Permissive Bargaining Topics: So What's Not to Like?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
According to a recent news story, OPM is now ready to reveal previously unmentioned "tips" on how agencies can "succeed" at bargaining on (b)(1) topics.
This, I decided, was something I definitely had to see.
Particularly since the only agency I've encountered that actually negotiated its feet into concrete on stuff like staffing levels and fixed shift hours—both classic (b)(1) topics—had quickly concluded that the only thing they'd "succeeded" at doing was a) significantly impairing agency operations, and b) drastically increasing operating costs.
So I read on, eager for enlightenment on the hitherto hidden secrets to (b)(1) bargaining "success."
Alas, the only "tip" to be found in the article explained the steps one agency had taken to make sure its managers couldn't avoid bargaining on---you guessed it---(b)(1) topics.
A rather odd definition of "successful" bargaining, I thought—but then it did come from OPM.
Which is an agency that apparently seems to think the only problem with (b)(1) bargaining is that agency managers are just too obtuse to realize what a fine thing they're missing out on.
All of which begs the question, just what are they missing out on? Unfortunately, OPM was oddly silent on that point.
Having worked for one of the very few agencies that did dive headfirst into (b)(1) bargaining, however, I can help to fill in those blanks.
One thing those reluctant managers are missing out on is the opportunity to create the wonderful organizational stability that results from having shift hours that are chiseled in stone.
Which, of course, saves managers from having to alter them later merely because, say, the workload has migrated to a different time slot—for example, along with changes to inbound airline flight schedules.
Needless to say, an unlimited overtime budget can come in quite handy in papering over the inevitable gaps that soon appear between the negotiated shift hours and the actual workload.
Pretty much the same benefit is to be had by locking down the number of bodies to be assigned to a particular shift or task.
With the proper contract provision in place, there's no need to waste time figuring out how many employees to aim at a particular task. One simply sends the same number every time, regardless of what actually need to be done. A sledge hammer may not always be necessary to kill a fly, but hey, it will get the job done.
And agencies wise enough to bargain about which technologies to use needn't bother much with questions like "Should we go with the faster equipment/fewer employees option, or just stick with the way we've always done this?"
Rarely, when confronting such pesky decision points, will they need to look further than the choice that ensures retention of the greatest number of potential dues payers.
Indeed, even on those rare occasions in which they can't avoid adopting new technology, the parties can agree to soften the blow by bargaining over how many extra employees will be necessary to tend the new stuff.
Which, come to think of it, is how the railroads arrived at the modern marvel of shipping coal shovelers around the country in the cabs of diesel-powered engines.
Finally, one more—often unrecognized—benefit of bargaining on technology is that it can save agencies from undue haste in bringing new stuff online.
That's because an agency can always count on plenty of extra time to ponder how they'll put the new equipment to use—eventually—while waiting for the Federal Service Impasses Panel, or maybe a rent-a-judge (a.k.a. med/arb), to decide for it just how many of its employees ought to be running the equipment, how much training is necessary, how often they get to flunk qualification tests, etc.
I, for one, am mightily impressed with OPM's gut-level insight into the many benefits to be derived from bargaining on those under-appreciated (b)(1) topics.
No doubt it will soon be ready to share an equally insightful, albeit probably fact-free, explication on the superior effectiveness and efficiency of agencies that have seen the light on (b)(1) bargaining.
And that, after all, is what it's all about, right? Effectiveness and efficiency of government operations?
© 2009 D.K. Reischl. Article may be reproduced and/or distributed in its current form if the copyright and contact information is retained intact.
|
Readers' Comments
Posted: October 26, 2009 10:26 AM
Posted: October 26, 2009 9:39 AM
Posted: October 25, 2009 1:36 PM
View All Comments »