Contents: 

• NFFE Local 1998 strongly supports the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)  
• Union calls for delay in land/sea border phase of WHTI 
• Comparing increase in passport applicants and passport adjudicators 
• Union opposes so-called "Enhanced Border Crossing Driver's License" 
• The intent of the WHTI will only be fulfilled if the integrity of the passport issuance process is enhanced 
• Union responds to mandatory overtime 
• Miscellaneous Information 

Updates: 

• On January 18, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security announced that, per new legislation, the passport requirement of the land/sea phase of the WHTI would be implemented no sooner than June 2009. However, the ability to enter the U.S. based on a simple oral declaration would end on January 31, 2008, and travelers would henceforth be required to submit some sort of documentation.  
• On October 1, 2007 the waiver allowing passport applicants to fly to certain destinations with receipt in lieu of the passport ended 
• On July 11, 2007 the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on the passport backlog.  
• On June 20, 2007 the Department of Homeland Security announced that the land/sea phase of the WHTI would be delayed until Summer 2008. 
• On June 19, 2007 Ambassador Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  

Press coverage: 

• Los Angeles Times: "Get a passport; avoid the rush" (June 4, 2008) 
• CNN: "Tougher Passport Rules" (September 30, 2007) 
• Los Angeles Times: "Beat the crowd - file for your U.S. passport now" (September 27, 2007) 
• Los Angeles Times: "U.S. officials declare passport backlog over" (September 8, 2007) 
• Christian Science Monitor: "Are new passport rules making the US safer?" (July 6, 2007) 
• United Press International (UPI): "Passport backlog could spell security risk" (July 6, 2007) 
• Chicago Tribune: "Got your passport? You sure it's OK?" (July 1, 2007) 
• MSNBC.com: Red Tape Chronicles: "Worker Dearth, Citi Blamed in Passport Mess" (June 19, 2007) 
• Federal Daily: "Passport Workers Union Files Unfair Labor Charge" (June 20, 2007) 
• Federal Daily: "NFFE Suggests Postponing Mandatory Passport Deadline" (June 18, 2007) 
• GovernmentExecutive.com: "DHS delays plans for land-sea passport requirement" (June 20, 2007) 
• ConsumerAffairs.com: "Furious Travelers Blame Feds For Passport Mess" (June 22, 2007) 
• Los Angeles Times: "Passports, answers in high demand" (June 20, 2007) 
• Los Angeles Times: "Diary of a trip through U.S. passport application limbo" (May 9, 2007 - July 17, 2007) 

(updated February 11, 2008) 

The GAO tests of the border in 2006 reaffirmed that the vulnerabilities in travel document verification at the border that were exposed in 2002, 2003 and 2004 still existed.  Information on this is contained in the GAO's August 2, 2006 report, titled "Continued Weaknesses in Screening Entrants into the United States".  This report is a "must read" for anyone who questions why the WHTI is necessary.  Another informative resource is the May 13, 2003 testimony before House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims regarding the D.C.-area sniper, titled "John Allen Muhammad, Document Fraud, and the Western Hemisphere Passport Exception".  

Rather than having Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents attempt to screen 8000 versions of U.S. birth certificates and hundreds of forms of state-issued identification for persons entering the U.S. claiming to be U.S. citizens, the original goal of the WHTI would have allowed CBP agents to only have scrutinize one travel document for U.S. citizens: a U.S. passport.  As then Chairman John N. Hostettler (R-IN) of the House Subcommittee stated at the May 13, 2003 hearing, even though "...our inspectors at the ports of entry are supremely vigilant as they review the documents presented by hundreds of travelers each day", nevertheless "it is doubtful that anyone could have even a passing familiar with, let alone a working knowledge of, each and every one of these documents".  The U.S. passport is preferable to the previous requirements due to: 

1. the enhanced security features of the U.S. passport 
2. CPB agents would not have to be familiar with thousands of varieties of documents, but rather could focus on mastering familiarity with just one: the U.S. passport 
3. the passport issuance process requires citizenship and identify evidence, whereas travelers at land borders often were not required to present proof of identity and citizenship 
4. passport applicants are checked against databases that verify their eligibility and entitlement to passports 
5. the passport adjudication process can, if given enough time, ensure that applicants are who they claim to be and are U.S. citizens/nationals 
6. database interconnectedness between CBP and DOS, especially with the new E-Chip passport 

For these reasons and others, NFFE Local 1998 believes that the WHTI is a necessary national security requirement that will help to secure our borders.  

