Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 18
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

Labor-Management Partnerships in an Obama Administration

Threshold Issue: Scope of Partnership

HR Consultant
been there/done that
Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:01 AM

Post Reply

Mr. Varnak raises a number of good points, but I must disagree with what seems to be a basic premise of his article. I interpret Mr. Varnak's view of partnership as a process layered on top of the statutory framework, i.e., a collective bargaining agreement, mid-term negotations and grievance and arbitration procrdures. My experience has been that partnerships of this nature do not work in the long run -- they generate confusion between the statutory mechanisms and the partnership process and create resentment that partnership exists solely to provide the union with "two bites at the apple". If a partnership is attempted, it should focus on pre-decisional involvement by the union in matters not covered by the statutory framework, e.g., mission, budget. However, Mr. Varnak is correct that few relationships are able to effectively engage in such a partnership.

Re: Threshold Issue: Scope of Partnership

Consultant
Self employed
Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:00 AM
During my time with the Federal government, we established at least nine partnerships as described in the article. They were concerned with pre-decisional issues and the general working conditions for bargaining unit employees as well as the needs of management. Several of these partnerships have survived and are still functioning today. In two cases, we set aside the negotiated agreements and instead focused upon a written Partnership Agreement of 9 pages that spellled out the parameters of the relationship. The surviving relationships included all the recommendations contained in the article.

Partnerships

PitbullDad
DOD
Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:53 AM

Post Reply

My experience with Partnership Councils was to give the union one more bite at the apple and to air grievances outside the grievance procedure, when the intent was to look at issues from the "30,000 foot level," not individual gripes. The nubmer of parties that are "mature" enough to work collaboratively for the best interests of the tax payers are few and far between.

Re: Partnerships

Worker
Government
Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:08 AM
You sound like an anti union, anti worker autocrat who wants power and does not want to give it up.
The purpose of partnering is to resolve problems, as best as possible, without going through the grievance procedure. Partnering could provide quicker solutions with less bad feelings. Grievances take more time and increases damages including moral problems.
I have that experience with an incompetent manager who did not listen vs. a good manager who listened and got the job done in a positive way.

Re: Partnerships

Agent
IRS
Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:43 AM
PitbullDad,
What is wrong at DOD? Why is it that anything related to the military and defense of this country has to have such a small mindset. Get out of the box and put your creative side of the brain in forward thinking. Get out of the dark ages man.

Today's column

HR Specialist
OPM
Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:07 AM

Post Reply

One aspect of the column requires clarification. Unlike the areas ruled off-limits for labor-management negotiation purposes in 5 USC 7106(a), 5 USC 7106(b) lays out permissive areas of negotiation, which the Clinton executive order stated would be negotiated and that agencies could not refuse to do so (even though many did just that and were never called to task by the administration after unions complained, and FLRA refused to get involved in enforcing an executive order). It's highly probable that a repeat of this scenario will occur unless the new administration is more coercive in this regard. In my opinion, requiring negotiation of the permissive issues in 7106(b) was a mistake in 1993, and it would be just as much of a one in 2009.

no need for agency-head approval??

Labor Relations Specialist
USDA/Rural Development
Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:42 AM

Post Reply

The author's second reason for NOT incorporating partnership activities in the negotiated agreement is "there is no need for agency-head approval".

Why? Because it's a separate document--i.e., because an MOU or SOP or MOA document "negotiated by the parties outside . . . the negotiated agreement" document is not "An agreement between any agency and an exclusive representative . . ." within the meaning of §7114(c) of the Statute?

I have had several advisees who believed and acted ("What? You say this is probably non-negotiable and wouldn't pass agency head review? Let's just put it in an MOA.") as though this is so. But I believe the author is wrong.

Even so, I don't know of any decisions or dicta that are on point. Can anyone help?

Re: no need for agency-head approval??

Labor Relations Specialist
USDA/Rural Development
Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:39 AM
I'm aware of the ALJ's discussion in "SSA, HEW, Region V, Chicago, IL (Local 2474, AFGE, AFL-CIO)", 6 FLRA 538 (1981), and think that, even though it's not squarely on point, it does support my belief that an MOU or SOP or MOU entered by an agency and a union is an "agreement" within the meaning of §7114(c) even though it's outside the term Collective Bargaining Agreement document. But is there any authority better than that?

Re: no need for agency-head approval??

Consultant
Self employed
Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:48 AM
My primary reason for stating that these agreements do not require agency head approval is that they are normally negotiated outside the purview of the Statute. Accordingly, the referenced section of the Statute would not apply nor would the referenced ALJ decision.When the Clinton executive order was signed, it clearly set forth that these activities would not be accompanied by "administrative or judicial review." However, some agencies may still require that these agreeements be approved at the agency level, but that has not been something I have experienced.

Partnerships

E&LR Manager
DoD
Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:55 AM

Post Reply

Partnerships, such as they are, are one thing. The additional burden of administration, i.e. last minute data calls, reports, etc. are something else. I don't need another part-time job on top of my regular job. I already have one with NSPS performance responsibilities.

A Return to Partnership

Manager
Social Security Administration
Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:32 AM

Post Reply

As a trained facilitator for the Social Security Administration during the Clinton Administration, I can attest to the successes of partnership. Partnership did not solve all of the ills of the contentious union/management relationship, however, much progress was made, a better solution to issues immerged, and relationships improved overall. In my opinion, those who resisted partnership the most, both management and union officials viewed partnership as a means to strip away their ability to employ dominance. Partnership exposed those who did not have both the internal and external customers’ best interest in mind. I would encourage a return to partnership. Provide agencies the opportunity to again engage in this process with a vision to improve relationships and ultimately improve the service we provide to the American people.

Partnership

Patient Business Assistant
VA
Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:08 PM

Post Reply

I agree (in a way) w/ HR specialist OPM, I agree that partnership was a useful tool, especially when forcing management to negotiate and abide by the MOUs and contracts/agreements. Since partnership dissolved, management refuses to negotiate anything and constantly tells Union "that's not how we interpret that" That's their favorite trick, along w/ not addressing things, or waiting out contract time in order claim all grievance procedures and meetings "untimely" I think we had less of that when partnership was in effect . It's the enforcing partnership that's going to be the problem, and solution. Maybe some new time tables and management is needed in the FLRA, & the Labor Dept. Maybe THAT'S why the pres. elect is picking outside people to head up some of these govt. departments. Fresh eye's, clear minds & the like. We can't keep the same corrupt, jaundiced and jaded people at the helms of these depts. that are responsible for so many peoples rights, partnership won't work.

Total Comments: 18
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.