPLOYEE'S ESCAPE FROM ABUSIVE MANAGER An
employee came to the union about two weeks ago with a horror story of working
for a political appointee who should never have been put in a supervisory job of
any kind. Without going into detail, the union counseled the employee and
lobbied with influential upper management - which conducted an investigation
substantiating the employees' complaints. The employee is now on the way out of
the abusive manager's clutches and into a proper, peaceful and productive work
environment. We hope to see only the backside of the abusive one going out the
door. LATE BREAKING NEWS-UNEQUAL JUSTICE FOR BLACK EMPLOYEES? The story immediately preceding this one concerns a white female
employee who is a member of NTEU Chapter 280. A very similar case, involving
many of the same abusive managers and their cronies, is now percolating through
channels. There ARE some major differences. This latter case involves a black,
female secretary and she is a member of AFGE Local 3331. We expect totally
different treatment. We will be reporting on this next month. See the next
installation of "SMASHING IRON-GATE". VICTORS NOT VICTIMS-SMASHING IRON-GATE True Stories from the Trenches - by Dwight Welch For at least two
decades I have been preaching the following gospel--finally more and more
employees are waking up to its message. If you are a school kid on the
playground and the class bully demands a quarter from you, what do you do? He's
a lot bigger than you and you are in trouble. Do you give him the quarter or do
you fight for yourself? I say, even though you know you are going to get beaten
up, you must stand up for yourself. Even though you lose the fight, you are
going to get in at least a couple of punches, and the next time the bully needs
a quarter, he'll take it from someone who won't fight back. If enough victims
stand up for themselves and fight back, they will soon become victors since the
bully will be out of business. "Victors Not Victims" will be a regular feature of mine until some positive action is taken to permanently change the plantation mentality present here at EPA Headquarters. By positive change I mean that Carol Browner should appoint actual EPA Civil Rights Leaders and victims to any workgroups involved in cultural diversity, rather than management appointed yes-people who tell Ms. Browner only what she wants to hear. If you have a story to tell give me a call at 260- 13 2261. A signed affidavit is needed, but I will withhold your name if
you request. You don't need to be black or even a minority. Many decent white
employees also suffer indignities and discrimination. NTEU NATIONAL
PRESIDENT TESTIFIES IN FAVOR OF EPA BUDGET Colleen M. Kelley, the National President of the National Treasury
Employees Union, testified before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
on May 2 about ways to retain the best federal employees. She told the Senators
that she thought that full implementation of the existing Federal Employees Pay
Comparability Act (FEPCA) would do more to address recruitment and retention in
the federal government than all the remaining incentive programs combined.
President Kelley also spoke in favor of affordable health insurance, stable
retirement benefits, flexiplace, telecommuting, child-care facilities, and
family-friendly programs (which she said paid for themselves several times
over). She noted that the government faces stiff competition in hiring the best
people, and criticized inadequate funding of federal agencies in a time of
budget surpluses. Statement of Colleen M. KelleyPresidentNational Treasury Employees Union Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development,and Independent AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsU.S. House of Representatives April 12,2000 Chairman Walsh, Ranking Member Mollohan, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, my name is Colleen Kelley, and I am the National President of
the National Treasury Employees Union. The NTEU represents more than 155,000
federal employees, including those who work at the Environmental Protection
Agency. I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony to you today on
behalf of the men and women who help ensure our waterways are swimmable and
fishable, our drinking water is free of harmful toxins, our air is breathable,
and any polluted lands are made clean again. The actions of this subcommittee
directly affect their lives and the livelihoods of every American. Whether it's cleaning up already contaminated lands and waterways, or
taking pro-active measures to prevent future pollution or contamination, EPA
employees are working to reduce the risks to the American public and our
environment. If we are to continue our nation's progress in reducing pollution
and cleaning up the environment, then we need to ensure that EPA has the
staffing and resources it needs to effectively carry out its mission.
As we stand here today in the Spring of 2000, the dawn of the 2 1 "
century, we need to ask ourselves what the state of the environment of this
great nation will be at the dawn of the next century. Are we going to put the
brakes on environmental progress? Are we going to accept that we have reached
the pinnacle of scientific innovation and that there is no more to learn about
how we can best go about cleaning up after environmental mistakes of the past
and preventing similar mistakes in the future? I think we can all agree that we owe it to future generations of
Americans to leave them with a clean environment. We are all stewards of the
earth, and of our natural resources, and as such, we should continue to foster
science-based innovation and public policy that protects the public health and
our environment. One of the best ways we can go about this is by supporting a
strong budget for the EPA. The scientists and analysts at the EPA are the ones
who have years of expertise in these critical areas, and they are the ones who
are in the best position to foster environmental progress. I am pleased that the President has requested an 11%
increase in funding for the EPA's core operating programs for Fiscal Year 200 1.
President Clinton's proposed Fiscal Year 2001 budget of $7.3 billion for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency and $2.2 billion for the Better
America Bonds program will go a long way in supporting EPA's essential
operations to provide cleaner air, fresher water, safer food and sound science.
The budget will support increased staffing in these areas so that we can
continue to make progress in protecting the public health and the environment
for all Americans and their communities. We cannot expect the EPA to continue to protect the public health
without the staffing and resources necessary to do the job. We need to increase
funding for core EPA environmental programs such as researching and setting
environmental standards, ensuring enforcement and compliance of our
environmental laws, and providing assistance to our states and municipalities. I
believe that the EPA budget request for Fiscal Year 2001 is a good first step,
but I believe that the level of funding requested by the EPA should be viewed as
a floor, not a ceiling. As the number and complexity of threats to our
environment and to human health continue to increase, it is critical that the
Congress provide additional funding for staffing at the EPA. While I believe
that funding should be used to make technological improvements in EPA programs
as well, and I applaud this subcommittee's commitment to this area, I am sure
you will agree with me that technology alone cannot possibly address the demands
the agency now faces. The budget proposal before you will allow EPA employees to continue
working with states and localities to develop proposals to restore wetlands and
to clean up our polluted rivers and lakes. The budget will support EPA efforts
underway with industry and municipalities to modernize our drinking water
systems. It supports ongoing research into children's vulnerabilities to
exposure to lead and other harmful toxins. The budget will help ensure our food
supply is safe by providing funds to develop alternatives to harmful pesticides.
