Re: Democrat or Republican

Federal unions are heavily subsidized. This taints the process, and few insiders believe federal unions provide value. The statements of most union leaders and managers are self-serving, and executives lack the fortitude to say what most of them know - "partnership" accomplishes little at enormous cost. Since fixing this mess would be almost impossible, we should abolish federal unions. Most employees would lose nothing, and taxpayers would get more for their money. While I am certain my observations are shared by many, those disagreeing are encouraged to address the issues rather than simply attack me.

Re: Democrat or Republican

Taxpayer subsidy of unions defies logic. I will say what executives know but are afraid to - federal unions achieve little at outrageous expense. Abolish them. Alternatively, require them to pay their own way. Those who believe unions are needed to "protect" government workers are delusional. The government would run better without them and taxpayers would get a break.

Re: Democrat or Republican

Abolish Federal Unions? Despite what many people like the executive/treasury may think, the majority of union officer's and steward's time is spent in representation and contract enforcement Why? Because local manage-ment can't take the time to read the contract let alone abide by it. In addition, many situations which could be settled equitably are not because of management's failure to lose face when they have done something wrong. They'd rather spend $10,000 to go to arbitration over even the most minute issues.

Re: Democrat or Republican

I was a government employee for over 30 years. I spent equal time in agencies with and without unions. Union "protection" is a sham. Non-union employees have the same rights, just slightly different proceedings. Federal unions have accomplished nothing substantive. They are a haven for malcontents, poor performers, and those who have failed to achieve. Personal agendas are paramount, and often the real goal is simply to make management look evil. They slow operations and create unnecessary layers of "review". The fact that my taxes subsidize their activites sickens me. Poor managers and policies will always exist, just as poor employees do, but unions are not needed to address such problems. Those agencies not covered by unions survive, and their employees are not treated any differently. I know I have been in both. Federal unions are unnecessary and add excessive cost. The public would be outranged if they knew the true taxpayer expense in supporting union "partnership".

Re: Federal Union

I do not believe CI has union representation. Is this why you are so critical? What expertise are experiences do you have with federal unions that shows your knowledge of what they are about?
I do have experiences and agree that they are not aggressive enough in their representation. We have poor managers with huge egoes. This results in bosses making illegal, sneaky, or improper orders that the union is afraaid to fight. Of course there are only so many battles based on the number of union stewards and union funding. Oh well.

Re: Federal Union

It is quite apparrent that you are totally ignorant when it comes to union activities. The mere fact that you were a special agent indicates that you did not have union representation. Given that, how can you make your observations about unions? You have no first hand experience.

Re: Federal Union

An article is written. A reader responds and says you are the most ignorant, uneducated loser in the history of the United States government. Another reader responds and says the first reader is ignorant, uneducated and blah, blah, blah. This is what the internet has wrought. Can't anybody here carry on some reasonable level of humanity and social discourse? By the way, I am retiring in 5 months and I do intend to read this type of one-upsmanship in my golden years.

Re: Federal Union

IRS Agent - I hope you are not as assuming and narrow-minded in your work as you are in assessing my comments. If so, your value as an agent is severely diminished. My title at retirement does not limit nor define the knowledge gained as a special agent or in other positions. Nor does being a NBU employee disqualify me from union exposure or discount my observations. My comments are accurate and based on three decades of direct experience with multiple federal unions. NTEU is among the worst. Challenge my opinions if you wish, but do so with evidence and some reflection of intelligence. So far you have displayed neither. Begin by defending the obscene subsidies federal unions receive. Then detail the benefits of union effort compared to the true costs. I suspect you are clueless. Please show us otherwise.

Re: Interesting

The Union leader should get fired with the manager? If a Union official commits an EEO offense, they are terminated. A supervisor/manager commits an EEO offense, they get promoted or given a paid move to another office where they can continue the harassment. There's no parallel between Agency discipline and Employee discipline. Maybe if the Manager actually worked "with" the Union instead of against them, your theory would have merit.

Re: Interesting

My reply was about accountability. I believe if the federal unions want to pursue true partnerships, then they along with management need to be held accountable regardless of the situation.

Too often Labor wants something or proposes something, but does not want to be held accountable for the results.

Re: Cry Baby Gilson

Thought you might find this quote helpful:

"Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."

--H. Michael Sweeney from Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Re: Cry Baby Gilson

"Us readers"???? Please.

Re: Gilson Drivel

"Neutral Arbitrators." That is your solution? Who are we kidding here. Arbitrators are not neutral. All having an arbitrator does is guarantee each side will get a little something out of the decision. Arbitrators have to get paid, and if they are not selected they do not get paid. So that means they have to side with management and with the Union. If they go one way too many times, even if that is what the case demands, they will not get selected again. how exactly is that neutral?

Re: Gilson Drivel

Dear big shot, Is that you Carl? I believe you missed the point. Talk to one of the junior stewards at your location. They will tell you that 5 USC 71 can be enforced through either the NGP or the FLRA. My contention is that 3rd party neutrality is more likely with a paid arbitrator than with a political appointee. And here is a suggestion that will really steam you: The costs of arbitrating a Chapter 71 violation should be paid by the agency. Dave.

Re: calling the kettle black

Are you really an HR consultant? And talk about disingenous! If you had some real HR/LER experience you would identify with the issues management had with the FLRA. I think taxpayers would be appalled at the cost of their decisions. Anyone that thinks FLRA is unbiased has never dealt with them.

Re: calling the kettle black

HR/DOD -- pls. cite for me some of the FLRA decisions (apparently from Clinton era since the FLRA's decisions under Bush have been pro-management) that you believe are so costly. And while your at it, compare the costs of those decisions to the cost of the procurement gaffes at DOD. You and your DOD colleagues have been so inept at dealing with unions, that you had to try and get the law changed so you didn't have to bargain - and you screwed that up too!

Re: calling the kettle black

As I said, you call yourself an HR consultant? With your attitude you must be standing in the bread line. Are you sure you're not a union rep pretending to be an HR consultant? Any case brought before the FLRA costs money. Attempts to resolve/settle are always being worked. An HR consultant would know that.

Re: calling the kettle black

HR/DOD -- as I suspected, you failed to produce a single concrete example. All blather and no substance -- just like NSPS. Your fear of unions manifests itself as irrational anger and unsupported rhetoric.