This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. Conclusions and Recommendations In previous chapters, a number of the choices and options which make up the universe of work and family benefits were reviewed. While insights about these individual programs were drawn, and in some cases, recommendations for program-specific changes made, it is also important not to lose sight of the broader picture. As we view that broader picture, a number of overarching themes and conclusions emerge, which in turn lead to some broad-scope recommendations. To begin with, work and family benefits are not a new phenomenon in the Federal civil service. The Government has a long tradition of providing certain kinds of family-friendly benefits, including some which are not typically available in the private sector (e.g., enhanced job security). It may even have been a leader in certain benefit areas which other employers have since come to adopt (e.g., leave for maternity purposes). However, the Government can not rest on its laurels, as its past successes are insufficient to make it an employer of choice in today's (and tomorrow's) job markets. In addition, even if it has state-of-the-art programs available, if the Government fails to properly communicate to current and prospective employees about the existence of these programs (e.g., as has happened with alternative work schedules), their effectiveness is lessened. Recommendation * OPM needs to build on its successes in the area of work and family benefits and exert renewed leadership on those work and family issues on which the Government may be at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. Potential areas of emphasis (some of which were mentioned earlier) include: * Developing a broader and deeper spectrum of child care benefit programs from which agencies might choose to offer benefits to their employees on an "as needed" basis; * Encouraging agencies to examine whether their mission accomplishments would be enhanced if they further subsidized the operating expenses of onsite child care centers, and where this is found to be so, facilitating whatever actions may be needed to more formally accredit such agency subsidies (e.g., initiating demonstration projects, securing precedent rulings from GAO, proposing legislation); * Expanding Federal sick leave regulations to permit at least some usage of sick leave by employees who are caring for sick or elderly dependents; * Developing programs which would expand part-time job opportunities across the Government, and working with other Federal agencies to communicate the availability of such jobs to targeted pools of job candidates (e.g., mothers with school-age children, and retired people who have skills needed for hard-to-fill jobs); * Determining what barriers have inhibited agency and employee participation in the test of flexiplace, and working with agencies to reduce these barriers. In addition, incorporating a focus in the pilot program which would evaluate the implications of working at satellite offices (rather than at home); * Initiating action to develop and provide short-term disability insurance at group rates to Federal employees who might want this insurance and are willing to pay the full cost of the coverage; * Highlighting information about work and family benefits in Governmentwide recruitment literature, and encouraging agencies to better market to current and prospective employees the work and family programs which the agencies offer; * Monitoring emerging trends in the area of work and family benefit programs, in order to proactively provide (or assist agencies in providing) those benefits which are useful in becoming a competitive employer and which foster increased efficiency and effectiveness in the Federal workforce; and * Taking greater initiative to encourage agencies to make the most beneficial use of the work and family benefit programs which are available, including the possible use of internal marketing plans or other program management tools, to ensure that work and family benefits are considered on their merits. Recommendation * Strong consideration should be given to the adoption of a cafeteria benefits approach within the Government. Although a flexible spending account option would be preferable in a Federal cafeteria benefits approach, it need not be seen as a necessary condition to implementation of that cafeteria approach. Two of the key watch words for work and family benefits in the future are going to be equity and flexibility. This is because individual work and family programs have limited applicability--any one or several of the approaches discussed in this report may be a part of the solution for any given employee; none, however, constitutes a miracle drug filling all needs for all