NFFE Local 1998: Delay Land/Sea Phase of WHTI 

June 12, 2007: There have been widespread media reports about delays in receiving U.S. passports, and calls from Congress for the Department of State (DOS) to address this problem.  This year, the projected waiting time to receive a passport has doubled from 6 weeks to 12 weeks and many passport applicants have had difficult and trying experiences attempting to receive a passport in time for their trips abroad.  This is happening as a result of the January 23, 2007 implementation of the air travel phase of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which requires a passport for travel into the United States.  Media reports on May 11th quoted a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson stating that the land/sea phase of the WHTI will be implemented on January 1, 2008 and not later, as some members of Congress have called for.  Due to the huge processing delays, the Department of State announced on Friday, June 8^th that “U.S. citizens traveling to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda who have applied for but not yet received passports can nevertheless temporarily enter and depart from the United States by air with a government issued photo identification and Department of State official proof of application for a passport through September 30, 2007”. 

On June 13, 2007 the National Federation of Federal Employees issued this press release on behalf of NFFE Local 1998:

Passport Union: Processing Delays Will Only Get Worse Unless Land/Sea Border Rule Delayed 

The union representing Passport Agency workers is predicting greater difficulty processing Passport applications throughout 2007 and into 2008.  National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1998 (a nationwide local representing all bargaining unit Passport workers) blames unnecessary staffing shortfalls for the crisis.  The union strongly supports the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), but is advocating that the land/sea phase be delayed until sufficient staffing is brought on board.

The union holds that the State Department did not hire the needed personnel to complete the work despite knowing what the increased demands on the agency would be.  Contrary to a statement made last Friday (6/8/07) by a State Department spokesperson that the Department did not expect the flood of applications, the union says the agency accurately predicted the increase.  In February of 2005 the State Department informed the union that 15-20 million applications were expected as a result of the new rules requiring a passport for travel in the Western Hemisphere.  In 2006, an estimate of 16.2 million applications for FY2007 was posted.  Anticipating the expected workload increase, the agency told the union in February 2005 that they planned on adding 468 Passport workers, most of whom were to be adjudicators.  The new rules went into effect on January 23, 2007, yet only about 185 new adjudicators had been added. 

“Because there aren’t enough adjudicators, applicants have huge delays,” said Colin Walle, President of NFFE Local 1998.  “Some have missed their trips.  We are buried in applications, and workload pressures are undermining the integrity of the adjudication process.  We’ve got mandatory overtime and, in some cases, unsafe conditions.”  A Homeland Security spokesperson recently stated (5/11/07) that the January 1, 2008 land/sea rule date was a “firm deadline.”  Walle said, “If that happens the worst is yet to come.” 

Some have touted a proposed “Enhanced Border Crossing Driver’s License” as the solution, instead of requiring a passport for land/sea borders.  The union opposes this plan because “the process is wide open to fraud and error,” explained Walle.  The union supports the Department’s plan to create new wallet-sized passport cards as a cheaper and more convenient document for land/sea border crossings. 

“The WHTI is a vital part of securing our nation’s borders,” said Walle.  “Ideally it would already be in place.  We are reluctantly calling for a delay in the land/sea phase until the agency has enough trained staffing and the passport card is finalized and available.”  

Based on information from the travel.state.gov website and published projections on passport issuance for Fiscal Year 2007, here is a chart showing an increasing number of passports being issued:

Passport Specialists are the federal government employees, working for the Department of State, who adjudicate passport applications.  Adjudication involves the determination that the applicant is who he/she claims to be, is a U.S. citizen/national, and has met other requirements in order to be entitled to receive a U.S. passport.  The number of Passport Specialists has grown from 440 on April 8, 2002 to 665 on March 5, 2007.  The workload from the early part of the decade averaged nearly 7.2 million applications per year.  With the work expected to increase by 150% due to the WHTI, the adjudication staff grew only by about 50%.  If the number of adjudicators had risen by the same percentage, we would have had over 1000 adjudicators on staff by now.  Here is a graph showing the number of bargaining unit employees and Passport Specialists who work for Passport Services:

Notes:
* BUE = "bargaining unit employees" (this includes Passport Specialists, Passport Specialists Trainees, and other positions).  
* The number of trainees is included in the total # of BUE, but is not included in the number of Passport Specialists. 
* The April 8, 2002 list from HQ included 642 total BUE, but 16 of them were supervisory or other non-BUE positions, so were subtracted.
* The September 6, 2002 list from HQ included 642 total BUE, but 15 of them were non-BUE and were subtracted.
* The number of Passport Specialists has reportedly risen to 698, as of June 11, 2007, according to information received by NFFE Local 1998 from HQ (in addition, there are 19 Passport Specialist Trainees).  

Source: Lists of bargaining unit employees provided to NFFE Local 1998, as required by Article 10, Section 4 of the collective bargaining agreement.

