Bring Your Child To Work

[Guest Vern Edwards]

April 22 is Bring Your Child To Work Day. I know of an agency that is embroiled in an argument between the contracting office and the program offices over whether contractor personnel should be allowed to bring their children to work at the government's facility.

Opinions? And please give reasons, if have them.

[Guest carl r culham]

The Program Offices and the Contracting Office may want to elevate their disagreement to the chief executive of their agency for some sensing. I can imagine that there are areas where it may not be appropriate to bring a contractor son or daughter to work but making the case to not allow at all appears to be against a national norm that has the endorsement of Congress.

111TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 462

Recognizing Thursday, April 22, 2010, as ??Take Our Daughters and Sons

To Work Day??.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 18, 2010

Mr. BURR (for himself and Ms. LANDRIEU) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing Thursday, April 22, 2010, as ??Take Our

Daughters and Sons To Work Day??.

Whereas the Take Our Daughters To Work Day program in

New York City was created as a response to research

that showed that by the 8th grade many girls were dropping

out of school, had low self-esteem, and lacked confidence;

Whereas, in 2003, the name of the program was changed to

??Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work Day?? so that

boys who face many of the same challenges as girls could

also be involved in the program;

Whereas the mission of the program, ??Take Our Daughters

and Sons To Work Foundation develops innovative strategies

that empower girls and boys to overcome societal

barriers to reach their full potential??, now fully reflects

the addition of boys;

Whereas the Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work Foundation,

a non-profit organization, has grown to become

one of the largest public awareness campaigns, with over

33,000,000 participants annually in over 3,000,000 organizations

and workplaces in every State;

Whereas, in 2007, the Take Our Daughters To Work program

was transitioned to Elizabeth City, North Carolina,

became known as the Take Our Daughters and Sons To

Work Foundation, and received national recognition for

the dedication of the Foundation to our future generations;

Whereas every year mayors, governors, and other private and

public officials sign proclamations and lend their support

to Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work;

Whereas the fame of the program has spread overseas with

requests and inquiries being made from around the world

on how to operate the program; and

Whereas Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work is intended

to continue helping millions of girls and boys on an annual

basis through experienced activities and events to

examine their opportunities and strive to reach their fullest

potential: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate?

2 (1) recognizes Thursday, April 22, 2010, as

3 ??Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work Day??;

4 (2) recognizes the goals of introducing our

5 daughters and sons to the workplace; and

(3) commends all the participants in Take Our

Daughters and Sons To Work for their ongoing con

tributions to education, and for the vital role the

participants play in promoting and ensuring a

brighter, stronger future for the United States.

[formerfed]

At many agencies contractors are just an integral part of accomplishing the mission as government employees. Contractor children should feel as proud of their parents and see what they do as anyone else.

[joel hoffman]

April 22 is Bring Your Child To Work Day. I know of an agency that is embroiled in an argument between the contracting office and the program offices over whether contractor personnel should be allowed to bring their children to work at the government's facility.

Opinions? And please give reasons, if have them.

I agree with the above gentlemen. It would seem to be consistent with Congressional intent expressed above. One should ask themselves "Would the children of contractor employees be any more disruptive or increase costs to the taxpayer than those of government employees?"

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Is it consistent with the maintenance of an arm's-length, contractual, non-personal business relationship?

Should contractor employees be paid for the time they spend with their children while working under the contract? If not, as a practical matter, how do you segregate the work time from the child time?

If a contractor's child does disrupt operations, is the contractor responsible?

[napolik]

Are the children contract deliverables?

[carol]

Does the agency allow the Contractor to hold diversity celebrations/meetings; participate in blood drives during work hours; participate in wellness programs during work hours, etc? Although not directly in support of the contract SOW, if consistent with the Contractor's personnel policies and reasonable, this is often allowed.

