Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 12
Page 1 of 1

Two New FLRA Decisions: Practitioners Pay Attention!

Agency Cost Reimbursement

HR Manager
DOT
Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:57 AM

Post Reply

Bob, how would you determine the agency cost of handling LR cases? Agencies employ full time LR Specialists to handle all LR issues that come their way. Whether they handle tons of LR cases or very few, they still get paid the same. Most cases now can be handled all electronically, so paper and mailing costs aren't a factor.

Re: Agency Cost Reimbursement

Consultant
DVA
Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:12 AM
The energies expended by those HR professionals in investigation of the compliants could likely be expended better elsewhere on legitimate issues. So bill them for the cost of that persons salary/benefits, based on the total time spent. Likewise, the time expended by managers and others in areas having to respond with the provision of documents, etc. that are used to refute the frivolous claims also could be better used, so bill for their services as well. And why not bill for the government resources used. If you check, most agencies have a manual that dictate how much to charge for a copy, for examble. In our slice, it is 25 Cents per, a hefty sum when we get into hundreds of pages, over multiple cases.

Lawyers bill their clients for every phone call they make. To take some of the wind out, take a big bite out of them, then maybe they will think first. Then, maybe not.

FLRA decisions

Service Writer
usmc
Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:33 AM

Post Reply

At this time, I request I be reimbursed by Mr. Gilson for wasting my time with his anti union rantings.
I wonder the last time any agency HE worked for reimbursed any union for wasting some hard working steward's time.
It never ceases to amaze me how these agency guys get PAID to learn thier job, and a lot of stewards I know have to take leave to get trained. Then you have some Professor of logarchy (like Mr. Gilson) pointing out how the union screwed up on a technicality.
The union steward has to represent, and still do his job. The people like Mr. Gilson, firing people IS his job.

Give it a rest, we KNOW you hate the average working guy.

Re: FLRA decisions

HR spec
dod agency
Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:21 AM
Your whining is not adding to the value of the dialogue. All that the author did in this case was point out why not paying attention to a case can result in losing it. The ridiculous remark about "working guy" is silly--especially since the author is not on a federal payroll--and presumably does not get paid unless an agency chooses to contract with him to do a job on its behalf.

Perhaps reading the message of the articles on how to win cases instead of wallowing in self-pity and self-righteously whining about your valuable contributions (while presumably collecting the regular federal paycheck and benefits) would be more beneficial.

Re: FLRA decisions

Consultant
DVA
Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:20 AM
This sounds like the typical union rant, complaining because EVERYONE is not on their side. Because the unions often fail to see beyond their own flaws they think everyone should be as mediocre as well and, God Forbid, point out where the union screwed up. Again.

Grow up. Everyone has a job to do. Some of us actually have to do the real job we were hired to do and don't get 'official' time to play around elsewhere and then grab our football and run home when everything does not go our way.

And besides, no one forced you to read the article anyway. Do you rant to the editor in your local hometime news too.

Go Bob!!!

Re: FLRA decisions

Retired
SSA
Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:11 AM
Way to go HR spec and Consultant. You both hit the nail on the head. And, not to be picky service writer, did you mean 'oligarchy' rather than 'logarchy'?
I'm sure the union would prefer an oligarchic form of rule among the various governmental agencies. The union organization will never be content. Why? Because it will never 'rule'.

system not designed for that

Agency Rep
DOJ
Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:46 AM

Post Reply

First of all, the Agency has the ability to control costs in Arbitration through negotiations. Many parties have a 50/50 split for all arbs and many have a loser pays provision where the arbitrator decides who pays or if costs are split.

Second, it would never work, or be allowed statutorily, to have government lawyers paid for their time. Attorneys are salaried and not paid hourly. The prospect of having government lawyers have to bill hourly is nonsensical and could never be done. The government keeps its own cache of lawyers for a reason, to represent the government. I get paid whether I win or lose a case. Could you imagine criminal prosecuters being paid when a defendant pleads not guilty but is found guilty of all charges? Of course not, and this situation is not ant different.

Maybe

LER Manager
VA
Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:22 AM

Post Reply

if agencies would start figuring a way to re-coop costs (and win), the unions may start thinking twice about pushing everything forward and start working with management to improve their agency instead of tearing it down.

Re: Maybe

IT Specialist
DOD
Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:56 PM
Funny, I think the Unions would say the same thing about Management. Where can the Union recoup their cost for DHS and NSPS litigation. If that is not a perfect example of Management trying to tear Unions down, I don't know what is. It certainly wasn't for National Security.

FLRA Decision, Article and Comments

Associate
Federal Government
Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:27 AM

Post Reply

Readers:

The underlying situation which caused the Union not to follow up on the appeal has not been addressed.
First. the Union may have filed an appeal because an employee wanted it or for other political reasons and later decided not to pursue the appeal because those reasons changed. Second the Union may not be particularily competent, not have the time, staff or the continued desire to follow up on an appeal. Charging the Union the cost of the 'friviolous charges" would be counter productive. The Union might just get its act together if there was a cost involved.

Remember the old makim, "Let sleeping dogs lie."

Hate to tell ya this

IT Drone
DoD
Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:26 PM

Post Reply

If compensation by the loser became the norm, your pay raises would all be going to the unions because the unions are winning more than the agencies.

Glitches happen all the time. My agency likes to hold paperwork until the last minute, presenting it on the 30th day which makes it nigh on impossible to answer in a timely manner.

They also like to mail it to an incorrect address where it sits during the notification/answer period. The Bush version of the FLRA claims that doing something so underhanded doesn't extend time frames or allow the union to answer once they DO receive the notification (usually AFTER the practice has been implemented).

We've had several incidences where paperwork noticewas slipped under the door or dropped on the desk of a rep's office knowing that person was on extended sick leave. No effort was made to present them to another rep or to the union office so the paperwork just sat there.

Pay for an agency's dirty tricks? NEVER!

Cost reimbursement to the agency

Employee
IRS
Tue Mar 4, 2008 9:13 AM

Post Reply

This is to the author of the article. I am not familiar with the contract between the unions and the agencies. Are you? Does the contract call for these awards? If not, then why do you bring this up? If so, then why did the FLA not order these reimbursements?
Of course we only have your version of the facts. The unions' versions might be quite different as you do leave out facts supporting the other side.

Total Comments: 12
Page 1 of 1

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.