Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 37
Page 2 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Labor-Management Partnership - Deja Vu All Over Again

A new era of partnering

Worker
Government
Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:37 AM

Post Reply

I agree with most of what the writer said. I disagree with the comments about the quality of Robert Gilson's writing. However, I made those comments in Mr. Gilson's section.
I hope that the 2 sides will get together and do what is best for both the agency and its workers. Without the workers the agency is worthless. Without the agency, the workers have problems. Therefore, everyone needs each other. Therefore, we need to work with each other. That is what partnering is about.

TELL THE TRUTH

CLAIMS REP
SSA
Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:43 AM

Post Reply

Fasten Your Seatbelts - Its going to be a Bumpy Night

One of the ironies of the situation is that it wasn't career, professional managers and labor relations staff who created this situation, but they will have to bear the brunt of the onslaught. Will they be ready? I hesitate to jump to NO as the answer, but I am very concerned that in many agencies, neither line management nor the LR folks are as savvy and well-trained as they should be. I could probably say the same about many union reps, at least at the local level, who have management in their sights. Why is this a problem? I think because of

YOU KNOW VERY WELL AS I DO LABOR RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVES STILL BRAG ABOUT HOW THEY TURNED ON THERE OWN SSA EMPLOYEES THAT THEY KNOWN AND WORKED WITH FOR YEARS AND SHREDED THE UNION CONTRACT WITH THE AFGE AND THEY WERE BEING JUST WHAT THERE COMMIS WANTED THEM TO BE AS WELL AS THERE COMMANDER CHIEF GWB NOW YOU WANT TO SHIELD THE FRONT LINE BULLIES WITH THIS THEY HAD NO FAULT BS.

We will see

Labor Employee Relations Manager
VA
Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 AM

Post Reply

In the VA we have been negotiating a National agreement now for 6 years........

Yeah I know. The old 1997 agreement is basically an AFGE contract and old partnership stuff that gave the union more rights than the employees or management. Yeah management gave away a bunch of their rights.

Don't have a problem with partnerships or mutual cooperation. Problem is if you refer to Mr. Orr's list, our labor friends are lacking many of those attributes.

AFGE has been stalling over the past few years for the current administration. Time will tell.

Partnership as part of the 5CFR? Don't laugh it could be coming if AFGE has its way.

Refreshing

Engineer
USDA
Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:34 AM

Post Reply

At long last, we get LR commentary that provides a measure of fair consideration to both sides and which does not incorporate vitriolic prejudice against federal unions.

Partnership

Special Projects Rep
USDA Rural Developm,ent
Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:18 AM

Post Reply

That bit about the hot tubs and TV's, I take exception to that. In my agency we've kept the partnership alive, disguised like a refugee in the attic and used it to some effect for the betterment of our workforce and our agency, at some risk of rebuke for It is pathetic to watch my counterparts struggle with doing what they know is the best for the agency while fearing retaliation for 'giving away too much'.

The prospect of being able to actually employ IBB in the light of day, without having to hide it from the National Office is extremely refreshing.

As a union official I could care less about the trappings, I just want the best shake possible for the workforce, and to the extent that we can be successful with that, I am confident there will be better performance and productivity for the agency, and the general public.

Too many agency leaders have adopted the business notion that labor is just another cost that ought to be pared down at every opportunity.

Above article

HR Specialist
OPM
Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:29 AM

Post Reply

Many of the problems alluded to in the article, especially those over the last 8 years, stem directly from unions' misguided attempts to "play with the big boys" in the partisan big leagues. It's difficult to fault the Bushies for not according unions trust and respect when they had done everything possible to defeat the winning candidate, acting as de facto, wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic party in the process. In doing so, the unions' leaders acted contrary to their members' interests in putting all their eggs, so to speak, in one political basket. Unions learned the hard way that there is such a thing as payback. Regarding the partnership process during the Clinton years, I had a chance to see it up close in a number of agency settings, and it wasn't pretty. Some of the political hacks appointed as agency heads "gave the store away," because that's what they thought was wanted. Others, more savvy, realized the flim flam involved, and wisely gave it but lip service.

Re: Above article

Prof
Small College
Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:32 PM
Partisan big leagues, oh you mean agree that management is always right and that everything contractual needs to be canceled for national security reasons, which we all know is bs. Times are changing you will be without your absolute power, and will be held accountable, know that mental midget is out of the white house

Re: Above article

Prof
Small College
Sun Feb 1, 2009 12:57 PM
If you are going to use my name please write in a manner that can be understood. I appreciate the flattery, but I give "Ds" on writing much better than this.

Re: Above article

Diversity Manager
DOL
Mon Feb 2, 2009 4:51 PM
You mean you give D's to your preschool students, chances of you teaching at a college, even a community college are slim to none. Good luck with the diaper changing

Trust must be built and earned

Engineer
Army
Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:24 PM

Post Reply

I can agree that Unions may seek retrobution for the last 8 years. As a Union Rep I would highly discourage Unions to resist the temptation to look back. Even if Management is forced to "partner" one of the parties has to break the circle of mistrust. Conducting business in such a way that will build trust. Unions and Management have a lot of internal problems that can impede relations between each other. The one common interest that both parties have is providing a service for the citizens of this country. How we both get there is a product of our ability to lead.

Re: Trust must be built and earned

employee
FED GOVT
Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:43 PM
If the unions only want retribution, then there is no diff between them and people sitting on the other side of the table. If your mind is full of retribution, how can you stay you focused on helping the worker? For example, when the last transit subsidy increase was passed awhile back, a few gov’t agencies were free to keep paying their employees the former rate, because that is what it said in the contract. Another words, it was not stated/negotiated that if the subsidy increases the employees would receive the new rate. The employees had to wait ‘til the new contract was implemented, several months later to receive the new subsidy rates. Very embarrassing, esp. when union reps got side tracked with debates about the definition of pajamas.

Re: Trust must be built and earned

LR/ER Specialist
Veterans Affairs
Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:30 AM
This is an excellent point, and one that is all too often lost on advocates on both sides. We have two unions at my facility; one has a great relationship with us, and the other is constantly fighting us. The first union is headed by very pragmatic leadership who know which battles to fight. The second is headed by two people who have stated openly that their sole purpose between now and the time they retire is to make life as miserable as possible for management. Needless to say, we're quite willing to find common ground and compromise with the first union, while with the second one we don't give an inch and we require them to grieve or ULP any complaints they have.

Of course, the one union is now sick of the other, as well, especially since the second union tends to waste most of our twice-monthly labor-management meetings with bluster and paranoia. We're more than willing to work collaboratively with labor, if they're willing to do the same.
Total Comments: 37
Page 2 of 3

« 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.