Re: Official Time?

You know very well what official time is. It's the time during normal work hours that you are being paid to do a job that is used to conduct union business instead. Your nasty remarks just scream disingenuousness.
You don't like the fact that some of your dirty little secrets are being aired in public so you make fun of the author rather than try to justify the use of public funds to pay for union activity. I guess that would be a pretty hard case to make though.

Re: Official Time?

Jimmy, is that you? How you been boy? Long time no see.

Re: Official Time?

The OPM estimate is far short of the actual cost. Official time is rarely accurately recorded or reported. The actual time used in supporting union activity would astound and anger all but zealots. More importantly, the value received for this excessive expenditure is minimal. Taxpayer awareness of this waste would further diminish the image of federal workers and confidence in government. Unfortunately, accountability is a low priority.

Re: Official time

Exactly! These mopes have nothing better to do than justify their existence (and increase dues) by continuing to denfend lazy, borderline criminal "employees" who don't want to follow the rules.

I mean, just LOOK at your typical union employee. Are you proud of that? They are what drove this economy, a la Detroit's pig trough of bennies, into the gutter.

It's been my experience that the "serious" issues brought up by the union are normally related to defending those employees not up to the task. They love socialism where no one really has to do any work but everyone gets paid. Overwhelmingly votring for obama and his ilk, they hope for a time when they run the Animal Farm.

It's sad, really.

Re: Official time

I've known union reps who spent their entire pay period in the union office. I think there should be a limit to the amount of time a union employee is allowed to work under official time. One of my co-workers was in an area where he worked with 3 employees. One of the employees was a union rep and spent all his time in the Union office. There were 2 employees physically working while on paper they had 3 employees and couldn't hire an additional employee because they couldn't justify hiring or giving a temporary detail to another employee because 3 employees was enough to get the job done statistically. They had to pick up the slack for this Union Employee who went directly to the Union office to work every day. Meanwhile this employee received award pay for the work that their area did even though he didn't spend much time working in the area. When they had mandatory overtime, the Union Employee didn't have to work any of it. Is that fair?

Re: Official time

For some reason, it does not surprise me that an agency Diversity Manager and a LRS (assumed to be a Labor Relations Specialist) would hold such views. These are the very management attitudes that unions are confronted with in representing employees.

Re: Official time

There is an easy fix let the dues pay for the stewards time, watch how quick the gravy train ends

Re: Official time

Concerning the orginal comment on this trend. The Union says the same back at you with these high paid management jobs. There is no doubt that there is plenty of fat to trim there. The US Congress created official time since federal Unions can not have closed shops. Federal Union people are doing nothing wrong, check chapter 71 of title 5. The US congress determined that there needed to be checks and balances in the work place and oversight for the fair and equitable treatment of federal employees.

Re: Official time

Diversity Manager ...The Gravy Train would not end. The Unions would get Congress to support Closed Shops which would allow Union Dues to flow like water into the Coffers. There would be plenty of money to pay the stewards to go "0ff the Clock", File more grievances, and do more arbitrations. Open shops are Managements best friend. It limits the actual number of dues paying members which limits the amount of capital available to the Union.

Re: Anti-labor sentiment

you are clueless...or just blind!!!

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

Or, even better, the employees that want to use the union's services could actually pay for it instead of sticking the taxpayer with the cost. Having worked in a number of agencies, there is more sloughing off by people on official time than anything else.

And, even more ironic, the taxpayer pays for the union to file numerous complaints, appeals, etc. against the government--while also paying the agency fees.

It is a classic government scheme for the taxpayer--in this case the unions wins big and the taxpayer picks up the entire bill.

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

Actually, the tradeoff occurred on Jimmy Carter's watch. They traded Chapter 71 (right to collectively bargain) for Chapter 43 (performance based actions). Unfortunately for agencies Chapter 43 became almost impossible to administer so we got unions but it was not easier to fire poor performers. This remains the issue, however--employees need protection, there needs to be some interactive process or input when management changes working conditions but agencies need to be able to remove the small percentage of workers who will not or cannot do the job and it must be quick and fair. We're not there with the present situation--unions are just another layer of inefficient bureaucracy in the way. Face it, with the MSPB (not to mention the EEOC) federal workers have more job protections than most private employees--the right to arbitration adds time and inefficiency to the equation. It's time for an overhaul of Chapters 43 and 71--but that would require thinking and work??

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

What if Federal Employees did strike ... and no one missed us? We were furloughed in 1995, and for 2 weeks most of us feds were not on the job ... no one noticed ... so, be careful what you ask for!

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

We could change all that by allowing federal employees or thier representatives to file civil law suits against agency officials for thier ill action.

Allow the right to strike and bargain wages in lieu of official time, and allow a closed shop by a vote of the represented employees to be determined by a simple majority of those who vote in such an election.

Unions would no longer have to fight for official time. Nor would they have to save thier pennies for arbitrations.

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

I would love to have CS strike, when the gov't was shut down during the Clinton regime they weren't even missed. The only blow back from the taxpayers was when they got back pay.
This would be a real test case for the BO administration as to identifying waste, see how many taxpayers complain when an agency is on strike

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

I worked for DOL 40 years and just retired in January. I am still an officer. We were originally told that the monthly reporting of official time was temporary but that was never what the Government intended. Also, it should be noted that most union reps are still given the same work load or more and are still doing the representational work as well. We get no accommodation for doing 2 jobs and if management tells you differently and you believe it, I've got a bridge I can sell you. I had an outstanding performance appraisal during my entire career. I believe that the report is inflated or perhaps management has gone amok and ergo more official time was used?

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

If we weren't missed, how come the politicians who caused the shutdown were kicked out of Congress in the next election?

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

better check you facts the republicans continued to rule and Bill was impeached As I said the blow back from the taxpayers was that the CS got PAID>>>

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

I hear over and over how employees need "protection." You know, the rest of the non-unionized world seems to survive without this so-called "protection." EEO claims, wage and hour claims, OSHA claims, on and on - yes, unions were responsible for a lot of these things, but now that they exist, do we really need the unions? And frankly, most of my interactions with union representatives have revealed them to be misinformed, misguided, and ill-equipped to represent the interests of their members.

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

Hi DOD,

Research working conditions in the Marianas Islands--a conservative, non-union paradise--and then get back to us.

Re: Gilson's sarcasm!

Seriously? You sound like my brother who still thinks he gets breaks and lunches because his boss is "a nice guy". He doesn't "get" that those things, along with the majority of his other benefits and protections came from 100+ years of union struggles.

The rest of the world does NOT survive without protection. They just take advantage of whatever changes get negotiated. Of course, all those claims DoD whines about are still filed no matter if it is a union shop or not. At least with a union, there is a better chance of the WORKER being protected.

Our managers love to say they are offering a "new benefit" when, in reality, the benefit is a result of long hours at the table negotiating said benefit to be the best it can be for everyone. And yes--every time a new benefit is negotiated, it trickles up. Management gets the same terms as the workers, even as they complain about it.