September 21, 1998

The Honorable John L. Mica
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

Dear Chairman,

This report responds to the GAO report FAO/GGD-98-174 and the misinformation provided in that report. The Congress of the United States, your committee, and people of the United States by a criminal investigation into the waste, fraud and abuses of the Department of Labor in it misadministration of the FECA, and the continued waste of money by the GAO.

In this report you will find questions not posed by the GAO that are critical to assessing the relationship of compensation of injured federal workers to the pay that they were earning or could have earned. All the reports of the GAO are flawed in that they allow no input from the people they purport to have studied and provide a report on.

It is hoped that in the future any studies will include input from those affected by programs you wish to study to ascertain true and accurate facts, instead of misleading conclusions that have little or no basis of fact.

Results in Brief: The GAO did not take into account new pay issues such as locality pay, which would have dramatically increased the take home pay, which is not compensated for. The GAO did not take into account overtime pay which is a common part of many workers take home pay, but is not compensated for. The GAO did not take into account outside pay for similar jobs or private work performed outside the federal workplace which was part of workers take home pay, but again not compensated for. The GAO admitted that they did not take into account wide pay increases of promotional opportunities, which are part of a worker's salary, but again are not compensated for.

The GAO failed to exercise its duties in providing an accurate picture of compensation paid to claimants taking all of these factors into account and only relied on the access and cooperation provided by the Department of Labor.

Pay Issues:
As of 1994, compensation for Customs Officers was cut such that were no longer compensated for mandatory overtime, shift differentials, holiday, and other pay that they used to be compensated for such that an officer taking home $42,000 an year is only compensated for the base pay of $29,000, and received 66.7% or 75% of that $29,000, or $19,343 (46%) and $21,750 (52%) of their actual earned pay. It is also not discussed that firefighters are usually seasonal employees who make more money when not working for the federal government, but are only compensated at a GS-5 rate even if they made more money than that. The same can be said for part time workers, seasonal, census takers, Peace Corps workers, and many others that compensation is supposed to be paid for.

The OWCP does not take any overtime into account for most occupations and thus the loss of overtime is a real income loss that should be used to compare the amount of earned pay to compensation. The OWCP does not pay for most lost pay for outside work and reserve pay unless it is a condition of employment. This means that many of the dollars earned from trades, outside businesses and even service to one's country was not compared to compensation due to an on the job injury.

Many civil service jobs not only include step increases but level increases that would have occurred and certainly do not take into account merit promotions or transfer abilities that are lost when injured on the job. The GAO conclusions and introspection that they took in evaluating promotional opportunities were negligent.

The GAO did not take into account the specialty pays, such as dirty pay, hazardous pay and locality pay. Many of these earning were everyday part of the jobs, and yet are not compensated for by the US Department of Labor's OWCP and FECA. If in fact many of these injuries were before locality pay was used, then it should be included in any comparisons of how FECA compensation compares to individuals would or should have received.

The GAO did not compare, nor investigate how many recipients of compensation have had their compensation adjusted for positions constructed by the Department of Labor's OWCP. In fact constructed positions and adjustment of compensation for these positions is performed fraudulently according to a former hearing representative, turned whistle-blower, Joseph Perez. Usually, the OWCP picks occupations out of the air assigning over inflated salaries thus adjusting compensations without any pay being received by the claimants. In many cases where jobs are held by claimants, the actual earnings are less than those attributed to by the OWCP. The GAO has not contacted any claimants to verify incomes or earnings.

The GAO did not discuss or explain those claimants whose compensation is even less than 75% for 66.7% of their pay. For example, workers who are above a GS-15 step one even Congressional and Executive pay is limited to a maximum compensation of a GS-15 one pay period. This would make a person whose real salary and earnings over $85,000 an year significantly less than 75% or 66.7%

Conclusion:
One can only conclude that the GAO report is misleading, inconclusive, and not really worth the paper it is printed on. The real compensation is less than the individuals would have made had they continued working in almost all cases. The GAO report may have been prepared to slant opinions against recipients of compensation, for the purpose of reducing benefits and balancing the budget on the back of claimants.

It is hoped that in the future, that the Congress will evaluate programs and in particular the FECA based on facts with the participation of those affected by the program. It is hoped that Congressional Representatives will refrain from claimant bashing and making inaccurate statements in the press. Instead these men and women will act in a responsible manner in allowing claimants and claimants' representative the opportunity to testify and present evident to the Subcommittee. This evidence will shed a light on the years of corruption and malfeasance in the misadministration of the FECA by the US DoL and the OCWP to defraud claimants, the congress and public at large. It is hoped that you, Mr. Mica will look fairly at the facts represented in our rebuttal to the GAO report. Further, that you will then look at the program through the eyes of those it exists to serve and not the employers who only want to balance their budget on the backs of the injured workers.

Respectfully Submitted,

Wilson L. Clow
Executive Director, NAFIW