Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 42
Page 1 of 4

« Previous | Next »

The Politics (and Money) of Federal Union "Official Time"

Union Costs

Budget Analyst
ANY
Thu May 1, 2008 8:56 AM

Post Reply

Note that union costs are less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the Federal Government. Is this a really important expense?

Actually, the union representatives can be considered low paid HR types whose job it is to defuse the inevitable conflicts that arise within the government employment system before they get out of hand.

If you would prefer to have a French or Italian Union you will gain one Billion dollars over the next year and then lose it all in the first strike.

Remember, most union representatives expect to have to go back within the normal employment system eventually. (This is exactly what one Nationall Union representative said.) As a result they do night fight as hard or as ugly as private industry representatives do.

Be careful for what you wish for because you might actually get it.

Re: Union Costs

DoD employee
DoD
Fri May 2, 2008 9:59 AM
100 million dollars is a lot of money.

Re: Union Costs

Consultant
Agency
Fri May 2, 2008 3:55 PM
Can you perhaps clone some of those union types you have working in your agency and ship them around?

If we could get the unions to quit appointing high paid types as stewards, grabbing for full-brimmed official time, cut back on wasted grievances, ulps and arbitrations filed over frivolous claims that end up being tossed - not to mention all the time and money by regular employees doing real work on real taxpayer dollars that have to keep up with this - then we could help reduce the deficit.

Re: Union Costs

Taxpayer
USA
Sat May 3, 2008 9:23 AM
The amount of money wasted by senseless union bickering is significant. Arguing otherwise is dishonest or naive. The utility and necessity of union representation for federal employees is dubious at best. Add exordidant costs and we have another example of government waste. Taxpayers believe government workers are overpaid and underworked. If they knew taxes subsidize inept and meaningless union activity, they would be outraged.

I pity federal employees so weak of mind, ability, and spirit that they need unions to "protect" them. Unions spend most of their time and effort arguing trivia and defending those who are unsuited for their jobs or do them poorly. Requiring taxpayers to cover the cost of such nonsense is scandalous.

Re: Union Costs

Special Agent
Treasury
Mon May 5, 2008 11:29 AM
Not understanding the value of 1/10 of 1% helped create our recent credit, deficit, and housing finance messes. I expect such stupidity by some, but a budget analyst should know better.
Federal unions are useless, expensive, and wasteful. If direct and indirect tax money were not wasted, I only would pity those ignorant enough to fall for the spurious union boasts that they protect employee rights. In reality all they do is add cost, paid by us all, without value. What a sham. People stupid enough to pay union dues get what they deserve. Unfortunately we all get shafted along with them.

The costs of federal unions

Retired
IRS
Thu May 1, 2008 9:07 AM

Post Reply

I applaud you for addressing this topic. The cost of supporting federal unions is far greater than acknowledged. Federal unions have minimal impact at exorbitant costs, and they should be accountable for how tax money subsidizes their activities. Anyone arguing that dues cover federal union costs is either misinformed or mendacious. Agencies do not tract even the direct costs, and the indirect costs are far greater. The need for federal unions is debatable, but anyone comparing the value they provide against the true costs would be outraged.

Re: The costs of federal unions

Fed Worker & Union Guy
DOD
Thu May 1, 2008 11:41 AM
Are you an alumni of the Donald Rumsfeld Academy of Management Science?

Re: The costs of federal unions

Supervisor
FS
Thu May 1, 2008 3:21 PM
When I was a union officer, mgmt listened to me. When I became a supervisor, I became aware rather quickly that mgmt didn't care what I had to say. Without unions none of us would have any input. Look at the Clinton years and now the Bush years, did we get more say with Bush?? The union struggles to represent the BUE but those of us NOT in the BU benefit. If you enjoy your benefits, you owe a lot of thanks to those who fought before you. It's not a glorious job!!!

Re: The costs of federal unions

Former Special Agent
DOD
Fri May 2, 2008 9:45 AM
Federal unions may represent all BUEs, but they mainly support and defend poor performers and malcontents. I have worked for federal agencies with and without union representation. The only difference is that unions add significantly to the cost and delay action. Many union supporters have mariginal analytical and financial reasoning. Others have personal agenda. Union costs far exceed their value.

