Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 24
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

Obama FLRA Transition Team Meets with Agency Representatives: Indications of a Paradigm or Pendulum Shift?

FLRA

Aging Services Program Specialists
DHHS/AoA
Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:11 AM

Post Reply

I cannot assume that the FLRA leaders during the Clinton Admiistration have not or cannot understand changed circumstances require new and different approaches. I am often guilty of beliving there are great minds somewhere outside DC who can bring a new and better approach, but then I remember President Carter.

We're in serious trouble .........

Retired
DoD
Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:23 AM

Post Reply

No matter how it shakes out, America is in serious trouble. The unions drove the American auto industry to the brink of destruction and out next batch of politicians wants to bail them out with our money (and worse yet, a debt for our children and grandchildren). We are all well on our way to socialism and all of it's ills.

Re: We're in serious trouble .........

Analyst
DOD
Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:09 PM
Let me see. Upper management received bontiful salary and bonuses regardless of how well they performed. To me it's understandable that the folks putting out the product want a piece of the pie. Management leadership lead the companies down the primrose path, not the unions. Until management gets serious about leading by example, the car companies will remain in trouble. I'm concerned that they (Management & Union) will go down in flames together. America really can't afford to lose any more manufacturing jobs.

Re: We're in serious trouble .........

Customer Account Specialist
DOD
Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:47 PM
Answer to We're in serious trouble- It is not the unions who decided the direction of the Big Three Automobile manufacturers. They weren't sitting in the board room, making decisions on R & D, or where to invest money, the union was the one making the cars, AND buying them. So pull your head out and quit blaming the unions. Blame the oil companies and the big oil President for where we are today. Don't give in UAW, we workers have taken the hit for years. The Administration will save the companies, let us hope the CEO's and Boards of Directors do the right thing!!!

Re: We're in serious trouble .........

Acountant, Retired
DOE, Albuquerque
Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:03 AM
The Top 22 Toyota executives received 8 million in TOTAL and made 16 billion. GM;s CEO gets 20 million and lost billions. You see this over and over. US CEO's take 10% of all US corporate profits while the entire executive team in foriegn companys average 2%. The Republican party has made GREED the American creed. In the last bull market the S&P was up 70% while EAFE was up 120%. Lets tax the hell out of those US mediocre CEO's and use those funds to reinvest in the American middle class education

Re: We're in serious trouble .........

Ex-Union
SSA
Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:39 AM
The paycheck earned by me as a union member was the best I ever had. I didn't have to work hard and I made a killing. Now that I have a different job and work harder than ever before for less pay, I have to speak out and simply state that the unions got greedy and are just as responsible for the auto industry mess as management. If I didn't start a family, I would have stayed in the union job and kept soaking it in.

Re: We're in serious trouble .........

NWA
NCA
Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:43 AM
SSA Ex-Union, I don't understand your last sentence. If you had it so good & were "soaking it in" why would you choose to give that up when you started a family & needed to provide for them? I would think it would be the reverse when starting a family - the secure union paycheck vs. doing something else you may have liked more, but paid less or lacked the same security.

FPMI Town HALL

Tomato Grower
Oaklandon Road
Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:12 PM

Post Reply

I believe it was likely Joe S. who killed the FPMI Town Hall. It has been sorely missed by this grower of heirloom Brandywines.

Re: FPMI Town HALL

LR Specialist
DoD
Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:26 AM
You all have to got to be kidding as Joe S has forgotten more about the FLRA and relevant case law in one week then most of us could remember in a life time. If I remember correctly, it was Joe S who set out to reform the FLRA which he did and after he left, it was the Bush cronnies who brought the FLRA to its knees - can I say Jerry Fallwell law school graduates. I pray they bring back a FLRA General Counsel like Joe S and a new Chair, like Carol Pope, to get the FLRA back up and running. I'll take their regime over anybody else out there.

Re: FPMI Town HALL

Civilian
Army
Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:06 PM
I've just got to know - who is Joe S?

Re: FPMI Town HALL

editor
FedSmith.com
Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:22 PM
The article discusses the role of Joe Swerdzewski in the recent meeting. That is the "Joe S." that the other reader is referring to in his comment.