employees. Clearly, as OPM put it, "One size does not fit all--not all agencies, or even all installations, much less all employees." Thus, different employees will avail themselves of different kinds and levels of work and family benefits. Assuming these benefits have some economic value, this creates a potential inequity among those employees who use the benefits and those who don't. It also creates a need for flexibility on the part of the Government, because a rigid benefits schedule necessitates giving benefits to some employees who do not want or need them, while not meeting the needs of some other employees. Recommendation Individual Federal departments and agencies need to engage in more active needs assessments among their respective employees in order to make informed decisions about the work and family benefits that can and should be offered. Following on the previous recommendation, a part of the flexibility which is needed must come in the way work and family benefits are made available and managed within the Government. Specifically, delegation and decentralization are critical to this process, since the appropriateness of work and family benefit programs at a given post of duty can best be determined by officials knowledgeable about local circumstances. Thus, agencies must delegate the authority and responsibility for managing these programs to the lowest appropriate organizational level. Also, needs assessments are integral to a sound benefits program--local offices must assess the requirements of their employees before informed decisions can be made about what benefits can and should be offered. The programs actually offered may have been developed locally or at higher echelons, but the decision about what is optimally needed can only be made locally, after appropriate input from employees and their representatives. Recommendation * As OPM and individual Federal agencies engage in training and development activities for Federal managers, efforts should be made to specifically expand the managers' knowledge and understanding of the alternatives available in the way of work and family programs. Emphasis should be placed on the utility of these programs as a potential method of increasing workforce efficiency and effectiveness. Active management involvement and support are also critical to success--without these, old ways of thinking will inhibit both employees and management from realizing the benefits from work and family programs. Most work and family benefits require the employee to initiate a request in order to participate in the benefit. Since traditional business values (including the Government's) taught employees that their careers would be hurt if "personal" issues interfered with their jobs, employees may be reticent to avail themselves of these benefits. To overcome this attitude, management must go beyond ensuring that work environments are not hostile to work and family concerns, but rather must create environments which are proactively supportive. Otherwise, work and family benefit programs will not achieve their desired results -- losing the potential benefits to both employees and the Government. Changing management value systems is not going to be an easy task, as it can be a big leap for old-school managers to embrace a new work ethic. This was well illustrated in a recent article that presented the views of a chief executive of a consulting firm as he spoke about the next 20 years: ... a 'normal career' will be replaced by 'multiple paths that people will take trying to be good workers and good parents.' Companies will operate like ski resorts [according to the executive], with multiple starting points, paths, and ending points at the bottom of the mountain. 'Even the idea of stopping half way down the mountain for lunch seems applicable to a career.' -99 Managers who can't adapt to this new culture are apt to find themselves losing the workers they have, while being unable to recruit suitable replacements. Moreover, managers who judge the needs of their employees based on their own "Ozzie and Harriet" experiences may be setting themselves up for failure. Recommendation * In framing the debate over the future of work and family benefits, strong consideration should be given to the adoption of a "Federal Government as a Model Employer" orientation. This would be in keeping with the goals and objectives of a merit-based personnel system and consistent with the statutory merit system principles. The Government has an important leadership opportunity in work and family benefits -- while there are many practical reasons why an employer might want to improve its benefits package (e.g., to attract and retain a qualified workforce), there can also be philosophical reasons. For the Federal Government, we believe one such