This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. Part-Time Employment The Legal and Historical Framework for Federal Part-Time Employment The current authority for Federal part-time employment was established by the Federal Employees Part-Time Career Employment Act of 1978. -49 This piece of legislation was particularly noteworthy for its forward-thinking intent, as 13 years ago it foreshadowed many of the work and family "values" which are considered state-of-the-art today. Specifically, the "Congressional Findings and Purpose" section of the law recognized that "... many individuals in our society possess great productive potential which goes unused because they cannot meet the requirements of a standard workweek," and that permanent part-time employment: * Provides older individuals with a gradual transition into retirement; * Provides employment opportunities to handicapped individuals or others who require a reduced workweek; * Provides parents opportunities to balance family responsibilities with the need for additional income; * Benefits students who must finance their own education or vocational training; * Benefits the Government, as an employer, by increasing productivity and job satisfaction, while lowering turnover rates and absenteeism, offering management more flexibility in meeting work requirements, and filling shortages in various occupations; and * Benefits society by offering a needed alternative for those individuals who require or prefer shorter hours (despite the reduced income), thus increasing jobs available to reduce unemployment while retaining the skills of individuals who have training and experience. Given the above findings, the act went on to state that its purpose was "... to provide increased part-time career employment opportunities throughout the Federal Government." In terms of doing this, however, the new law actually made only a few substantive changes in the way part-time positions were treated. These included: defining part-time positions as those involving 16 to 32 hours of work per week; specifying that part-time positions were to be counted on a pro-rata basis when computing end-of-year personnel ceilings; and specifying that the Government's contribution to health insurance premiums for part-time employees was to be prorated as well. In addition to these substantive changes, the law established several other requirements which turned out to be largely symbolic. These included the following: agencies should establish part-time career employment programs which would encourage creation of part-time positions; agencies should establish communication channels between employees engaged in part-time career program activities; OPM (then Civil Service Commission) should advise and assist agencies with their part-time career programs; OPM should conduct research and demonstration projects relating to part-time employment, including job sharing; and agencies should report to OPM and that OPM should, in turn, report to the President and Congress on part-time employment within the Federal Government. In passing the part-time career act described above, Congress intended to correct what it viewed as a serious shortcoming in Federal personnel practices. According to the legislative history for this act: The Federal Government has lagged far behind the private sphere in providing and improving part-time employment opportunities of any type. In 1977, only 2.3 percent of the Federal work force were permanent part-time employees. Moreover, 89 percent of the part-time federal jobs are in the lower grade levels, primarily in the clerical, food and medical services. This record is particularly disappointing because the issue of increasing part-time employment opportunities in the Federal Government is not new. Fifteen years ago [in 1963] the President's Commission on the Status of Women recommended that the Federal Government establish a permanent structure for part-time job opportunities in Federal agencies... [The Federal Employees Part-Time Career Act of 1978] is a modest step toward increased part-time employment opportunities. However, its importance should not be underestimated. Only legislation can make expanded part-time employment opportunities a true national priority and strengthen the agencies' resolve to embark upon such programs. -50 The legislative history went on to describe previous congressional attempts to pass part-time employment requirements, which would have "...required each agency to set aside 2 percent of all jobs in each grade each year during the next five for permanent part-time employment," in order to assure that the desired changes would occur. While Congress ultimately decided not to impose legislatively mandated quotas, the congressional authors clearly expressed their expectations, saying, "...the agencies must make a substantial good faith effort to set goals which would represent meaningful progress and to move toward them." Developments Since Passage of the Part-time Employment Act While the 1978 act was quite explicit in detailing certain actions which agencies and OPM were expected to take, responses to these mandates have been spotty at best. When GAO examined the status of Federal part-time employment programs in July 1986, it found that, in general, neither OPM nor the agencies had fulfilled their duties under the act. Given these findings, it is not surprising that GAO also found that: [w]hile the number of part-time employees governmentwide increased during 1979 and 1980, the first years after the legislation became effective, there has since been a general downward trend. From January 1981 to January 1986, part-time employment dropped