Source: The Union's notes from the February 8, 2005 National Union/Management Council meeting held in Washington, DC.  The notes were compiled from the hand-written notes taken from the four Union attendees at the meeting and then emailed to Management in June 2005.  The parties never had time to finalize the joint minutes.  Management never disputed the figures quoted in the June 2005 email.  Here is the relevant excerpt:  

[The DAS] addressed the meeting. He said that we have enormous challenges in the New Year.  He stated that we need to have an effective working relationship and find issues worth fighting about and let others go.  He passed around some new passports so we could all see what they looked like.  Everyone thought they looked very nice and liked all the artwork.

[A different HQ Management official] said that management sent out a request for 468 additional FTE’s but she did not know when or if they will be getting them.  She said they needed to hire far enough in advance to train them before W. Hemisphere goes into effect.  Management is looking at various ways to staff.  They are also looking at various ways of re-arranging current locations.  They don’t really want to start over from scratch with new agencies, but they want to build on what they already have....  [The DAS] had to leave to attend another meeting. 

In February 2005, there were 480 Passport Specialists.  By the time the air phase of the WHTI was implemented on January 23, 2007, there were 665 (the number is actually from about six weeks later: March 5, 2007).  That is an increase of 185 Passport Specialists.  

In a June 20, 2007 article in the Los Angeles Times titled, "Federal officials admit they weren't ready for high passport demand", a Department of State official "disputed those numbers, saying her office hired more than 250 employees and never promised more."  However, the numbers quoted in the Union's notes form the February 8, 2005 Union/Management Council meeting were essentially reiterated by Ambassador Maura Harty in an April 5, 2005 joint Department of State/Department of Homeland Security press briefing: 

QUESTION: What will overwhelm you? I mean, what level do you believe that you might get swamped in so many applications that the process would get hurt?

AMBASSADOR HARTY: Well, I don't know that that's a metric -- that that is a metric that is particularly useful now if I gave you a number and then tomorrow it goes up by one. Will I panic? No. I'll just work harder. We have a system that is extraordinary. There are 16 passport agencies across this country. There are, what, 1,100 people working in passport agencies? Eleven hundred people now -- we've got on the books for another 500 over the next year. We're up for this. We're ready for this. We have an obligation to do this and so we will do it.

QUESTION: These people are being hired specifically because of --

AMBASSADOR HARTY: Because of -- because we see this demand coming and we have a public service responsibility.

In February 2007, representatives of NFFE Local 1998 first heard about a proposal to have a so-called "Enhanced Border Crossing Driver's License" serve as a de facto passport.  This concept has been pushed as an alternative to the passport to satisfy the WHTI, and is been considered for implementation because of the significant economic impact that the WHTI may have on border communities and commerce.  Since 1856, only the federal government has had the authority to determine citizenship and issue passports.  A passport is essentially a letter from one government to another, asking for the host government to extend all aid and protection to the person identified in the passport.  As such, passport issuance has been considered to be tied to the foreign policy of the United States, which is why they are issued by the U.S. Department of State.  The appropriate level of government for the issuance of a passport is at the federal level - just as Quebec, British Columbia, and other Canadian provinces don't issue de facto passports to their citizens, it is not appropriate for North Dakota or Minnesota to either.  

Plans under consideration to scan/transmit copies of evidence from DMV’s to the DOS for citizenship verification are wide open to fraud and error.  The Union strongly supports the Department of State’s planned introduction of the “PASS card”, a driver’s license-sized version of the passport for land/sea border crossing only.  Accessibility issues could also be addressed by additional "gateway" passport offices in the border states.  The Union believes the passport card may be the only viable alternative, for cost and convenience, to the driver’s license proposal.  On March 15, 2007, NFFE Local 1998 officers, along with a representative from NFFE National and another from the IAMAW, met with the staff of a U.S. Senator to share the Union's views on this proposal - explaining why the Union believed it is a bad idea.  What follows is the text of the Union's letter to the Senator: 

To: Sen. ____ ________, Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee 
Re: Union's Views on "Border Crossing Enabled Driver's License"

Sen. _______: 

I am writing to you to express concerns about draft legislation regarding a “Border Crossing Enabled Driver’s License”, which is intended to amend the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.  I am writing to you in my capacity as the Union President of NFFE Local 1998, the exclusive representative of the Passport Services bargaining unit employees.  Previously our labor organization worked with your staff to address vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process; on June 29, 2005 the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on this issue and on that same date the Government Accountability Office issued a report titled “Improvements Needed to Strengthen U.S. Passport Fraud Detection Efforts”.  We have great respect and appreciation for your efforts to improve our nation’s border security. 

