Re: SPOT ON

It appears that unions really, really, bother you. That is probably a good thing.

Re: SPOT ON

Fed Worker et al DOD, if you read the Federal Employee’s post you will see that his beef is NOT with unions. His beef is with people who don’t understand what it means to do your job as directed. T.J. Bonner has demonstrated that he doesn’t understand that Mr. Aguilar’s job is NOT to oppose policy based on personal opinion, it is to carry out policy that is set forth.

Re: SPOT ON

I find it dismaying that the unions have gone a long way toward destroying the manufacturing base in our country and have also done a very good job of doing the same thing to the federal government; the biggest difference being that we will not go out of business despite spending more and more time on litigating complaints filed by some person who may be incompetent and should not be employed but can tie up numerous people for years filing complaints with no merit--and spurred on by unions getting paid by the taxpayer and with nothing better to do that cement their position by looking for more complaints.

We are destroying our own country while the self-rightous, moralizing individuals will proclaim loudly and endlessly they are helping the downtrodden, underpaid, overworked federal employee (and ignoring those who are actually doing much of the work). Encouraging these clowns, and actually paying them to do it, is disgraceful but we have done it to ourselves by opening up the financial spigots to politicians eager to sell out the country for more campaign contributions.

Re: SPOT ON

To Agent DHS: Guess you didn't read all the way to the bottom of the decision, huh? If you had you would discover that a) the discipline was upheld, b) the basis for doing so was that the published critical remarks of the individual who had identified himself as a federal employee were deemed, in modern parlance, over the top. Nice try indeed.

Re: SPOT ON

...This guy published his comments against a military officer who ran a post overseas. He basically committed treason. The portion of the case I published covered anything that is/was said about a political hack chief pushing amnesty by a union. You can't even begin to compare the two. This is why you guy get your butts handed to you every time we go to arbitration.

Re: salient points

Hold on just a moment here, LR Specialist. First off, don't you distinguish between "official time" for union reps and their status as employees? If he were bitching about understaffing, overtime, or a lack of body armor, would it be different? Aren't budgets "administration policy"?

I don't appreciate ad hominem attacks either - from anonymous authors or local presidents. It's bad strategy.

All managers are appointees. All union presidents are elected. Sadly, sometimes things get personal. Bonner puts his name/face to it. This author didn't.

As for his being on the government's payroll, you should be aware of the history of LR in the federal sector. Congress, in 1978, decided to make unions "open shops" (voluntary membership - something the unions have decried for decades) and gave 'em "official time" for representation in return. My guess is that every federal union would trade this arrangement for the right to have "agency shops", where dues are paid by all.

Re: salient points

Your comments are typical of a management person. "Damn unions and their union officials". At least Bonner has the guts to get up there and speak the truth - unlike many in this administration.

Re: salient points

Retired taxpayer, your comments are typical of a union lackey. Defend unions at all costs and turn a blind eye to the damage they are doing to this great country of ours.

As for Bonner speaking the truth, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Mr Aguilar's job is NOT to question policy, it's to carry it out. It boggles the mind that so many of us can't seem to figure that out.

Re: salient points

LR Specialist
DoD

Hold on LR Specialist- ever hear of the CSRA or how about the first amendment? You are way off base on this one and I surely hope you do not practice what you preach.

I will not get into all the law and cases proving you wrong; presumably, you should know. I will say that union officials are treated differently from federal employees under the umbrella of chapter 71. However, even federal employees have the right to openly challenge policies of the administration they work for; but must do so in their private capacity as opposed to government position.

I have personally been down the road tha challenged my free speech and right to challenge the policies of the administration. I prevailed on all counts.

Just because we disagree with something, it is not automatically wrong or in violation of law.

Re: salient points

Hey, ER Specialist, I don't know what cases you've been reading--if any--but I'd recommend you take a look at United States Forces, Korea/Eighth U.S. Army and NFFE, Local 1363, 17 FLRA 718. It clearly establishes what a lot of union types miss, namely that there are limits to what can be said and the venue in which they can be said. Disrespectful comments re: a direct superior, especially when they can be viewed as undercutting the mission/status of an organization, delivered in a public forum with the speaker identified as an employee, have long constituted grounds for dismissal both in the public and private sectors.