by about 11 percent. Over the same period, the total number of permanent federal employees increased by about 1.5 percent. -51 As the above figures show, in the first 6-plus years of the Part-Time Career Employment Act's existence, there had not been much "meaningful progress" toward meeting Congress' expectations of an increase in the number of Federal part-time employees. In fact, by 1989, the percent of Government employees on part-time schedules (2.3 percent) was identical to what existed back in 1978. Fortunately, the total picture of Federal part-time employment is not as bad as these raw statistics would suggest. For one thing, there has been a significant transformation in the grade level of part-time employees. According to OPM, between 1978 and 1990, the number of part-time employees in wage grade and GS-1 through GS-3 positions declined dramatically (from 25,446 to 12,346), while those in higher grades increased substantially (e.g., part-time positions in grades GS-4 through GS-9 increased from 16,303 to 20,792, while those in grades GS-10 and above increased from 2,577 to 7,378). Also, there has been an important shift in the nature of the Government's part-time workforce. Prior to the 1978 act, the Government had large numbers of "part-time" employees who were involuntarily required to work 39 hours a week, in order for agencies to escape end-of-year full-time employee "ceiling" requirements. Since passage of the act, part-time positions are defined as those involving between 16 and 32 hours of work each week, and employees serving in such positions are more likely to be there on a voluntary basis. Having noted all of the above, there is no question that these changes in the nature and composition of the Federal part-time workforce are positive developments. However, the fact remains that the progress which has been made still falls far short of what might have been expected by the authors of the 1978 act. For comparison purposes, it is worth noting that the nationwide population of part-time workers (including both public and private sector) has generally ranged from 15 to 18 percent of the workforce over the last 20 years. -52 While the universe of Federal jobs certainly differs in makeup and mission from the general civilian workforce (e.g., compared to the private sector, the Government employs relatively few part-time food-service workers), and the private sector complement of part-time workers includes some significant number of people who are only working part-time because they were unable to secure full-time employment, these figures still suggest that there is substantial opportunity to expand the number of Federal part-time jobs, if Federal managers chose to allow them or sought to create them. The causes of Federal agencies' lack of action in the area of part-time employment are not conclusively known. While it is obvious that a manager would be reluctant to give up a full-time position and only get one part-time position to replace it (since the total work hours of a part-timer are inherently less than a full-timer), nothing precludes hiring multiple part-time employees to fill what had previously been full-time slots. Moreover, while such multiple hires could take the form of job-sharing arrangements (as discussed below), they need not do so. Turning then to other potential factors, it does not appear that productivity concerns about part-time employees are an issue for Federal agencies. When we asked agencies, "Overall, how would you judge the productivity of your agency's part-time employees versus full-time employees, per hour worked?," no agency indicated that part-time employees were less productive than full-time employees (2 agencies said "Part-timers are somewhat more productive," 11 agencies said "Part-timers are equally as productive," and 9 agencies said "Don't know/Can't judge"). Similarly, cost would not appear to be a concern, since there are relatively few additional costs associated with hiring part-time employees. Part-timers are counted on a pro-rata basis against employment ceilings, and their benefits (such as leave, retirement, and the Government's share of the cost of health insurance premiums) are also prorated. While it can cost agencies more to train two part-time employees than it would if one full-time person filled a particular job, given the relatively small number of positions involved, such costs are probably not a major impediment to expanded part-time opportunities at this time. Furthermore, when we asked agencies how the number of part-time jobs matched up with the number of employees wanting to work part-time, no agency said it was having trouble filling its existing part-time positions; thus, recruitment does not seem to be a drawback either. Moreover, given projections about the declining skill levels of new entrants into the workforce, the potential to hire people in the future who are skilled, but may not be interested in full-time work (e.g., recent nonfederal retirees, students, and disabled workers), should not be overlooked. Finally, as table 6 below shows, only six agencies indicated that they had reached (or nearly reached) the practical limit of how many part-timers they could reasonably use: Table 6 Number of agencies choosing the indicated response category to: "There us certainly some practical limit to the percent of an agency's workforce which could efficiently and effectively be made-up of part- time positions, assuming employees were available to fill such positions. To what extent has your agency reached this practical limit?" 