If so, then I don't see the distinction for participating in take your child to work day. If the agency consistently insists that only work directly required under the statement of work is reimbursable, then there is no reason for this to be an exception.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Does the agency allow the Contractor to hold diversity celebrations/meetings; participate in blood drives during work hours; participate in wellness programs during work hours, etc? Although not directly in support of the contract SOW, if consistent with the Contractor's personnel policies and reasonable, this is often allowed.

If so, then I don't see the distinction for participating in take your child to work day. If the agency consistently insists that only work directly required under the statement of work is reimbursable, then there is no reason for this to be an exception.

Who cares what is often allowed? I don't. All kinds of poor practices are "often allowed." That's no answer. Neither is "Congressional intent."

It seems to me that the issue is what should be allowed, not what has been allowed, and what matters are principles of sound contracting practice.

[joel hoffman]

Then we should ban government employees from bringing their kids to work that day, too. Vern, I sense that you don't think that government employee productivity has any effect upon the cost of government to the taxpayers but only contractor productivity does.

You asked if the contractor's child does disrupt the operations, should the contractor be responsible? If the contract is firm fixed price, the answer would seem to be self determinative - yes.

If the contract is a cost reimbursement or T&M type, it may depend upon the type of cost arrangement or specific circumstances of granting the request.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Then we should ban government employees from bringing their kids to work that day, too.

So you equate government employees working in government facilities with contractor personnel working in government facilities? Are you saying that if contractor personnel cannot do something then government personnel also should not be permitted to do it? Do you believe they (should) have the same rights and privileges? Should contractor personnel be included in the lottery for onsite parking spaces? In a government facility is there to be no distinction between government employees and contractor personnel? Is Bring A Child To Work Day special because children are involved?

[FAR Fetched]

April 22 is Bring Your Child To Work Day. I know of an agency that is embroiled in an argument between the contracting office and the program offices over whether contractor personnel should be allowed to bring their children to work at the government's facility.

Opinions? And please give reasons, if have them.

No - The Government agency didn?t hire them, the contracted company did. They're not Government employees. The Contracted employees can take their kids to the Company's offsite facility and still get an idea of "what daddy does for a living" without disrupting the Company's mission at the Government facility.

FWIW - I started my career as a Fed, now a Contractor. I?ve been on both sides; many contractors forget they?re not Federal employees and often think they should have the same privileges as Federal employees. One isn?t better than the other, it?s simply the agreement each individual accepted when employed.

I understand that many contracted employees work at the same Government facility for years for several companies and in some cases rarely visit the Company?s headquarters (if the company even has a true headquarters). I understand that many contracted employees are more loyal to their Government customer than their own Company. There is more downside in opening this door as it brings up the ?where does it end? question.

[joel hoffman]

Vern, no I don't think there is an 1:1 equation between government and contractor employees.

But whoever in Congress (apparently the US Senate) decided to encourage "Bring your sons and daughters to work day" didn't make any distinction nor discourage contractors from participation. There may well be exceptions, depending upon the circumstances. Construction sites, FAA towers, etc. Seem to fit the exception.

Note that the productivity of government employees does affect both the mission and the bottom line cost to the taxpayers. "Do as I say, not what I do" seems to further the perception of differences between government employees and the rest of American taxpayers, as some type of elitist class.

You don't have to agree with me but you don't have to belittle those who don't necessarily agree with you or don't answer the test question as you would, either. You asked for opinions with reasons and that is just my opinion with reasons.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

I didn't belittle anyone. I asked them to respond to challenges to their position. (However, I don't think "it's often allowed" is a respectable answer.) Neither you nor anyone else at this board knows where I stand on the issue, or whether I agree with them or not. I'm just trying to find out why you believe what you do and how strongly you believe it.

So you believe it's okay because of the Congressional resolution. Okay. Thanks.

[FAR Fetched]

Neither you nor anyone else at this board knows where I stand on the issue, or whether I agree with them or not.

Where do you stand?