News reports reflect a great deal of concern, especially among northern border states, with the pending implementation of the requirement that all land and sea travelers to and from Canada present passports or other secure travel documents.  As you know, the air travel requirement recently went into effect.  While NFFE Local 1998 and the employees we represent still have serious concerns about the passport issuance process, which we are attempting to address with Passport Services Management, we strongly support closing the “loophole” or exception which has allowed travelers in the Western Hemisphere to enter the U.S. without a passport.  Requiring U.S. citizens/nationals to present a U.S. passport (or passport card) upon entering the country – whether that be by air, land, or sea, and whether from this hemisphere or elsewhere – is a vital part of securing our nation’s borders.  The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) should be fully implemented. 

The “Border Crossing Enabled Driver’s License” draft legislation, if enacted, would have many unintended but nevertheless negative consequences.  Perhaps the biggest problem is the notion of determining citizenship based on viewing scanned images of citizenship documents. 

The states and other local government authorities that issue birth certificates have invested a great deal of technology and money in enhancing the security features of their documents.  Some certificates have intaglio borders, which you can feel with your fingers.  Many utilize raised/embossed seals and the signatures of a registrar.  Some have latent images or use micro line printing.  Many have features that can only be viewed by holding the document at an angle.  At least one even has a feature that is enabled by firmly pressing on a portion of the certificate for a few seconds.  All of these features have been created and used so that the examiner can have confidence as to their authenticity. 

Passport Services has invested time, money, and training in the personnel who examine these documents and adjudicate passport applications, so that they have familiarity and knowledge of these security features.  All of the state’s efforts, and all of Passport Services’ efforts, would be wiped out by requiring the use of scanned birth certificates.  It is literally impossible for the workers that we represent to be able to authoritatively say that a birth certificate is valid or not based on viewing a scanned image.  Only the most obvious and glaring counterfeit birth documents could possibly be detected using this method.  If this portion of the draft legislation is enacted, it would be very easy for persons with fraudulent birth certificates to successfully pass this part of the screening process and obtain a driver’s license to cross the border.  The same holds true for the naturalization certificates, citizenship certificates, and reports of birth abroad. 

Another objection is the notion that the Department of State could make a “citizenship determination” solely based on a birth certificate, naturalization certificate, certificate of citizenship, or report of birth abroad.  Even if the original document was submitted, and a judgment on its authenticity was possible, that is a far cry from declaring the person named therein a U.S. citizen, and even further from declaring the person who submitted that document to indeed be the same as the person named in the document. 

For starters, a person – whether naturalized, born in the U.S., or who acquired citizenship at birth abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s) – may renounce his/her citizenship or may lose it by performing an expatriating act.  In addition, there are persons born in the U.S. but are not citizens, as their parents (e.g., an ambassador) are not subject to the laws of the U.S.  Some of this information is found in the CLASS Namecheck database, but other determinations of the possible loss or non-acquisition of citizenship are only made after a thoroughly completed passport application is submitted under oath and reviewed.  In addition, the person who submitted the document may have a different name from what is on the document, which would need to be checked.  Finally, mere possession of a citizenship document does not mean that the person is who he/she claims to be.  In fact, the majority of fraudulent passport applications detected by Passport Services adjudicators are submitted by persons who have bona fide citizenship evidence and identification, but were fraudulently obtained. 

We also have grave concerns about the workload and staffing pressures this additional task would take.  We are already seeing unprecedented use of overtime, even mandatory overtime, to handle the workload crisis that we face.  It is not apparent where the additional staffing will come from to handle a new assignment of reviewing potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions of scanned citizenship documents. 

Since 2002, the GAO has done numerous tests of our borders which have shown that it is all too easy to obtain entry using a false document.  Closing that “hole” in our system has been one of the most significant motivating factors in creating the WHTI passport requirement.  The goal of limiting the variety of documents which Custom and Border Patrol inspectors will have to examine and enhancing the security of those few documents is a laudable aim.  While the concerns of travelers and businesses in the northern border states over the effect of the passport requirement are not insignificant, hopefully the development of the passport card will allay the cost concerns.  Whatever decisions are made on this subject, we urge you in the strongest possible terms to not go forward with the Border Crossing Enabled Driver’s License as the draft legislation is presently written. 

Thank You, 

Colin Patrick Walle
Union President
IAMAW NFFE FD1 Local 1998
The views contained in this letter do not constitute any official position of Passport Services, the Bureau of Consular Affairs, or the Department of State.  They are solely the views of the labor organization that represents the employees of Passport Services. 