reason should be that the civil service has a responsibility to try to be a model employer, offering state-of-the-art human resource programs in order to create a humane working environment. As OPM suggested, this goal is only appropriate when it complements the Government's primary duty; that is, to accomplish its mission in a fiscally responsible way. However, since these are not mutually exclusive objectives, the possibility of the Government seeing this as a proper role for itself should be encouraged. Finally, given factors such as changing demographics, competition in the job market, and the hidden costs of both excessive turnover and lowered productivity by those who are at work but not working (because of work and family worries), it is important to note that there is a real cost to not responding to work and family needs. OPM has an important role to play in this process, but ultimately it is the Federal agencies whose mission accomplishment is at stake who must respond. Many of the responses needed are already available, waiting to be employed by agencies. Some are unused, while others are underused. Virtually all are not well marketed. Moreover, many can be implemented at little or no direct cost. Where there is a cost, that cost must be evaluated against the true cost of not acting, rather than looked at in isolation. Fortunately, it's not too late to respond to the needs of both prospective and current employees, providing them with appropriate work and family benefit options. The Government needs to do this if it wants to compete in the job marketplace for qualified employees. As a matter of policy, the Board also believes the Government should want to do this, wherever it can be accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. ENDNOTES 1. The 22 departments and agencies in our sample were: Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Commerce, Defense (Office of the Secretary), Education, Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Navy, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. 2. Robert E. Allen, "It Pays to Invest in Tomorrow's Work Force," Wall Street Journal, Nov. 6, 1989, p. A16. 3. Research data originally compiled by the Roper Organization in a survey for Virginia Slims, July 22 - August 12,1989. The article containing extracts from the survey was published in the American Enterprise, vol. 1, No. 5, September/October 1990, p. 91. 4. Research data originally compiled by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman for Time and Cable News Network, October 23 - 25,1989. The article containing extracts from the survey was published in the American Enterprise, vol. 1, No. 5, September/October 1990, p. 91. 5. James A. Levine, "Fathers and the Corporation," which appeared in "Across The Board," the Conference Board Magazine, vol. XXIII, No. 3, March 1986, p. 8. 6. William J. Wiatrowski, "Family-Related Benefits in the Workplace," Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, March 1990, p. 32. 7. U.S. Chamber Research Center, "Employee Benefits--Survey Data from Benefit Year 1989," U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC, December 1990, p. 2. 8. Robert W. Keidel, "Quality of Working Life in the Private Sector: An Overview and a Developmental Perspective," Workforce Effectiveness and Development Group, U. S. Office of Personnel Management, September 1980, pp. 4-6. 9. Hudson Institute and Towers Perrin, "Workforce 2000--Competing in a Seller's Market: Is Corporate America Prepared?," August 1990, p. 2. 10. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Report to the President: Helping Federal Employees Balance Work and Family Life," OPM Doc. 149-79-9, October 1988, p. 11. Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci, as quoted by Sandra Evans, "Pentagon Breaks Ground For Child Care Facility," Washington Post, Jan. 12,1989, p. D3. 12. Fran Sussner Rodgers and Charles Rodgers, "Business and the Facts of Family Life," Harvard Business Review, November-December 1989, No. 6, p. 123. 13. Extract of a quote from Morton Goldfein, Senior Vice President, Law and Public Affairs, Hartz Mountain Industries, printed in a brochure entitled "Child Care: A Solution for New Jersey Employers," published by the Task Force on Employer Supported Child Care, State of New Jersey, fifth edition, Trenton, NJ, March 1990, p. 2. 14. Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies from Constance Horner, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, June 28,1988, Subject: "Addressing the Dependent Care Needs of Federal Employees." 15. Carlise Cornelius, "Day Care Program Fits Needs of Parents, Kids," Washington Times, Feb. 8, 1989, p. B5. 16. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., "Latchkey Children: A Guide for Employers," National Report on Work & Family, Special Report 11, Washington, DC, November 1988, p. 4. 