Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 9
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Pity the Panel; Move on to Med-Arb
Total Comments: 9
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2114 | +0.0012 | +0.70% |
| F | $13.6201 | -0.0062 | +2.14% |
| C | $13.8116 | -0.0706 | +4.49% |
| S | $17.9282 | -0.1903 | +8.91% |
| I | $18.5079 | -0.0782 | -0.16% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1968 | -0.0789 | +3.59% |
| L 2030 | $15.9593 | -0.0673 | +3.23% |
| L 2020 | $15.7365 | -0.0532 | +2.72% |
| L 2010 | $15.4595 | -0.0197 | +1.57% |
| L Income | $14.0856 | -0.0155 | +1.48% |
March 20, 2010
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Well done!
Contractor
Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:52 AM
Post Reply
Bravo Mr. Ferris for your well articulated business case for change.
Mandate
Nervous Hospital
Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:33 AM
Post Reply
If Obama can make Chrysler act in 30 days and GM to act in 60, he certainly can make management and labor complete bargaining by a specific timeframe. All too often the parties don't really get down to negotiating until a 3rd party arrives. This is sad. I think there should be a fee to use the services of 3rd parties. After I have some coffee, if it hasn't made me to nervous because it makes me nervous when I drink it, I will propose how to better use 3rd parties, be they mediators, med-arb, arbitrators, or the Panel.
FSIP Article
SSA
Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:17 AM
Post Reply
Good Article! It misses only one point: FSIP supports status quo and generally rules in favor of the Agency. Why would Agencies want to change it? At least in SSA, SSA does NOT want to reach any agreement other than its initial proposal. So, if the Union wants to get its name on anything, it must accept or walk away empty handed. The current workings of the Panel suit agencies just fine. If they want something different, they agree to med-arb up front. They do not.
What about an IRS view?
Been There/Done That
Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:43 AM
Post Reply
I seem to recall that IRS originally prposed to abandon med-arb this time around and use the Panel. If there is anyone at IRS not too intimidated by Mr. Ferris, it would be interesting to hear the IRS view on this issue.
Med-Arb can work
DoD
Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:23 PM
Post Reply
Good article. Problem with small unions is who will pay for arbitration when FSIP process is free? Suggest that FMCS receive the budget that goes to FSIP for funding additional staff to conduct med-arb on every aspect relative to L-M Relationships. Using local FMCS arbitrators for resolving disputes at no cost is a great idea. Most people will have a problem with "no cost", but impartiality must be maintained. Arbitrators are know for making arbitrary decisions.
med-arb vs Panel
USDA, retired
Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:28 PM
Post Reply
With mediation, both sides control the outcome. How wonderful... as long as both sides want to be responsible for the outcome and both sides are willing to share credit for the outcome. If one side wants to hinder progross and stymie productivity, yes, go with the Panel. Mediating hostile work environments for 10 years and now, as a partner in Functional Solutions, LLC (www.mediatewithfs.com), I see only harmony when both sides choose mediation. It is a good change from the alternative. If you don't want change, go to a vending machine!
What kind of gorilla is that?
VA
Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:07 PM
Post Reply
Is that 800 pound guerilla like a big fat Che' or Mao, or more like 800 pounds of big ugly ape-type creature too hairy to ignore?