The intent of the WHTI will only be fulfilled if the integrity of the passport issuance process is enhanced: adjudicators need sufficient time to do their jobs 

NFFE Local 1998 has long argued that Passport Specialists need more time to diligently adjudicate passport applications.  The current performance standards do not provide sufficient time for adjudicators to do their jobs.  For more on this see the Union's passport integrity webpage.  Currently, GS-9 and GS-11 Passport Specialists must spend, on average, no more than 2 minutes and 30 seconds adjudicating each passport application.    

The WHTI is being implemented partly because the 8000 varieties of birth certificates and hundreds of varieties of identification documents were too much for any CBP agent to ably scrutinize in the limited timeframe allowed to them.  Those very same 8000 varieties of birth certificates and hundreds of varieties of ID's are what is submitted with passport applications, and Passport Specialists face time pressures similar to what the CBP agents faced.  If a CBP agent is forced to rush through his/her work, someone who should not gain entry into the U.S. could do so.  If a Passport Specialist is forced to rush through his/her work, a passport could be issued to someone who is not who he/she claims to be and/or not a U.S. citizen - a passport could be issued to a criminal, illegal alien, fugitive, or even a terrorist.  Unfortunately, passports have been issued in error to frauds and it is the considered, collective  judgment of the Passport Specialists that NFFE Local 1998 represents that the adjudication process is to vulnerable to being exploited by those attempt to fraudulently obtain a passport.  The GAO proved that it was all too easy to enter the U.S. with bogus ID and citizenship evidence.  But if that same bogus ID and citizenship evidence (or valid documents, fraudulently obtained) was submitted with a passport application and the passport issued, then we have made little progress in securing the borders.  For the WHTI to succeed, the vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process must be eliminated or minimized.  

This issue is of such importance to bargaining unit employees that they (many with great trepidation) took the unprecedented step in late 2003 and early 2004 of conducting a letter-writing/office-visiting campaign to Congress.  That effort led to the GAO conducting the investigation reported in GAO-05-477, titled "Improvements Needed to Strengthen U.S. Passport Fraud Detection Efforts", and the U.S. Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee's hearing that same day, titled "Vulnerabilities in the U.S. Passport System Can Be Exploited by Criminals and Terrorists".  

Here are some recent updates on the Union's efforts: 

March 30, 2007: NFFE Local 1998 sent a petition signed by 327 Passport Specialists from 16 offices around the country asking Headquarters to lower the numerical performance requirements ("quotas") "because the current numerical standards do not give us sufficient time to diligently scrutinize the applications and evidence for fraud". The petition was gathered between late January and early March. Only non-probationary employees were invited to sign (probationary employees have few rights to contest terminations, and some expressed concerns about retaliation). Of 383 non-probationary employees asked to sign the petition, 327 chose to sign their names - which is an overwhelming 85% participation rate. Virtually all of the Senior Passport Specialists (GS-11's) signed the petition. The Union asked HQ to respond to this petition within a month's time. The petition marks yet another effort in a long series of attempts by the Union to address this issue with Passport Services Management.  Click here to read the petition cover letter, including the wording of the petition: 2007 ADJ PETITION.  

November 24, 2006: The Union submitted a list of suggestions to HQ for ways, other than lowering the numerical quota, that quality and fraud detection could be emphasized. These include awards for anti-fraud work, accounting methods, anti-fraud training and meetings, and changes in tools and resources. 

November 24, 2006: The Union responded to Management's October 2nd denial of the Union's request that Passport Specialists be given more time so that they can diligently adjudicate passport applications and detect passport fraud. The Union cited a number of facts and statistics that lead us to believe that frauds can and have been issued in error as a result of requirements that employee work too quickly. The Union asked that HQ reconsider the decision to not provide more time. 

September 8, 2006: The NFFE Local 1998 Union President emailed HQ and once again formally asked that workers involved in the adjudication of passport application be given enough time to do the job right.  He explained that the current quotas are such that Management should have no confidence that attempts to fraudulently obtain passports will normally be successfully prevented.  The overwhelming majority of passport specialists responding to the Union's surveys (see earlier stories) stated that more time is needed.  