17. Dana Friedman, Ellen Galinsky, and Margaret King, "Work and Family Life: An Introduction," as synopsized in Options for Child Care Initiatives, a pamphlet prepared by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services, p. 1. 18. R.Y. Magid, "Childcare Initiatives for Working Parents: Why Employers Get Involved," American Management Association, New York, 1983, p. 39, as quoted in Fernandez, John P., "Child Care and Corporate Productivity," Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1986, p. 41. 19. Flexible spending accounts are authorized by the Internal Revenue Code. They permit an employer to reduce an employee's salary by an agreed-upon amount and then use these funds to pay for certain child care, dependent care, or medical expenses of the employee. The employee benefits from such an arrangement because the expenses paid from the flexible spending account are paid for using pretax funds rather than after-tax funds--in effect, making the expenses into tax-free fringe benefits. 20. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Dependent Care Programs at Federal Installations," OPM GWR 90-6, Personnel Systems and Oversight Group, April 1990, pp. 7-11. 21. Alison N. Starr, ed., "Federal Child Care Centers: More Than Before--But Still Not Enough And Still Costly," Employee Benefits Review, vol. 3, No. 3, Washington, DC, March 1990, p. 1. 22. 40 U.S.C. 490b. From 1985 until 1988, the Trible amendment was contained in a series of uncodified provisions in continuing resolutions. 23. Alison N. Starr, ed., op. cit. 24. Linda Thiede Thomas and James E. Thomas, "The ABCs of Child Care: Building Blocks of Competitive Advantage," Sloan Management Review, vol. 31, No. 2, Winter 1990, p. 36. 25. Fran Sussner Rodgers and Charles Rodgers, op. cit., p. 124. 26. Alison N. Starr, ed., op. cit. 27. U.S. General Accounting Office, "Military Child Care, Extensive, Diverse, and Growing," Report to Congressional Requestors, GAO/HRD-89-3, Mar. 8,1989, pp. 2-3. 28. U.S. General Accounting Office, unpublished memorandum decision B-39772-0.M., dated July 30, 1976, from the General Counsel, responding to a memorandum from the Director, Office of Administrative Services, dated Jan. 16,1976, on the subject "Availability of Appropriations to Provide Suitable Space for a Day Care Center." 29. U.S. General Accounting Office, "Child Care-- Employer Assistance for Private Sector and Federal Employees," Report to Congressional Requestors, GAO/ GGD-86-38, Feb. 11,1986, p. 56. 30. Proclamation 6235 of Nov. 20,1990, wherein President George Bush proclaimed "National Family Caregivers Week, 1990," published in the Federal Register, vol. 55, No. 226, dated Nov. 23,1990, p. 48,829. 31. Melinda Beck et al., "Trading Places--More and More Women Are on the Daughter Track, Working, Raising Kids, and Helping Aging Parents," Newsweek, July 16,1990, pp. 49-50. 32. Michael A. Creedon and Majorie Tiven, "Elder care in the Workplace," National Association of State Units on Aging and the National Council on the Aging, Inc., undated, p. 22. 33. Ibid. 34. Melinda Beck et al., op. cit. 35. Gender data: Federal employee data from an OPM data sheet titled "Profile of the 'typical' Federal civilian employee," by Christine E. Steele, Sept. 30,1989; private sector data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, "Employment and Earnings," January 1990, p. 169. Age data for both public and private sector employees: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Overview of Employer Child and Elder Care Resource and Referral Services," Personnel Systems and Oversight Group, December 1989, p. 1. 36. Melinda Beck et al., op. cit., p. 54. 37. The Partnership Group, Inc., "Elder care: A clear misunderstanding," in "Inform, The Dependent Care Reporter," Lansdale, PA, Fall Edition, 1990, p. 1. 38. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1989," U.S. Department of Labor, Bulletin 2363, June 1990, pp. 13 and 27. 39. Michael A. Creedon and Majorie Tiven, op. cit., 40. 5 U.S.C. 6307, Public Law 89-554, Sept. 6,1966, 80 Stat. 520. 41. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Strategic Plan for Federal Human Resources Management," Personnel Systems and Oversight Group, Publication PSO 216, November 1990, p. 12. 42. Public Law 101-509, 536, Nov. 5,1990,104 Stat. 1470. 43. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Federal Personnel Manual," FPM Supplement 990-2, Sept. 30, 1980, Subchapter Sl-l(a), pp. 620- 3-4. 44. Legislative History for the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1982, Public Law 97-221, S. Rept. 97-365, Apr. 28,1982, p. 566. 45. Legislative History for the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1982, Permanent Authority, Public Law 99-196, House Report No. 99-82, May 13,1985, 99 Stat. 1095, p. 1099. 