Re: FPMI Town HALL

Civil Servant
Federal Agency
Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:31 AM
I agree that the Town Hall was helpful; however, I'm afraid that FPMI is like the Big 3 in Detroit, that is, only interested in their profit. I -- reluctantly -- attended FPMI's conference in New Orleans. The conference notebook lacked material for several presenters. Most presenters asked me to email them for the material. I did and nothing. I wrote FPMI -- same response! FPMI is only into FPMI. Maybe that's why Joe S. started his own company. Either way, it's still a racket. And to "Oaklandon" -- "That's a nasty scar!..."

Softer, Kinder Bob

Border Patrol Agent
U.S. Border Patrol
Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:38 AM

Post Reply

You are getting soft Bob, this article is missing your bold-face anti-union spin. It is there but done in a polite and inquisitive way. Now that is change!

Re: Softer, Kinder Bob

Analyst
dod
Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:28 PM
Border Patrol Agent - you criticize the author for being boldly anti union, then when he isn't boldly anti union you criticize him too telling him you want him to get back to his bold anti union stance so you can criticize him.

You're just looking for an excuse to criticize him no matter what he says. It's hard to take you seriously when you pull that sort of thing.

Partnership in Labor Relations

Retired manager/ad hoc Labor Relations
USPS
Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:04 PM

Post Reply

Change, as I've noted before, is always a toughie to introduce, implement and get buy-in on from the players - especially in an entrenched bureaucratic setting.

The traditional labor-management relationship is outmoded - an antique. Unions and management need to move from an adversarial relationship to a more collaborative relationship that recognizes and deals with differences and issues with a focus on making joint decisions that are in the best interest of the entire organization and its employees.

Conducting labor-management relations is an expensive function for both parties and the fact is that labor and management need each other if an organization wants to improve in performing its mission. Working together, rather than at odds, not only reduces friction - it contributes to reducing federal spending at a time when that goal is important.

Re: Partnership in Labor Relations

Acountant, Retired
DOE, Albuquerque
Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:31 PM
I agree. We were doing that under Clinton. Bush did away with the cooperative committee's because he's big business southern confederate cowboy anti union. As long as we have Republicans, we will have unions. Period

Re: Partnership in Labor Relations

Investigator
OCR
Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:09 PM
Retired Manager: You are so right ("Change, as I've noted before, is always a toughie to introduce, implement and get buy-in on from the players - especially in an entrenched bureaucratic setting."). Let's just hope that a more cooperative labor-management relationship can indeed be somehow forged. In my workplace, the last 8 years has only served to create even more bureaucracy and inefficiency as one could ever imagine, something which you would think the republicans would completely oppose. It's a wonder that some of us can get through each workday in this type of environment. I have a glimmer of hope, but, unfortunately, the Fed gov't is a dinosaur and I don't know how you begin to really change a dinosaur to pick up some speed and move in the right direction. Not by streamlining to the point of even less efficiency, and somehow changing a military mindset of a pecking order to the Nth degree. Good luck to that.

PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA

SPEC
VHA
Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:26 AM

Post Reply

We've got a new President with new ideas. I'm impressed by his obvious willingness to be a team player, rather than a dictator type. Note that he is choosing people for his cabinet who have a history of succeeding in their ventures. He is choosing those who are likely to be trusted by various groups, rather than by one select group. It sounds like he will be more likely to try to work with problem foreign leaders, rather than starting wars. I'm impressed with him already, even though he's not spent 1 full day in the Oval Office. Get behind him, people, and let's be on a winning team for a change.

Re: PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA

Supervisor
DOA
Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:31 PM
I am amazed the "New Presendent" hasn't done anything and you are already impressed. What an easy crowd. The reality is the politico's haven't done anything for our countries long term problems for the past 15 years...they say what they need to, to stay in office.

Re: PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA

IT Spec
dod
Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:07 PM
Hey VHA SPEC, he talks the talk but that's what being a politician is all about. Nothing new there.

Fact is, he hasn't walked the walk (on anything). Hold your praise until he actually does something to earn it.

Change

worker
government
Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:36 AM

Post Reply

I do not understand the comment "President Elect Obama has promised change. If that change involves replacing Bush philosophies and appointees with former Clinton approaches and appointees, then it's "ho hum" time in D.C. again and business as usual.
This is change. It is getting rid of the far right Bush's philosophies and bringing in a group that will allow labor to do the jobs properly. Again the writer shows his bias. Again he does not bring all of the facts, but only those that support his position

Total Comments: 24
Page 1 of 2

« 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.