January 30, 2006: The Union compiled some of the results of the first comprehensive survey of bargaining unit employees and informed Management that on the issue of the adjudication performance standards, the Passport Specialists spoke loudly and clearly, with the overwhelming majority agreeing with the following statement: "The numerical performance standards do NOT provide me with sufficient time to diligently adjudicate passport applications (without taking shortcuts) and carefully scrutinize the evidence/application/tools for fraud indicators.”  Out of the 368 employees who indicated a firm response, 248 said they “Strongly Agreed” and 98 said they “Agreed” with that statement – an overwhelming 94% of Passport Specialists (there were 58 employees - mostly new hires - who indicated they were "Neutral", left the question blank, or wrote "N/A", and 23 employees combined who “Disagreed” or “Strongly Disagreed”). In addition, 97% of employees indicating a response said that the focus in adjudication is on quantity instead of quality, employees listed the "integrity of the passport issuance process" as their # 1 issue out of 10 options (ahead of promotions, work schedules, being treated with respect and dignity, etc.), and out of 228 written comments that were received 112 focused on the numerical adjudication standards (111 - 99% - took the time to argue that they should be lowered and that we need to focus more on quality).  Almost every Passport Specialist who was present during the week of the survey participated. 

Due to the heavy workload and massive backlog of applications, on March 8, 2007 Passport Services ordered nationwide mandatory overtime for what appears to be the first time ever.  While a few offices have had mandatory overtime on occasion in the past, most had not, and this marks the first time that most employees - including those who have worked for Passport Services for up to 35 years - have experienced mandatory overtime. As of June 11, 2007, there has been a total of three successive orders from HQ for nationwide mandatory overtime.  During each 30-day period, employees were all required to perform 16 hours of mandatory overtime.  This section explains what NFFE Local 1998 has done in regards to this unprecedented order.   

Management files exception to Arbitrator's award
February 7, 2008: The Department of State Office of Legal Advisor filed an exception (an appeal) to the Federal Labor Relations Authority challenging Arbitrator Jerome H. Ross's January 9th decision on the Union's desk adjudication overtime measurement grievance.  NFFE Local 1998 representatives are working NFFE National to file an opposition to the exception.  

Arbitrator issues decision: OT performance measurement award must be retroactive 
January 9, 2008: Passport Services HQ informed the Union on New Year's Eve that, pursuant to the Arbitrator Jerome H. Ross's October 23rd decision on the grievance, they would apply a new "0.875" factor to the measurement of desk adjudication on overtime starting on January 1, 2008.  This would take into account the so-called "nonproductive tasks" that employees must perform while on overtime other than adjudication.  Management stated that this solution would not be applied retroactively.  As the arbitrator retained jurisdiction over the case, the Union invited Management to jointly contact the arbitrator, but Management declined, so the Union requested an order directing Management to comply and the arbitrator issued that order on January 9th.  Management was directed to apply the solution from February 28, 2007 onward for those employees who did not have their nonproductive tasks taken into account previously.   

Arbitrator issues decision: Passport Specialists were not measured fairly while performing desk adjudication on overtime
November 1, 2007: Arbitrator Jerome H. Ross issued his decision on the grievance filed by NFFE Local 1998 regarding the measuring of desk adjudication on overtime.  The Union had argued that by not including the "non-productive tasks" (e.g., locking/unlocking, logging in/out of the computer and other programs, obtaining/moving batches, etc.) in the calculation of overtime performance, Management had violated Article 18 of the collective bargaining agreement.  Passport Specialists are measured on desk adjudication for 6.5 hours in a regular 8.0 hour day, but for 7.5 hours in an 8.0 hour overtime day.  Article 18 requires that performance be measured fairly, equitably, and using the most accurate methods available.  However, the Arbitrator decided that the bill should be split equally between the Union and Management ($3952.10 apiece) because he did not believe it was proved that employees perform exactly and precisely the same non-productive tasks on overtime as on regular time.  The Arbitrator ordered Passport Services Management to "cease and desist" using the MIS category "Overtime Desk - All Applications" and he remanded the grievance to Management "to account for Passport Specialists' nonproductive tasks while performing desk adjudication on overtime."  The Arbitrator also retained jurisdiction of the grievance if there is any dispute over the remedy.  Note: the bill was later split with the Union paying $3202.10 and Management paying $4702.10, per the collective bargaining agreement.  

Arbitrator rules for Union on mandatory overtime
September 17, 2007: Arbitrator Jerome H. Ross ruled for NFFE Local 1998 in a grievance filed over a violation of Article 28 of the collective bargaining agreement.  The grievance concerned a provision that allows one employee to be excused from mandatory overtime provided that another qualified employee (or employees) perform additional voluntary overtime in an amount sufficient to cover the mandatory overtime requirement for the first employee.  