46. Sheldon Zedeck and Kathleen L. Mosier, "Work in the Family and Employing Organization," American Psychologist, vol. 45, No. 2, February 1990, p. 246, quoting research by S.D. Nolen, "What is happening to flexitime, flexitour, gliding time, the variable day? And permanent part-time employment? And the four-day week?," published in "Across the Board," Conference Board, vol. 17, No. 4,1980, pp. 6-21. 47. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, "Working for America: A Federal Employee Survey," June 1990, p. 29. 48. Halcyone H. Bohen and Anamaria Viveros- Long, "Balancing Jobs and Family Life--Do flexible work schedules help?," Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1981, pp. 147,148, and 192. 49. Public Law 95-437, 92 Stat. 1055, Oct. 10,1978. 50. Legislative History, Public Law 95-437, Federal Employees Part-Time Career Employment Act of 1978, S. Rept. 95-1116, Aug. 14,1978, 92 Stat. 2599., pp. 3, 4,12, and 14. 51. U.S. General Accounting Office, "Federal Personnel--Federal Agencies' Part-Time Employment Programs," GAO/GGD-86-103BR, July 1986, p. 1. 52. Nationwide data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Handbook of Labor Statistics," Bulletin 2340, August 1989, p. 54. 53. Committee Report 101-170 from the House Committee on Appropriations for the "Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Bill, 1990," Public Law 101-136, Nov. 3,1989, pp. 77-78. 54. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Job Sharing for Federal Employees," Career Entry and Employee Development Group, Pamphlet CE-991, October 1990, pp. 5-6. 55. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, "Why Are Employees Leaving the Federal Government? Results of an Exit Survey," May 1990, p. 13. 56. "Nevada Firm Puts Moms to Work During School," National Report on Work & Family, Buraff Publications, Washington, DC, vol. 3, No. 21, Oct. 12, 1990, p. 5. 57. National data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, "Employment and Earnings," vol. 37, No. 1, January 1990, p. 169, reflecting annual average data for the nationwide workforce as of Dec. 31, 1989. Federal data supplied by OPM from its Central Personnel Data File, also as of Dec. 31,1989. 58. Jennifer McEnroe, "Split-Shift Parenting," American Demographics, vol. 13, No. 2, February 1991, p. 52. 59. Shirley M. Dennis, Director, Women's Bureau, in a "Foreword" to a conference summary report entitled "Flexible Workstyles: A Look at Contingent Labor," from a 1988 U.S. Department of Labor conference on "The Contingent Workplace: New Directions for Work in the Year 2000," p. iii. 60. Halcyone H. Bohen and Anamaria Viveros- Long, op. cit., pp. 12,13, and 60. 61. Cynthia Crossen, "Workplace-Where We'll Be," Wall Street Journal, June 4,1990, p. R6. 62. Ibid., p. R7. 63. President's Council on Management Improvement, Human Resources Committee, "Guidelines for Pilot Flexible Workplace Arrangements, January 1990, p. 64. American Management Systems, Inc., "Final Report--Evaluation of EPA's Pilot Flexiplace Program," Delivery Order No. 11, Contract 68-W9-0038, presented to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administration and Resources Management, Research Triangle Park, NC, dated June 1,1990, p. 4. 65. President's Council on Management Improvement, op. cit., p. 3. 66. Katherine Walsh, "Uncle Sam Is Launching Pilot Program For Employees Wanting to Work at Home," Wall Street Journal, April 16,1990, p. B6D. 67. Mike Causey, "A Test for Job-Sharing," Federal Diary column, Washington Post, Nov. 7,1990, p. B2. 68. Work-at-home consultant Gil Gordon, as quoted by Rita L. Zeidner, "Managers Slow to Embrace Idea of Working at Home," Federal Times, Jan. 14,1991, p. 3. 69. American Management Systems, Inc., op. cit., pp. 5-6. 70. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "OARM- RTP Flexiplace Pilot Project Evaluation," Office of Administration and Resources Management, Research Triangle Park, NC, Mar. 19,1990, p. i. 71. Ibid., pp. ii-iii. 72. Ibid., p. 19. 73. Liz Spayd, "Increasingly in Area, Home Is cit., p. 128. Where the Workplace Is," Washington Post, Apr. 22, 1991, p. A15. 74. Katherine Walsh, op. cit., p. B6D. 75. Legislative History for the Federal Employees Leave Sharing Act of 1988, Public Law 100-566, S. Rept. No. 100-437, July 28,1988,1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News (102 Stat.) 3688. 76. Public Law 100-566, Federal Employees Leave Sharing Act of 1988,1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News (102 Stat.) 2834. 77. Letter dated July 12,1988, from Constance Horner, Director, OPM, to Hon. John C. Stennis, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, providing a report to the Congress on the results of a limited test of voluntary leave transfer programs, as required by Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 99-591 and Executive Order 12589, dated Mar. 18,1987. 