[joel hoffman]

So you believe it's okay because of the Congressional resolution. Okay. Thanks.

I also believe that it depends upon the circumstances. I also believe that Government employees tending to their children at the office could affect the productuvuty of not only government employees but that of their contractors, too. What I don't believe is a blanket policy of "Do as I say, not as I do".

You're welcome.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Fine. Thanks again.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Where do you stand?

What happened was this: For 20 years an agency has allowed contractor personnel to bring their children. Under new management, the contracting office, asked the legal office about it and was told that there were concerns about liability. The contracting offfice then issued a memo that contractor personnel could not bring their kids. The memo prompted an angry reaction from the agency program offices in which contractor employees work, and one senior program manager told his staff and contractors, in writing, to ignore the memo from the contracting office. The issue got elevated to senior management, which ordered the contracting office to withdraw its memo. The contracting office did so, and apologized in writing to the contractors for acting hastily. The issuance of the first memo may have been a career-breaker for the person who ordered it issued. The agency's senior management was reportedly furious. It's quite a kerfuffle and a loss of face and credibility for the manager of the contracting office.

When informed of these events, my reaction was that the contracting office had behaved stupidly. I could not see anything wrong with letting contractor personnel bring their children. But then I got to thinking about it and wondered if this kind of thing went too far in blurring the lines between government and contractor personnel, which has been a matter of growing concern. The boom in service contracting began in 1981 and has continued to the present time, having been given greater impetus during the last decade by two wars. People are now concerned that the trend has gone too far and that the line between government and contractor are no longer as distinct as perhaps they should be.

I'm still inclined to think that contractor employees should be permitted to bring their kids, but now I'm haunted by a shadow of doubt. To me, the issue ought to be what is the best business policy on the basis of sound business principles. I'm stunned by the shallowness of some of the comments that have been posted here. "Do as I say, not as I do." What the heck is that about? I don't see this as a matter of morality. "Contractor children should feel as proud of their parents and see what they do as anyone else." Huh? Are we supposed to decide this on the basis of what is best for the children of contractor employees? As for Senate resolutions--are we to think they thought about these kinds of issues when they put that out. The resolution was probably written by some private group that is trying to do good and sponsored by someone's clueless senator.

So, while I still think that the contracting office was foolish to act hastily before running the idea past other agency managers, I'm not so sure that the policy is completely wrong-headed. I was hoping for some thoughtful discussion. There are interesting questions about the place of contractor personnel in government organizational life and about the potential consequences of such close collaboration on non-business matters. But, oh well.

[joel hoffman]

Well, since you apparently had the benefit of knowing the situation and its context, I'm not surprised that your viewpopint - which apparently changed from your initial opinion - is deeper than our shallow viewpoints, without the benefit of the context of the situation.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand my question why it is ok for me, as a government employee, to bring my kids to the workplace but not you, as a contractor. Its ok for me to lose some productivity, which costs money, government and contractor program efficiency. But its not ok for you to do the same on some national 'bring your kids to work day.'

I wonder if the legal office considered whether there was any possible liability for kids of government employees? How is that any different than if someone else's kid gets hurt on government property? I think that is a valid question. Of course, we don't know what type of office is involved, how many government and how many contractor employees are involved, what type of work they do, etc., etc.

[joel hoffman]

I don't think that there is a "government employees only bring your kids to work day". On those occasions that I'm familiar with, I've seen kids at private businesses, too.

Did I miss some point about this being some exclusive event for government offices?

[Guest Vern Edwards]

I don't think that there is a "government employees only bring your kids to work day". On those occasions that I'm familiar with, I've seen kids at private businesses, too.

Did I miss some point about this being some exclusive event for government offices?