Unfair Labor Practice charge filed re: contracting out 
June 12, 2007: NFFE Local 1998 filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge regarding Management's failure to negotiate, as appropriate, over a plan to contract out accepting/executing passport applications.  This function had always been considered an "inherently governmental function".  After being notified of this proposal on May 29th, the Union invoked its right to bargain over this change on June 1st and attempted to explain to Management why this plan would potentially harm the integrity of the passport issuance process.  The Union questioned why contractors were being asked to do adjudication functions when adjudicators in some offices were pulled from working on reducing the backlog to perform functions that contractors could perform.  On June 8th Management implemented the plan unilaterally at the Philadelphia Passport Agency, without bargaining with the Union.  NFFE Local 1998 does not intend the ULP or its concerns as a criticism of the contractor workers either personally or professionally.  Determining identity and citizenship and entitlement to a U.S. passport is a job for the government to do, not a contracting function.  Time spent training the new staff also took away from attempting to reduce the massive backlog, and errors made by new personnel harm customer service efforts.  The untrained eye may also miss fraud or other suspicious indicators.  

Arbitration scheduled for 2 grievances
May 25, 2007: NFFE Local 1998 and Passport Services agreed to schedule two grievances with the same arbitrator, tentatively scheduled for mid-August.  The first grievance relates to the Union's allegation that adjudication performance on overtime is unfair and unreasonable, and forces to work employees to work even faster - which further weakens the integrity of the passport issuance process.  The second grievance relates to the contract provision allowing one employee to substitute for another when mandatory overtime is ordered.  

Use Upward Mobility program to bring on more adjudicators?
April 13, 2007: The Union suggested to HQ that it expand the use of the Upward Mobility program to hire more Passport Specialists from current Department of State government workers.  These employees are already familiar with a lot of adjudication policies and issues, and have their security clearances in order, so could more quickly help with the backlog than hiring from the outside.  The Union identified 9 current offices where employees would be interested in Upward Mobility options, and also noted that many expressed an interest in working at a potential Atlanta Passport Agency, if one were ever created. (This suggestion was not adopted as of June 12, 2007)

Grievance filed re: mandatory OT 
April 13, 2007: The Union filed a Grievance Between the Parties with HQ challenging HQ's refusal to allow employees to be excused from mandatory overtime if qualified employees volunteered for the work.  The Union cited Article 28, Section 2 of the contract, which states "In the event an employee does not desire to work overtime, the Employer shall make an effort to accommodate the employee's request to be excused from overtime work, provided that another qualified employee, who normally performs the work, is available for the overtime." 

Union suggests WHTI land/sea phase be delayed 
April 5, 2007: The Union emailed HQ to suggest that the Department of State push back the planned January 1, 2008 implementation of the land/sea phase of the WHTI.  The Local 1998 President stated, "While we 110% agree with the implementation of the WHTI for land and sea entry in addition to air travel, I am concerned that the potential implementation [sic] land/sea requirement as early as January 2008 may completely crush us with work that frankly we are simply not prepared to handle.  This would inevitably lead to more mandatory overtime.  Even more important, as workers are overtaxed and forced even more than they already are to focus on quantity, quantity, quantity, there is going to be a predicable negative effect on the quality of our work (in errors, in adjudication and citizenship determination, and in fraud detection).  That undermines the whole point of this exercise – of having millions of Americans apply for passports to secure the borders, but whose applications are not being sufficiently scrutinized.  If we are not able to handle the increased workload that would be brought on by the land/sea border passport requirement, I am very worried that may also lead Congress to enact legislation that would cement the plan pushed by many states and interest groups of using the driver’s license to enter the U.S.  For these reasons, I – VERY RELUCTANTLY – hope you are considering a delay in the land and sea border crossing, until such time that we have sufficient staffing to handle it and with the Passport Card in place as the most viable alternative to the “enhanced” driver’s license." 

Union seeks respect for religious requirements 
April 2, 2007: The Union emailed HQ asking "to make sure that appropriate exceptions are made for mandatory OT on the weekends for persons with religious requirements. For example, one office is going to have the Duty Officer come in on Saturdays to handle both emergency and non-emergency cases. Now, that person's religious beliefs allow exceptions from the prohibition against working on the Sabbath for humanitarian reasons (e.g., life/death emergency) but not for non-emergencies."

Union grieves unfair overtime adjudication performance measuring system 
March 30, 2007: NFFE Local 1998 filed a Grievance Between the Parties challenging the system of measuring performance during overtime hours. While GS-9 and GS-11 Passport Specialists must adjudicate, on average, 156 applications every 8 hours normally, on overtime they are required to produce 180 applications. This issue took on greater urgency after HQ ordered all workers nationwide to perform 16 hours of mandatory overtime between March 9th and April 9th, and is ordering workers to again perform another 16 hours of mandatory overtime between April 16th and May 16th. The Union believes that the measuring system is unfair because it does not provide any time for the non-productive tasks (e.g., logging in, locking up, obtaining work and supplies) that is accounted for in a normal day. The Union is also concerned that requiring already-strained workers to produce at an even faster pace will only result in more fatigued workers, more repetitive motion injuries, hurt retention efforts, and further undermine the integrity of the passport issuance process by requiring workers to spend an average of 2 minutes and 10 seconds adjudicating each application rather than the normal 2 minutes and 30 seconds (which is already viewed by employees and the Union as insufficient time - see story about petition above). On March 9th the Union had asked HQ to measure employees the same on OT as they are measured on regular time, but on March 30th HQ replied that it would not. Click here to read the grievance: 2007-03-30 GRIEVANCE.  