78. Frank J. DiBernardino, "A Survey of Flexible Benefit Programs 1988," A. Foster Higgins & Co., Inc., New York, NY, p. 6. 79. Comments of Dorothy Williams, Vice President, Human Resource Information Systems, Sovran Financial Corporation, Norfolk, VA, as quoted in "Human Resources: A Strategic Partner or IS Burden?" an article by David Stamps, which appeared in Datamation magazine, June 1,1990, p. 50. 80. Letter to the IRS was from Hugh Hewitt, OPM General Counsel, dated Dec. 8, 1987, addressed to William F. Nelson, IRS Chief Counsel. Response from IRS was from James J. McGovern, Director, Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations Division, dated Dec. 29, 1987, addressed to Jacqueline Young, Esq., N.L.R.B. Professional Association, with a cc: to OPM. 81. James R. Storey, "Issues in Designing a Flexible Benefits Plan for Federal Employees," Congressional Research Service, 89-442 EPW, Library of Congress, Aug. 3,1989, p. CRS-l. 82 President's Council on Management Improvement, undated document outlining a "Proposal for a PCMI Human Resource Committee Study of the Federal Benefits Program," p. 1. 83. James R. Storey, op. cit., p. CRS-6. 84. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., "The Future of Work & Family: Shaping Programs for the 21st Century," Special Report 34, Washington, DC, October 1990, pp. 3 and 8. 85. Betsy Rubiner, "Kids in the Office--The Workplace & the Child-Care Dilemma," Washington Post, July 24,1989, p. B5. 86. Fran Sussner Rodgers and Charles Rodgers, op. 87. Willa M. Bruce and Christine M. Reed, "Dual Career Couples in the Public Sector: A Management Guide for Human Resource Professionals," Quorum Books, 1991, p. 53. 88. H. Cris Collie, "Two Salaries, One Relocation: What's a Company To Do," Personnel Administrator, September 1989. Quote from Dr. Marvin Cetron, p. 57. Research results, p. 55. Research was conducted by Dr. Cetron of Forecasting International, Ltd., in 1988. His study, "Impact of the Changing Family on Employee Relocation: Implications of Spouse Employment," was commissioned by the Employee Relocation Council. 89. Proposed bill H.R. 1386, 102d Cong., 1st sess., would amend title 5 U.S.C. to provide for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by a Federal employee in the adoption of a child. Proposed bill H.R. 1387,102d Cong., 1st sess., would amend title 5 U.S.C. to allow Federal employees to take parental leave for purposes of participating in or attending certain education-related activities. Proposed bill S. 38, 101st Congress, 1st Session, titled "Federal Employees Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 1989" would establish long-term care benefits for Federal employees. 90. Cover letter signed by OPM Director Constance Horner, which introduced a pamphlet entitled "Helping Federal Employees Balance Work and Family Life-- Dependent Care Policy in the Federal Government," Personnel Systems and Oversight Group, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Oct. 7,1988, p. 1. 91. Letter from Constance Berry Newman, Director, OPM, to the Honorable Daniel R. Levinson, Chairman, MSPB, dated Sept. 19,1989, concerning significant actions of OPM which MSPB might find appropriate to study, p. 10. 92. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, "U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the Merit System: A Retrospective Assessment," June 1,1989, p. 7. 93. Statement of Senator Robert Dole introducing S. 472, the Women's Equal Opportunity Act of 1991, as quoted in the Congressional Record--Senate, Feb. 21, 1991, p. S2192. 94. Testimony of Robert Tobias, President, National Treasury Employees Union, at a hearing on "Child Care in Federal Buildings: GSA Oversight," conducted by the Government Activities and Transportation Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, Mar. 8,1989. 95. G. Jerry Shaw and William L. Bransford, "From Disabled to Enabled--New Law Extends Rights of Handicapped in Employment," ABA Journal, February 1991, pp. 70-72. 96. Legislative History, Public Law 95-437, Federal Employees Part-Time Career Employment Act of 1978, S. Rept. No. 95-1116, Aug. 14,1978, 92 Stat. 2599., p. 4. 97. Memorandum from President Bush to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, dated Mar. 8, 1991, subject, "Return of Desert Shield/Desert Storm Participants to Federal Civilian Employment." 98. Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr., "In Search of Excellence," Harper & Row, New York, 1982, p. 81. 99. Cathy Trost and Carol Hymowitz, "Careers Start Giving In to Family Needs," Wall Street Journal, June 18, 1990, p. B4.