2 To a great extent 4 To a moderate extent 2 To a minor extent 3 To no extent 11 Don't know/Can't judge Given all of the above, it seems a reasonable inference that the paucity of part-time positions in the Government is more a result of organizational inertia than it is a conscious decision not to have such positions. Except in a few agencies which have substantial part-time programs (e.g., the Department of Veterans Affairs and OPM), most part-time positions that do exist were probably created in response to requests from individual full-time employees who requested a change to part-time status, rather than as part of a planned program or policy. Job Sharing Congress recently included the following mandate in OPM's 1990 appropriations bill: The [House Committee on Appropriations] is aware of the increasing number of federal employees with children and dependent elderly family members and has included $250,000 for OPM to establish and operate a program designed to facilitate job-sharing arrangements authorized under Public Law 95-437 [the Federal Employees Part-Time Career Employment Act of 1978]. The Committee expects OPM to act as a clearinghouse for information pertaining to individuals seeking employment under job-sharing arrangements, and any positions that may be filled under such an arrangement. The Committee expects that OPM will automate the clearinghouse function, making it compatible with agency personnel data systems and providing computerized listings for easy access by agencies and applicants. In this regard, OPM should survey agencies to determine what positions are appropriate for listing under the program and how rights and responsibilities would be appointed under a job-sharing arrangement. Data on individuals wishing to be included in listings furnished may include among other information personal qualifications, positions sought, and time of availability for work. The Committee expects OPM to take reasonable measures to provide continuing notice to Government employees and applicants relating to the availability of the program. -53 Through this language, OPM was ordered to create a job-sharing program, in contrast to the ad hoc unstructured approach which has otherwise characterized part-time employment in the Government (notwithstanding Congress' mandate in the 1978 part-time career act requiring agencies to have part-time programs). Whether a job-sharing program can be the catalyst which finally puts Federal part-time opportunities on the map, however, remains to be seen. Job sharing essentially combines the efforts of two (or more) part-time employees, in order to fill one full-time slot. Thus, for this idea to work, there must be at least two employees in the same agency and post of duty who are personally and professionally compatible, and who want to share one job. Logistically and interpersonally, this approach has potential problems inherent in it. Regarding the characteristics of successful job-sharing teams and job-sharing arrangements in a white-collar work environment, OPM says that: The experience reported by employers of job sharing teams suggests that job sharers must be good communicators, be willing to consult and cooperate as members of a team rather than as competitors, be flexible, and have a strong commitment to the job and to making the job sharing arrangement work. They must have complementary skills, knowledge and abilities -- and also compatible work styles... Almost any reasonable arrangement is possible if it meets the needs of the supervisor and job sharers. Scheduling should take advantage of the fact two people rather than one are filling the job; these possibilities include overlapping time, split shifts, or working in different locations at the same time. Work schedules for job sharers can be from 16 to 32 hours per week and can be varied in the same way as other part-time employees. -54 Given all the complexities of job sharing, it appears to us that Congress' hopes for substantial expansion of Federal part-time job opportunities are not likely to be fulfilled through this program alone. It's not that job sharing is inherently a bad idea, but rather that it takes a potentially simple solution (having multiple part-time employees filling what would otherwise be full-time slots) and makes it complicated. Given its inherent complications, it would seem that simply restructuring full-time positions into distinct part-time positions, without the interdependency of job-sharing arrangements, gives most of the same benefits without the complexities of formally-shared positions. Having said this, if maintaining the integrity of a unified full-time position makes it easier for some managers to create part-time slots, this option should certainly be made available to them. Where there are employees available who want this type of arrangement and can bring it off successfully, both the employee and the Government can benefit (e.g., the employee gets the part-time schedule which he or she wants, while the manager gets a built-in backup capability when workload or turnover require it). In summary, it would appear that participation by Federal employees in job-sharing teams is unlikely to expand dramatically and, therefore, job sharing is unlikely to be the means through which part- time opportunities become significantly more common throughout Government. We would therefore encourage agencies and OPM to actively consider not only job-sharing programs, but also job restructuring initiatives, when they wish to expand part-time job opportunities. Part-Time Employment as a Work and Family Benefit "I consistently worked 6 plus days a week and long hours. I refused to continue that kind of schedule after having a baby. [I would have stayed if I had been] permitted to work part-time