The Labor & Employment Blog is a forum for practitioners and Bloomberg BNA editors to share ideas, raise issues, and network with colleagues.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
by Louis C. LaBrecque
The Obama administration's proposal for modifying the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program faced a somewhat chilly reception during a recent hearing, with Democrats on a House panel and some hearing witnesses criticizing provisions that would reduce workers' compensation benefits for injured federal and postal employees with dependents.
Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Worker Protections, including subcommittee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), urged further study before making changes to the current program, which provides higher levels of benefits to FECA beneficiaries with dependents. The administration would like to move to a system that calculates FECA benefits without regard to family status.
"Moving toward a single rate of wage loss compensation is worthy of consideration. However, we have to be mindful how this will affect federal employees with families, especially when their colleagues without dependents stand to gain financially," Walberg said during the July 10 hearing.
Gary Steinberg, director of the Labor Department's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, told the subcommittee that the administration's proposal calls for changing the benefit structure of FECA to eliminate augmented benefits currently provided to FECA beneficiaries with dependents.
Currently, Steinberg said, such beneficiaries receive 75 percent of their benefits tax free, compared with just under 67 percent for FECA beneficiaries without dependents.
"Few state systems provide any augmentation for benefits, and none approaches the federal level," he told the panel. Steinberg emphasized that the administration is proposing to change the program only for future FECA recipients, meaning current recipients would not see a change in their benefits.
Instead, he said, FECA benefits should be set at a level of 70 percent, regardless dependent status. This would make it easier for OWCP to administer the program, while eliminating what Steinberg described as a disincentive for FECA beneficiaries with dependents - who make up the majority of beneficiaries - to return to work.
According to Steinberg, the current structure requires OWCP to get updated information from FECA beneficiaries with dependents each year to ensure that they are still eligible for the augmented benefits. For example, he said, dependents after reaching the age of 18 are no longer eligible for purposes of determining FECA coverage.
The administration also considers offering one benefit level to be more equitable, because agencies do not distinguish between employees with dependents and those without dependents for purposes of determining salaries, Steinberg said. He estimated that the administration's proposal would save the government $500 million over 10 years.
Others on the panel disagreed, calling it unfair to put FECA recipients without dependents in a better financial situation than those with dependents by providing both groups with the same level of benefits.
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the full committee, took Steinberg to task on this point. Miller noted that at one point in his testimony, Steinberg said that employees with dependents often are not the only wage earners in their families.
Thus, Miller said, Steinberg was acknowledging that there are differences between the two types of recipients. This suggests that it is not inequitable to offer two different levels of benefits, Miller said.
In other public sector news:
You must Sign In or Register to post a comment.
EEO Roundup: Obesity as a Disability—EEOC’s Feldblum Comments
Public Sector Roundup: Administration Told to Insist on Back Pay for Federal Workers If Shutdown Occurs
Public Sector Roundup: Proposed Rule Would Allow Compensatory Time Off for Religious Observances
Q&A: U.S. Multinationals Must Understand Local EEO Issues
Q&A: A Glimpse Into Defending Workers’ Discrimination Claims