No, what you're missing is that the relationship at issue is between the government and a firm, the contractor, and not between the government and the contractor's employees. The nature of the government-contractor relationship is supposed to be established within the four corners of a contract, which, I dare say, makes no mention of Bring Your Child To Work Day. If you're going to take the position that what's good for the government's employees ought to be good for the contractor's employees, then I'm sure that most of those employees would like to have the government's employees' pay and benefits more than the opportunity to bring their kid to the job. In any case, I have never seen a government contract that seeks to provide social parity between government and contractor employees.

The issue is not whether the event is exclusively for government offices. The issue is whether contractor employees should participate in all events and activities in a government office. What might be the contractual implications of such participation, if any? As for questions of liability and productivity, as a contracting officer I am not paid to worry about the government's liability for its own employees or the productivity of other government employees in my agency, except for the ones that I supervise. I am paid to ensure "performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships." FAR 1.602-2.

I am not saying that it's bad to let the contractor employees participate. I'm saying that I'm not sure whether it's bad or not, and I'm too professional to simply shrug off such matters without some thoughtful analysis. A professional does not pooh-pooh these issues or dismiss them with "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." A professional looks at such issues from the standpoint of a contractual orientation to business relationships and events. Unlike you, I am not willing to reduce the issue to a simple matter of social fairness to contractor employees. I prefer to think about it more deeply than that and to ponder the possibilities. If, once I have thought it through, I decide that there are no troublesome implications and that there is no harm in letting contractor employees participate in Bring Your Child To Work Day, then I will welcome them with open arms. I fully understand that you don't want to go that far in your thinking. You don't want to think like a contracting officer. I get it.

[Guest carl r culham]

While I used the Senate Resolution to represent my first impression I do agree that the matter does raise interesting questions that are best addressed by the detail for the specific situation. My implied broad paint brush approach does not fit all situations.

Some have already touched on some of the thoughts I also had such as the liability, lost production, etc. With regard to many of these considerations I would offer that if a child is with an employee as "offical business", an approved function of the office for bring your child to work day, one could conclude that the parent is operating within the scope of their employment and as such both child and parent are covered by the liability statutes of the Federal government applicable to employees. Dangerous assumption possibly but one I made when I participated as the Government employee. Further it would seem that lost productivity would be a given already considered by management so is a non-issue in my book. The non-productivity is sacrificed for the benefit of exposing the child to the realities of the workplace as intended by the bring the child program.

So then I turn to contractor side. As already noted contracted resources are often invited to participate in various in office functions that would take away from their productivity and possibly open up liability issues. Consider another example where the individual participates in a on the grounds going away picnic at lunch during thework day and sprains their ankle while walking to the picnic table. A million possibilities! From this view it would seem that permission to participate is dual, the agency officially "invites" contracted resources and the contractor ?s official representative approves their employees' participation. To me this is where the line, so to speak, is because way too often the contracted resource is invited by well intended Government employees and the contractor employee just participates without checking their companies policies and procedures on what is allowed or not. Even a more interesting predicament in those instances where you have multiple companies providing the on-site contracted resources.

Type of work being performed even enters into the equation of whether it is prudent or not as well for the child to come to work.

Painting a one fix fits all answer is not the route as the specifics, as already noted, dictate. For example is there a different conclusion when it is simply one contracted individual in a sea of Government employees versus allowing the contracted employees to participate at say Hanford or Sandia and most importantly what do the contract terms and conditions and work performance requirements say, or not say regarding such functions.

In the end I do not believe the concern is misplaced it is a contract administration matter that msut be addressed, yet the specifics dictate and in the case of the details for the situation that prompted this discussion one of the details I am inclined to ask is - What was the contractors position on the matter?

[Guest Vern Edwards]

I think that most of the contractors wanted their employees to participate, or were at least willing for them to do so, but I don't know that with certainty. The agency did tell the contractors that their employees could not be "on the clock" while engaged with their children in the office. How this will be tracked I do not know, but it means that contractor personnel will be in the facility while not on official business. I don't know whether that should be of concern or not. It's one of the many things that should be thought through.