Our workforce would benefit from effective union leadership. Unfortunately, too many unions representatives are zealots or incompetents. I support union leaders who have the best interests of the workers at heart, but experience has proven that making management look bad is often the goal regardless of how it impacts workers.

Many BUEs do not pay dues because that are offended at the waste and politics. Union leaders should recognize and fix the problems within rather than blame management and the administration. We all suffer.

Official Time & Union Dues

Federal Employee/Union Officer
DOL
Thu May 1, 2008 9:09 AM

Post Reply

Wow! You surely know how to raise the dander of us Federal Union Activist. I guess one way to lessen the burden on the government budget would be to have a closed shop where everone paid initiation fees and union dues and the union could afford to maintain its' own business costs. You know, as well as I, that union dues can not be used for political action. That's why we have PACT where we donate out of our own pockets voluntarily and never from union dues. You also know that there are very few on 100% official time and usually only at the national level. The rest of us have to perform our agency work and union representation at the same time. You don't have one iota of an idea of how much of our own time and money are spent outside of our work day on union activity, nor do you care...and many of us still have outstanding performance appraisals doing agency work.

use of union dues

specialist
DOT
Thu May 1, 2008 9:21 AM

Post Reply

I am not sure HOW many times we have to say this - UNION DUES ARE NOT USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. That is against the law. Union PAC funds are separate and ARE NOT DUES. You keep spewing this false information. As for official time - I do not think it is as extensive as you would like the charge. Last evening I spent 3 hours at home on MY computer, MY phone, MY FAX working an two grievances on MY TIME. I could have received 8 hours of duty time to work these slam dunk management violations; however, my GOVT JOB is extensive and I do 99% of my union representational duties on MY TIME. So taxpayers ARE not getting screwed by me, or by any union rep that I know. Do we have a full timer - yes - and his actions are more benefit to the director than anyone because of the trouble he KEEPS him and senior managers out of. I do not know why you hate employee organizations, but any manager who feels likewise and does not listen to his "people" is NO LEADER![not spell checked][

Re: use of union dues

Enforcer of All Things Good
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fri May 2, 2008 7:58 AM
"UNION DUES ARE NOT USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES"

That is priceless. Thanks for making my trip in worth it.

Re: use of union dues

Agent
IRS
Thu May 8, 2008 9:29 AM
Hey CBP guy, you of all people should know the value of the union which protects your very own butt. If you have proof that union dues are used for political purposes why don't you step forward. If not close your mouth and do your job

Just the Facts Mam

Fed Worker & Union Guy
DOD
Thu May 1, 2008 9:23 AM

Post Reply

This line from the old Dragnet TV show "Just the Facts Mam" could be utilized by you. It's been said before that Fed Smith has a managment slant or bias, & it's coming through this article loud & clear. Need I say more!!

Whacko

Engineer
DoD
Thu May 1, 2008 9:24 AM

Post Reply

Union dues do not go towards political action committees! A portion of Union dues go to a legislative action fund which is not the same purpose as a PAC. PAC's primary purpose is to support and elect officials that will promote the Unions agenda. A legislative action fund is for promoting Union legislation in Congress. Get the facts straight. Donation's to a PAC are voluntary. A Union may collect money for a PAC, but the collections do not come from dues.

Official Time

Labor Employee Relations Manager
VA
Thu May 1, 2008 9:44 AM

Post Reply

Many union officials who are currently involved with contract negotiations are purposely delaying those negotiations in hopes that a new administration will grant them partnership in the law and more official time so the unions can "operate" the federal agency.

The challenge for folks in the HR LER arena is trying to control official time, especially those on 100%.

Re: Official Time

ATCS
FAA
Thu May 1, 2008 11:51 AM
Why don't you spend more time following negotiated contracts and not allowing rogue managers to trample all over workers rights, than worrying about official time for reps to fight these injustices? Oh yea that's you're job as a HR manager, my bad.
Total Comments: 42
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.