A Bibliography About a Changed Federal Government Workplace

Abstract

This bibliography contains more than 130 hand picked sources that address change in the Federal government workplace, including articles and books by academics and practitioners and reports by Federal agencies including the General Accounting Office and the Office of Personnel management, as well as Congress. The introduction to the bibliography draws on the expertise of three well known authorities in the field, as well as the authors' of the bibliography.     

Learning to be A Peacemaking Lawyer: Law Student Perspectives on Building Peacemaking into Law School Curricula,Building Paths to Practice for New Lawyers,and Interdisciplinary Training

From our perspectives as students, we reflect on the teachings of Lawyer as Peacemaker, a Winter 2015 course taught at UCLA School of Law — the school's course devoted to peacemaking lawyering. Utilizing our newfound peacemaking worldview, we share our collective reactions to the Lawyer as Peacemaker course and the ten articles in the Family Court Review Special Issue on Peacemaking for Divorcing Families. We then advocate for integrating peacemaking into law school curricula and experiential learning offerings and make recommendations on how law schools today can prepare students to practice peace.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• This article is a collaborative work product of three students who come from an array of work experience, backgrounds and interests and from their newly founded peacemaking worldview, the three students collaboratively analyzed ideas presented in the Lawyer as Peacemaker course and the articles from this issue.
• The peacemaking mediation allows the parties more control over their legal disputes and allows the control of the costs that come with litigation.
• Peacemaking involves a holistic and collaborative method, involving mental health professionals to financial advisors as well as legal professionals.
• However, peacemaking skill courses are not readily available to many law students while studying in law school.
• This valuable asset should be made available more extensively to law students interested in family law.

     

Workplace harassment: A test of definitional criteria derived from an analysis of research definitions and Canadian social definitions

Public awareness of the occurrence and effects of workplace harassment continues to grow. However, despite increasing awareness, ambiguity remains about how harassment is defined and, consequently, how to determine whether a questionable situation should be judged as harassment. For this research we reviewed definitions of workplace harassment and identified four elements that were frequently included as criteria for making judgments of whether harassment had occurred (i.e., repetition, intent, perceived intent, consequences). In two separate studies, fictional scenarios were used to evaluate the extent to which participants' judgments about harassment were affected by the presence or absence of the four elements. Ratings of the scenarios provided by student participants (study one; N = 160) and a convenience sample of community participants (study two; N = 292) with varying levels of work experience and diverse professional backgrounds were analysed. According to our results the four elements significantly influenced participants' judgments of harassment. The intent of the harasser had the strongest and most consistent effect on harassment judgements and whether the behaviour was repeated had the weakest and least consistent effect. In addition to the unique effects of the individual elements, significant interactions between the elements emerged and suggest that harassment judgements depend on the interplay of a variety of factors. Though the results of these studies add to the growing body of research that focuses on defining workplace harassment, they also highlight the need for additional research in the area.     

Actions by Political Officials Have Weakened the Federal Government Workplace: Downsizing Has Cut Lower Level Workers the Most and Replacing Federal Employees with Private Corporations Costs Much More,Creating the Need for Immediate Reform

Abstract

The authors of this paper are four practitioners each of whom has many years of experience working in the Federal government and also has pursued doctoral studies in public or business administration. Three ideas developed in this paper are that: (1) the Federal civil service has been changed from being a model workplace to a much less desirable one; (2) although downsizing has been touted as an efficiency and economy measure, lower level employees experienced the most cuts and (3) the current practice of replacing Federal employees with private corporations costs much more. Over the past two decades private sector workplaces in the United States, and now the Federal government workplace, have experienced so much change that previous theories, concepts, models, and expectations no longer hold. Just as private industry workplaces have been changed by downsizing, reorganizations, mergers, elimination of middle management, and outsourcing, so, too, has the Federal government workplace been fundamentally altered. Reducing the number of government workers, replacing Federal employees with private firms, increasing the number of officials with political agendas, and using harsh personnel management practices have transfigured the Federal workplace. Examples of factors that have contributed to a changed workplace include: the Civil Service Reform Act which replaced the Civil Service Commission with the Office of Personnel Management; importing private sector approaches into the government, e.g., the Grace Commission; replacing the Civil Service Retirement System with the Federal Employees Retirement System; pressure to downsize and privatize; and many elements of the National Performance Review and Government Performance and Results Act. Now that the metamorphosis away from the traditional Civil Service borne of the Pendleton Act is nearly complete (although the new paradigm is not entirely clear), questions about the effects of a changed government workplace are being raised. Some people believe the metamorphosis is from a caterpillar to a butterfly, while others think the opposite. Whether the changed Federal government is a thing of beauty or a distasteful organism will be determined over time by observations and assessments of the effects of the change. These effects will be both internal to the government workplace, itself, and external to it, involving the products, services, outputs, and outcomes it produces. This paper begins by describing some of the politically mandated changes that have altered the very foundation of the Federal government workplace over the past 20 years and made it a much less desirable place to work. Next, some of the effects of two politically mandated changes are examined: (1) downsizing or reducing the number of Americans who can work for their government and (2) contracting out or replacing government workers with private corporations. Political officials have told the media and the American public that these changes were needed to improve the government's efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. It has been suggested that these initiatives will reduce costs. However, an examination of downsizing and contracting out shows the opposite effect. While overall the Federal government has fewer employees now than in 1961, the statistics indicate that lower level employees have been cut the most:

• The number of secretaries decreased by 39% between 1992 and 1998.

