Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 40
Page 1 of 4

« Previous | Next »

FLRA Has a Union - On What Authority?

Is the FLRA unbiased?

Federal Employee
Another Government Agency
Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:17 AM

Post Reply

How is a unionized employee at this agency going to be neutral overseer of an election at another agency? Union members emphasize "solidarity" so doesn't that present an obvious case of bias.

Re: Is the FLRA unbiased?

Retired
DOD
Tue May 15, 2007 5:08 PM
Not everyone at the Federal Labor Relations Authority is in the position of making such weighty decisions as whether an election is required and proper. Even those that do have problems making the right decision at times. Employees that are not in the position of making decisions (file clerks, stenographers, etc. should have every right to form, join and actively participate in union activities if they choose to.

Just seeking fairness

General Engineer
DOT
Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:33 AM

Post Reply

I think it all means that the FLRA, like any other federal body, is entitled to be treated fairly. I see nothing wrong with that. I personally don't think it would cloud their judgement.

Re: Just seeking fairness

Supervisor
Department of the Army
Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:18 PM
It isn't what you "think" or "don't think" that matters; it is what the law says that matters. Congress writes the laws and that is what they wrote.

P.S. There is only one E in judgment.

Flawed Argument by Comparison

Jason
NLRB
Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:38 AM

Post Reply

A majority of the employees of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency that governs relations between unions and employers in the private sector, are represented by a Union and, as far as I know, there has never been a questions as to that Agency's ability to be good shepherds of private-sector policy due to fact that they are represented.

Re: Flawed Argument by Comparison

attorney
Former FLRA
Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:17 PM
This is a very good point. The NLRB is stongly unionized and the FLRA deals with cases that arise from there regularaly. Look at the case law. Does that mean every NLRB employee in the bargaining unit is biased against Managment? Of course not. The other point the author misses when he asks "HEY, you FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service folks, wanna union?" is that there is a far different reason that these agencies are excluded from coverage under the Statute. These agencies are excluded on the grounds of National secuity, e.g the security work exception in 7112(b)(6), because of the work that they do. I am pretty sure no one can make that argument for FLRA employees. So the author is essentially comparing apples to oranges with that comment and not succeding in making his point.

DOJ?

Federal Employee
DHS
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:01 AM

Post Reply

It seems odd that the FLRA, that has the exclusive authority to interpret and apply the Civil Service Refrom Act at 5 USC, Chapter 71, sought guidance from DOJ on this Labor Relations question. But then this is not the first boneheaded opinion to come out of the DOJ. And even a casual reading of historical FLRA case law will make you feel a bit schizoid. But if the phrase "not prohibited" means "okay", what in the world does "excluded" mean?

Union at the FLRA

Claims Rep
SSA
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:02 AM

Post Reply

So, what's the problem with a union at the FLRA? Is there any evidence that having a union has conflicted with the administrative operations of the Authority? Apparently not. How much official time is the union using; what are the other costs of facilities, services and LMR-related activities he laments about? Just how are the taxpayers being fleeced? Stating some facts might give the article some actual meaning.
Maybe, the Authority deemed it in the "public interest", the criteria applied in establishing the federal labor relations statute, to have a meaningful relationship with its employees, even if under the scary guise of a "union."
Absent an objective analysis, it seems Mr. Gilson's pure and obvious anti-union animus is the real issue here.

Re: Union at the FLRA

LR Specialist
DoD
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:10 AM
The article clearly makes the point. The problem is that the FLRA may have chosen to ignore the law and follow its own preferences. The issue has nothing to do with the author's own animus or lack of it. As an agency that is charged with enforcing the law, it apparently chose to ignore the law it enforces when it was convenient or fit the preferences of the FLRA members at that time. That is the problem and Gilson's article highlights an issue that should make some people there uncomfortable.

Re: Union at the FLRA

Manager
DOE
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:41 AM
Claims Rep, don't try to change the issue. The article clearly states that the problem is whether or not the agency is entitled by law to be associated with a union. Likewise the article clearly does NOT state any for or against stance on unions.

The article is written from an objective perspective, you're the one who isn't being objective.

Huh?

LR/ER
Navy
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:04 AM

Post Reply

I think the saying, "Don't do as I do, do as I say" comes to my mind for all of us down here on the homefront.

So, does that mean all of us "excluded" personnel can form a union?????

Re: Huh?

LR Specialist
Treas
Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:00 AM
If only ......

FLRA Has a Union--on Whose Authority?

Federal Employee
SSA
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:45 AM

Post Reply

According to Mr. Gilson, the FLRA employees voted 180-19 for having a union. One would guess that they think they needed one. Perhaps he should put aside his apparent background in and history of assisting agencies in applying the jackboot of the evil employer to the neck of the oppressed worker, and trade his sarcasm for admiration--of the FLRA and its employees doing the right thing.

Re: FLRA Has a Union--on Whose Authority?

Analyst
DoD
Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:20 AM
Federal Employee, you’re calling the article sarcastic and in the same breath you use language such as “applying the jackboot of the evil employer”? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Why don’t YOU put aside YOUR sarcasm? Maybe then you’ll be able to recognize the fact that the article is all about whether or not it’s legal to get a union and NOT about beating down the “oppressed worker” to use more of your sarcasm.
Get serious.

Re: FLRA Has a Union--on Whose Authority?

PS
DOL
Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:15 AM
Analyst DOD,

The words were taken directly from Mr. Gibson's article. Obviously you didn't read the article.

PS, DOL
Total Comments: 40
Page 1 of 4

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.