for several years while my children were small." -55 An "outstanding" 34-year-old Federal attorney who resigned while earning $68,000 a year. The above quote, drawn from a survey of Federal employees who were resigning, epitomizes the challenge facing the Government's part-time employment programs. On its face, it seems surprising that such a seemingly simple accommodation as attempting to structure a part-time schedule might have kept a valued employee from leaving. And yet, for whatever reason, this option was not made available to her. Given the statistics cited earlier, the dilemma faced by that "outstanding" attorney is apparently not an isolated incident. The reality is that Government efforts to increase the numbers of part-time job opportunities have been largely ineffective. This is unfortunate, since as a work and family benefit, part-time employment can be a real boon to an organization. Consider the following comments from a personnel manager at one private sector firm: "There are a lot of mothers out there looking for a place where they can put in a good, productive workday without the stress of having to make arrangements for child care before and after school and on school holidays." In response to this realization, this manager's firm hired several mothers to work 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Monday through Friday, with school holidays and summer vacations off. As a result, "[t]he firm had such a good response to its initial advertisement of the new program that it [now] has a waiting list..." -56 Regarding the role of mothers, some workforce statistics detailing the gender of part-time employees are interesting to note at this point of our analysis. Nationally, roughly 1 in 10 working men are on part-time schedules, while about one-quarter of working women are. Within the Government, 71 percent of the part-time workforce are women. -57 Looking to the future, these gender statistics may be changing, along with many other "givens" in the work and family equation, as is illustrated by the following study results quoted by American Demographics magazine: In a 1985 study of 4,000 DuPont employees, 52 percent of the women and just 18 percent of the men were interested in working part-time. In 1988, a similar study found that the number of women interested in part-time work had remained constant. But the percentage of interested men had nearly doubled, to 33 percent. Even more startling was that 25 percent of the men and about 50 percent of the women said they had considered seeking another employer who offered more work or family flexibility. -58 Successful work and family programs such as part-time employment offer a proactive means through which the Government can respond to the demographic changes which are currently taking place in the job market. The increasing role of women in the workforce, and the Government's increasing need for women to fill critical jobs, both argue for creating more part-time positions. They also raise the question of what actions, if any, the Government could (or should) take to make its part-time positions more attractive than potentially competing private sector part-time positions. In talking about the flexibility that part-time work options provide, a former director of the Women's Bureau, Department of Labor, noted that "...many women have sacrificed some measure of economic security for that flexibility. This need not be the only alternative. Creative options are needed to achieve and protect the rights, benefits, compensation, and opportunities for all workers." -59 In this regard at least, the Government offers a better part-time benefits package than some other employers. Federal part-timers are typically hired as permanent employees and are eligible for the same types of benefits as full-time employees. As mentioned earlier, however, the Government's contribution to these benefits is prorated, commensurate with the number of hours per week that the employee is scheduled to work. Looking to the future, perhaps one area where the Government might choose to further distinguish itself from other employers would be in what additional benefits it grants to part-timers. While the current system of prorating benefits avoids treating part-time employees more generously than full-time ones, there is nothing sacrosanct about this approach. In fact, our current definition of what is (or is not) considered part time is essentially arbitrary: "As late as 1938, 60 percent of federal employees worked more than five days a week... Considered historically, the current definitions of full-time and part-time work lose substantive meaning and reflect simply the expectations of the historical moment. For example, when ten-hour days were the norm, eight-hour days would have been considered part-time." -60 In light of this historical perspective, if the Government ever had a problem in recruiting part-time employees, or wanted to gain an advantage in retaining its part-time employees, it could consider providing more liberal benefits to part-timers than it currently does. Even without such an approach, however, it would appear that more aggressive action by OPM and top agency executives could translate into expanded part-time opportunities within the Federal Government. OPM's recent issuance in the FPM on part-time employment and job sharing (FPM Letter 340-3, dated Sept. 10,1990) was one important step in this direction, but more can and should be done. Since our analysis uncovered no substantive drawbacks to part-time work, and there appear to be several arguments in its favor, we encourage such action where compatible with the work and mission of an agency.