• The blue collar workforce is down 40% since 1982, e.g., Supply Clerical and Technician (?35%), Accounting Technician (?24%), and Electronics Mechanic (?41%).

• Between 1993 and 1998 the number of GS‐1 to GS‐10 employees fell from 767,000 to 594,000.

• In 1983 the number of GS‐1 to GS‐10 workers exceeded GS‐11 to GS‐15 by nearly 300,000, while in 1997 GS‐11 to GS‐15 outnumbered the lower level workers by 44,000.

Although authoritative cost comparison studies are difficult to conduct because top officials have made little provision to collect information on the cost of contracting with private firms or the number of contract employees, available information indicates that it is much more expensive than using government employees. The contracting out we are talking about is not the usual kind—building ships or planes, or acquiring computer systems or special expertise not available in the government. Rather, it is contracting with private firms to do jobs that are currently being performed by Federal employees. Not satisfied with the level at which firms are being substituted for Federal employees, actions by political officials have created an environment which now favors private corporations and where they can be given work at top management's discretion, often regardless of cost. In fact, today most contracting out is done without the use of Circular A‐76 Cost Comparison Studies. There is empirical and logical evidence that shows that replacing government employees with private corporations is more expensive. For example, a study by the Department of the Army documents what people close to contracting have always known—that it is far more expensive to contract with a private firm for work than to have Federal employees do it. Logically, the government incurs additional items of cost when replacing Federal employees with private corporations. First, there is the profit that goes to the firm. Second, there is the firm's overhead which pays for corporate offices, staffs, and CEOs. Third, there are the costs of the contracting and award process and of contract administration and management. Although the worker on a government contract may be paid a little less than a government worker, the cost of the worker is only a third to a half of what the government pays the firm. Thus, replacing government workers with private firms usually costs far more and it is not unusual for it to cost two to three times as much. This paper partly is based on the authors' long experience in the Federal government. It is not based on the organizations in which they are currently employed.     

The GeFI (Italian Forensic Geneticists) code of conduct

The Ge.F.I. (Italian Forensic Geneticists) board has set up a working group aimed to develop the “Code of conduct of a Forensic Geneticist”. This group includes all practitioners working in the field of forensic genetics. The rules of the code of conduct apply to forensic geneticists belonging to the GeFI group and all of those sharing the GeFI’s mission, vision and values applicable to their professional practice, reciprocal relationship and relationship with third parties.     

The Organization of Child Representation Services in Child Welfare Cases: A Study of Washington State

To date no empirical studies have analyzed delivery of legal services to children and considered the implications of organizational structure for child representation practice. This study of 126 attorneys in Washington State compares children's lawyers working in solo practice, private law firms, and specialty staff attorney offices. The manner in which child representation is organized has lessons for the recruitment, training, and support of such lawyers. Staff attorney offices offer a number of advantages but rural areas with fewer cases may not be able to support such offices and the attorneys in specialty offices were less experienced and report lower incomes.     

An Assessment of a Drastically Changed Federal Workplace in the United States

Abstract

Written by four experienced government employees, this article discusses many alarming changes that have been forced on the Federal government workplace over the past 20 years. The article identifies actions by elected and appointed officials that have greatly changed and weakened a workplace that was a model for America. Several attributes of the Federal workplace of the past and of the present are compared and contrasted.     

Troublesome Differences—Dealing with Gendered Violence,Ethnicity, and ‘Race’ in the Finnish Welfare State

Forced marriages, honour-related violence, and violence in transnational marriages have been the focus of public interest in the Nordic welfare states for over a decade. The article analyses how authorities and welfare practitioners discuss differences, ‘race’, ethnicity, and gendered violence in families in this sometimes controversial societal setting. Based on 35 interviews with representatives of the police, social work, shelter movement, and NGO-led projects, it is argued that the main ways to approach the issue are ‘culture speech’ and ‘universalist speech’. In culture speech, differences can be constructed as dichotomous and hierarchical (culturalization), but also in a variable and lateral way. The universalist discourse has paradoxical effects. It functions as a counter-force to culturalization, but it also discourages and prevents discussion about how to take into account the different starting-points of the diverse clientele. The welfare state plays an important role in both. While the universalist discourse is embedded in welfare state ideologies, the culturalist discourse (re)produces welfare state nationalism. Finnish authorities and practitioners distance themselves from cultural relativism but have developed forms of practical multiculturalism to reach migrant clients. The dominant discourses are questioned by approaches that emphasize individual and multiple differences.