And the budget provides funds to clean up our Superfund and brownfield sites and
restore these abandoned industrial sites to productive economic use. These are
only a sampling of the many programs administered and implemented by the
dedicated men and women who work at the EPA. These programs, as well as
countless others within EPA need additional staffing to address the increasing
demands of protecting and improving the health of the American public.
NTEU supports the budget request of $68 million targeted at
protecting the health of our children. The EPA has some of the best-trained and
most experienced scientists in the world researching and conducting
sophisticated tests to determine the effects of lead and other toxins on
children. They are working to develop new standards and new techniques to better
protect children and our most vulnerable members of society from environmental
dangers. Among other things, the budget supports ongoing research efforts into
the effects of air pollution on children with asthma. It targets $75 million for
the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act, which sets food safety
standards designed specifically to protect our children. And the budget
continues research efforts directed toward finding alternatives to those
pesticides most harmful to our children. The budget provides $784 million for President Clinton's Clean Water
Action Plan. This funding will allow the EPA to continue to work with other
federal agencies, states, and local communities to improve environmental
protections for our lakes, rivers, and waterways throughout this country. EPA
scientists are constantly working to develop new techniques to make our
waterways clean enough for drinking, fishing, and swimming. The funds
administered by EPA employees will help reduce polluted runoff into our
waterways, and will provide grants to enable water districts to find more cost
effective and efficient ways to deliver even cleaner drinking water to our
residents. The American public rightfully expects that their drinking water will
be clean and the fish they eat from our lakes and bays will not be contaminated.
They depend on this subcommittee and the Congress to give EPA employees the
tools they need to establish strict water quality standards and to ensure that
these standards are being met. The President's budget provides $1.45 billion for the Superfund
program to continue the cleanup of the nation's most polluted toxic waste sites.
Hundreds of Superfund sites nationwide have been cleaned up since the program's
inception. Thanks to the work of EPA analysts and lawyers, polluters have been
forced to pay for their neglect of our environment, and communities have been
able to develop more cost effective means to clean up the sites. The budget also
invests $92 million in cleaning up our slightly less contaminated, but still
highly toxic, brownfield sites. The new budget proposal will continue EPA's
progress in helping our communities clean up these lands, put them back into
productive economic use, and create more jobs where we most need them.
The EPA has also taken successful actions to provide cleaner,
healthier air for all Americans including setting the toughest standards ever
for reducing harmful air pollution. Often times, these actions have come under
fire by certain industry groups, but because the EPA actions have always been
backed up by extensive research and sound science, the EPA has been able to
prevail in courts and prevail in public media battles. The result has been
reduced air pollution, increased pollution prevention efforts, and a decrease in
the number of pollution-related illnesses and deaths. Under the 2001 budget, the
President is requesting $215 million to continue to support partnerships with
states, tribal governments and local communities to collectively work to improve
air quality across the nation. In addition, the President has requested $85
million for the Clean Air Partnership Fund, which will help strengthen these
partnerships, help foster local innovation and investment, and bring the most
creative and most successful ideas for cleaning the air to communities where
they are most needed. NTEU supports these EPA initiatives. Finally, we are also very supportive of the President's budget
request of $30 million for the Information Integration Initiative. This
initiative will expand the public's right-to-know through the development of an
information network with the states to ensure that key environmental information
will be made public in a timely manner through the intemet and other means. This
will help localities improve their decision-making, will reduce the burden of
paperwork on the regulated community and the states, and will guarantee the
taxpaying public reliable, high quality information about what threats to the
environment exist in their communities, and what steps are being taken to
address these threats. NTEU believes that not only do the American people demand
to have this critical information at their fingertips, they also demand that
their tax dollars are being spent to continue to expand the science base at the
EPA so that we can better mitigate and prevent these environmental
threats. The work performed by the men and women at the EPA is often taken for
granted. Yet thanks to persistent science-based work by EPA employees, we are
reducing air pollution, improving the quality of our drinking water systems, and
allowing Americans to live longer and healthier lives. EPA employees are working
with states and local communities to build on initiatives that get results and
shelve those that have failed. And EPA scientists, analysts, lawyers, and others
who have dedicated their lives to serving the public at the EPA continue to work
to find the most cost effective and most efficient solutions to addressing our
country's greatest environmental threats. And while we should continue to
support technological advances in reducing pollution and cleaning up our
environment, technology alone cannot clean up every lake, every Superfund site,
or every particle of toxic matter in our air. Technology needs to be supported
by sound science and by sound public policy. Science-based regulations need to
be implemented, overseen, and enforced by knowledgeable scientists. We know that
there are always better ways of doing things - more cost effective and
innovative ways - and it's up to this subcommittee and the entire Congress to
continue to foster this scientific innovation. Now is the time to build on our
science base and expand it so that we can be assured that the planet we leave to
our next generation is cleaner and in better shape then the one we inherited
from earlier generations. I would like to thank the Subcommittee again for the opportunity for
our Union to present its views on the budget for Fiscal Year 2001. As you
continue your subcommittee's deliberations, I hope you will give special
consideration to EPA's dedicated workforce, a team of public servants who have
committed themselves to cleaning up our environment and protecting the health of
the American people. |