No layoffs in Food Safety and Inspection Service reorganization

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) will not lay off any employees when it reorganizes its district offices, according to agency officials. The agency responsible for inspecting meat and poultry will consolidate its 17 district offices into 15, but the realignment will not result in office closings, employee layoffs or relocations, according to Margaret O'K. Glavin, acting FSIS administrator. "We believe this is an important part of an ongoing process to manage our resources for the long-term benefits of employees and customers," Glavin said in a statement. FSIS' three district offices in Pickerington, Ohio; Boulder, Colo.; and Salem, Ore., are candidates for the realignment, according to an agency spokeswoman. Last February, the agency asked a group of FSIS employees to review the role and functions of its district offices. The group recommended the reorganization and other initiatives aimed at improving overall management, the spokeswoman said. The Food and Inspection Service, which is part of the Agriculture Department, reorganized its field offices a few times during the 1990s, reducing its district offices from 18 to 17 in 1997, the FSIS spokeswoman said. But the agency has failed to make its operations more efficient through the realignments, said Arthur Hughes, president of the Northeast Council of Food Inspection Locals. According to Hughes, the original reorganization plan developed during the 1990s proposed reducing the district offices from 18 to 10, but the agency opted to cut only one office to avoid layoffs or relocations. And the latest reorganization is another example of the agency's unwillingness to overhaul the district office structure for fear of appearing insensitive to employees' needs. "I don't think they know how to downsize," Hughes said. According to Hughes, agency employees also do not think the current district office structure is very efficient. "You have a structure that isn't supported by the people in the field. The agency's resources are spread really thin right now, but if they could consolidate more offices, they could better distribute their resources," he said. "We do have a history of doing our best not to layoff or relocate employees," the FSIS spokeswoman said. She declined to comment on Hughes' remarks about the effectiveness of the agency's reorganizations. About 30 percent of FSIS employees in the district offices are eligible to retire, Hughes said, when asked about the potential layoffs that could come with a more dramatic reorganization. But they "continue to hang on" because the agency always stops short of substantial downsizing, he said. "There is no incentive for them to retire." The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents FSIS employees, said it hoped the agency would be able keep its word about not laying off employees, while effectively performing its mission under the new district office structure. "Our main concern is that the structure of FSIS promotes performance of its mission of providing safe product for consumers," said Dave Rodriguez, a labor relations specialist with the union. "We hope the agency can maintain its commitment to not cut any positions, and that the structure they end up with will be conducive to performing its mission."