Union encourages employees to pitch in
March 19, 2007: The Local 1998 Union President emailed all bargaining unit employees to encourage them to do all that they can to help out with the massive backlog of applications: "The bottom line is: however we got in this mess, we are here, and I encourage you to do all that you can to be part of the solution.  All of us have already achieved so much, yet much more is being asked.  We all believe in customer service and helping the traveling public, so whatever more you can do to help would be appreciated by both our applicants and by our coworkers."

Relaxed dress code during mandatory OT? 
March 16, 2007: The Union added another suggestion to the list already submitted: follow the best-practice observed by one office already of allowing a more relaxed, Casual Friday, dress code during the mandatory OT period.  This would be one small symbolic gesture to help boost the morale of the employees.  (This suggestion was not adopted as of June 12, 2007) 

Union responds to mandatory OT 
March 9, 2007: NFFE Local 1998 responded to the order for mandatory OT in an email to HQ with the following suggestions/requests: 

1. Implement the new "Article 28: Overtime" article that had been agreed to for the next collective bargaining agreement, but not yet implemented since the remainder of the contract is not finished.  This provision would address many of the concerns of the employees (e.g., being excused from mandatory OT for medical reasons). 
2. Measure overtime adjudication production fairly - the same way as adjudication on normal workdays.  
3. Recognize that some employees have hardship situations (family or medical or other) and will not be able to perform the mandatory overtime 
4. After this mandatory OT 30-day period is over, don't do mandatory again for 30 days - first try to maximize voluntary opportunities and cease restrictive policies and hours that have resulted in fewer voluntary hours of OT being performed 
5. Both during mandatory and voluntary OT, have more flexibility and more opportunities - all offices should have Sunday OT, all should allow OT on an employees compressed day off (the non-workday for employees who work compressed work schedules), all offices should be open for at least 10 hours of OT on Saturdays, 
6. Many positive and supportive emails from employees were received, though some expressed frustrations about how we got to this point and also some asked why we could not get more adjudication production out of supervisory staff on OT.  The Union respects the fact that what Management has supervisors do on OT is up to Management, but with the growing backlog it would the feeling conveyed by many employees is that we all need to pitch in.  
7. Quality concerns: whenever we get the “big push” to get more numbers produced, there is the ever-present concern that we may be sacrificing quality at the expense of quantity.  Some reminder(s) to all staff to keep the focus on doing a good job (catching errors, adjudicating correctly, preventing passport fraud) would be helpful.  In a November 24, 2006 email (titled “Emphasizing quality/anti-fraud efforts: other options to consider besides lowering the #'s”) NFFE Local 1998 addressed suggestions and solutions for boosting quality and anti-fraud efforts.  Now that the push for quantity has reached an unprecedented level, the Union would appreciate a response to those ideas for emphasizing quality and would like to initiate a dialogue on these issues.

GAO tests of the border 

• November 2002
• January 2003 
• May 2003
• February 2006
• March 2006
• May 2006 

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

Sec 7209: 

(a) Findings.--Consistent with the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Congress makes the following findings:

            (1) Existing procedures allow many individuals to enter the United States by showing minimal identification or without showing any identification.
            (2) The planning for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, demonstrates that terrorists study and exploit United States vulnerabilities.

            (3) Additional safeguards are needed to ensure that terrorists cannot enter the United States.
    (b) Passports.--
            (1) Development of plan.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall develop and implement a plan as expeditiously as possible to require a passport or other document, or combination of documents, deemed by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be sufficient to denote identity and citizenship, for all travel into the United States by United States citizens and by categories of individuals for whom documentation requirements have previously been waived under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)(B)). This plan shall be implemented not later than January 1, 2008, and shall seek to expedite the travel of frequent travelers, including those who reside in border communities, and in doing so, shall make readily available a registered traveler program (as described in section 7208(k)).
            (2) Requirement to produce documentation.--The plan developed under paragraph (1) shall require all United States citizens, and categories of individuals for whom documentation requirements have previously been waived under section 212(d)(4)(B) of such Act, to carry and produce the documentation described in paragraph (1) when traveling from foreign countries into the United States.