Re: salient points

17 FLRA 718 "intemperate, abusive, or insulting language was tolerated in labor-management relations. Contacts with the media were also permissible. However, in this case the union president interjected the union into a highly charged political dispute between Christian leaders and the Korean Government, selected a Korean newspaper, and then advocated the recall of the commanding general and criticized his appointment as Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. To the extent the statements about local labor relations problems included derogatory or defamatory remarks which undermined the credibility and confidence of U.S. Government officials in a foreign country and which had no reasonable nexus to the union's legitimate labor relations problems, the proponent of the remarks lost the protection of the Statute.

Calling our leadership out for not enforcing our immigration laws, demanding accountability, and bringing to light wasted tax payer money is far from treason. Nice try though.

Re: salient points

As federal employees we do not swear to uphold the policies of the government, we swear to uphold and defend the Constitution.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331

Re: salient points

May be you won't feel this way when the HR positios are handed over to contractors.

Re: Union Comments

I believe you may be confusing the right of any person to speak his/her mind within his/her capacity as a private individual, and the non-existent right of a federal employee, sworn to carry out the policies of the government for which he/she works, to publicly oppose such policies, and essentially lobby in public for different ones. That, I believe, is not tolerable in the private sector---you may want to check up on the available case law---nor in the public sector. If Mr. Bonner were not still a federal employee it would be a different story, but he is. And when he goes on the air, identifying himself as such, to make what amount to political arguments for or against a particular policy, it seems to me he has crossed the line of appropriate behavior.

Re: Union Comments

True DOI, we can still express opinions, but not in any official capacity, that's what the union official appears to be doing.

Re: Union Comments

I see a bit of a contradiction here. Seems to me that elsewhere in this and other news letters we are applauding Federal Employee scientists for publicly resisting the President's policy on ignoring the Endangered Species Act and other laws. Part of our strength is that the professional employees of the Federal Government are not required to park their brains and morals at the door when they come to work. Union and Management Associations provide a venue for important public discussion.

That being said, I do not support any law enforcement officer who shoots an unarmed suspect in the back and then tries to conceal the evidence. It is clear that the convictions in open trial were justified. If not, there is an appeals process in our court system.

Re: Barnacles on the Ship of State

If they saw the resulting law suits, Dept Of Labor cases, EEO, civil law suits, & resulting fraud, waste, & abuse complaints of agency managment getting their way, the public would be mortified!! The unions are crtically needed!! Does the name "Rumsfeld" give justification enough!!

Re: Barnacles on the Ship of State

The reality is that unions are doing to the federal government exactly what they are doing to the auto industry in our country, the rubber industry and the steel industry.

We have become as inefficient as these woebegone industries. The difference is that we have no competition. The complaints and various forums for whining about our jobs lessen effectiveness, efficiency and competence. We will not go out of business unless taken over by a foreign govt. and, in effect, the unions are working to make that more likely.

IN short, it is good to feel your sense of importance. Don't take it too far; you are living in a fantasy world.

Re: Barnacles on the Ship of State

I totally disagree with manger DOD, unions did not do anything to the auto,rubber or steel industry GREED did. Its cheaper to move everything overseas and pay cheap wages and no benefits. Remember the Chairman, CEO,works for the stock holder. The almight dollar talks. There are good and effective unions just like there are good and effective mangers. General Eric Shinseki spoke out and told the truth and what did it get him.Just because a union leader speakes out he/she should be comdemed, sometimes the truth HURTS.

Re: Barnacles on the Ship of State

To proclaim that unions didn’t do anything to the auto, rubber or steel industry is a naïve generality. It’s true that there have been problems at the management and executive level, but to lay all the blame there and call it greed simply isn’t true. Part of the blame does fall on unions. They have become very powerful and have strong armed companies into paying very high wages and very lavish benefits, in many cases as high as they possibly could with very little regard for how it affects the health of the company. Executive level staff are partly to blame for the situation, unions are also partly to blame. Although it may be politically expedient to oversimply the situation there is no quick and easy answer.

Re: Shut Up and DO YOUR JOB Attitude

Equipment Specialist--

You were RIGHT ON until point number 4 and, unfortunately, you are so wrong on that point that it makes it hard to take you seriously.

It doesn't matter what illegal activities were taking place (like you, I am vehemently against illegal immigration and drug smuggling), it is never okay to shoot someone in the back and then cover it up.

You can't advocate for the rule of law and at the same time advocate to undermine it.

Re: Shut Up and DO YOUR JOB Attitude

Of course it's never right to shoot someone in the back, that's why when the illegal alien/doper turned and raised his arm with a weapon in his hands and pointed it at the agent, the agent shot him. The doper was in a "bladed" turned position and was subsequently shot in that position. The medical testimony in the case vouched to this.