FLRA Confirmation Hearings: Softball Questions, Vague Answers, No Substance

By on October 8, 2013 in Current Events with 13 Comments

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs held hearings on the pending confirmations of all three Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) nominees on September 25, 2013.

If you check out the link above, you’ll also find statements of each nominee that they read into the record.  Three senators were present, Chairman Tester (D. Montana), Sen. Portman (R. Ohio) and Sen. Johnson (R. Wisconsin).  Tester and Portman stayed for the entire hearing, Johnson left after his first round of questions.  Eleanor Holmes Norton (Del. D.C.) sponsored Carol Waller Pope’s nomination, Ernest Dubester and Patrick Pizzella were also at the table.

With two republican Senators present, I expected to see at least some questions on the Authority’s reversal of past precedent, beatings delivered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, disregard of Agency prerogatives and the like.  Instead I was treated to almost an hour and a half of talk about whether the FLRA gets 24 or 25 million dollars or gets a staff of 123 or 134 people.  Really!

Ms. Pope continues to take credit for improving employee morale by ruling the way the staff wants her to i.e., to the left of any issue and in favor of the unions.  Dubester fell in with the me too! crowd.  In a little piece of meat, Pizzella said that the Agency shouldn’t forget the taxpayer.  This was the only mention of the taxpayer in the proceedings.  He also suggested that Agencies need to pay more attention to labor relations.

Ms. Pope said she had been guided by the case law.  She’s kidding, right? She also took the opportunity to slam the Bush FLRA one more time.  It’s old news, Ms. Pope and you’ve had four years in which you’ve accomplished a total ideological rewrite of case law.  Of course, much of her mischief is or will be reviewed by the courts but due to the deference by the court to FLRA’s “expertise”, much more, sadly, has not been addressed.

Much was made in the hearing about ADR in the case handling process (Read arm twisting).  When asked the percentage of cases in which there was a difference between the members, Dubester said 80-85% of opinions were not unanimous. That’s 1 in 5 and no one asked a single question about why that was.

In essence, all the Senate of the U.S. apparently cares about is whether these people get cases done on a self imposed timetable.  The impact of Authority decisions on Agency operations, the cost of the those decisions to implement, and all of the other substantive issues surrounding how the FLRA actually manages Federal labor relations were not a subject of inquiry.  The reality was probably best expressed by Sen. Johnson who said he wasn’t familiar with what the FLRA did and asked Pope (1:01:30 into the hearing) how the negotiability process worked.  She was more than glad to instruct him.  If ignorance is truly bliss, these guys are the happiest I’ve ever seen.

As always, any opinion expressed is mine alone.    BTW, if the shutdown is being addressed by these guys, don’t expect any understanding of issues.

© 2016 Bob Gilson. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Bob Gilson.


About the Author

Bob Gilson is a consultant with a specialty in working with and training Federal agencies to resolve employee problems at all levels. A retired agency labor and employee relations director, Bob has authored or co-authored a number of books dealing with Federal issues and also conducts training seminars.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 Replies

Comments RSS

  1. Inquiring_Attorney says:

    DuBester said 80-85% of the cases *were* unanimous — not that “80-85% of opinions were not unanimous.” You’re crediting him with a statement that is the exact opposite of what he said.

  2. Steve Neal says:

    This type of big gov’t / useless oversight (self-licking ice cream cone) is helping the current administration push us off the cliff toward our equal place among all other countries. ObaMao claim to fame will be the POTUS who forced us to our knees and into “One World Order” with all the other nations.

  3. grannybunny says:

    No one expects anything of substance to occur at a confirmation hearing. They are mere political theater.

    • Ross200 says:

      Of course when the hearings are chaired by Daryl Issa we get political theater and get to see a real demagogue in action.

      • burgerchecker says:

        “What difference does it make?!” – If you read that using Hillary’s voice in your head it’s quite entertaining, not that covering up what happened in Benghazi is entertaining or political theater but you get my point.

  4. steve5656546346 says:

    We are witnessing the fall of a nation that has become corrupt. This is what it looks like. It is a strange privilege to behold.

    On the other hand, it is interesting. Remember how we read about the fall of other nations in school, and wondered how they could have been so stupid? Well, we are finding out that they were not stupid: just willfully blind.

  5. mandinka says:

    Follow the law??? We’re anointed by Obama we don’t need no stinking laws

    • retired worker fed says:

      You and Bob Gilson go together hand in hand. Both are anti union. Both spout onlyu the “truth that supports their truths. Otherwise, the real truth is left out. By the way, Obama was elected by the people of this country without shenanigans. That is not royalty like the previous snot nosed president.

      • LaborAttorney says:

        Gilson is playing a role. They are nothing alike. He’s an intelligent, rational and pragmatic guy.

        • retired worker fed says:

          I will partially agree with you. He is clearly intelligent, rational, and pragmatic. I do not know what you mean by playing a role. He also leaves out items that oppose his way of thinking. He does not refute them, but ignores them. That is what I do not like about Gilson. One must research the issue further to find out all of the truth. In my job, I looki at all of the facts before making a decision. I then state why I did not accept the items opposing my position.

  6. Keeg says:

    Well, they did sell their souls and have to allow these nominations.