Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 27
Page 2 of 2

« Previous | Next »

A Dispute That Could Only Arise Between Public Employees and a Governmental Agency

A Dispute That Could Only Arise Between Public Emp

Accountant
US Coast Guard
Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:44 PM

Post Reply

To the IRS Agent, if you don't think cronyism still exists, you are fooled. It's still there.

Sooner or later our President will pull us out of the wars and then the rif's will come. Then the Agencies will be looking for every dollar they can find.

Waste, Waste and more Waste...

Re: A Dispute That Could Only Arise Between Public Emp

IRS Agent
IRS
Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:12 AM
Cronyism is not the issue here. Implementation of a new pay system with bargaining rights or lack thereof under federal law is the issue. While it is expected that many negative comments would come from Labor Relations since they have had many battles with unions, it truly amazes me that many malcontents work for DoD or the Armed Services. I wonder if their union representation is below average, hence their malcontent. For those that think the union does nothing for them, I can only offer sympathy. If you need examples look at Nixon's postponement of our pay raise. NTEU took it to the Supreme Court and won back pay. When Clinton was given the line item veto, which every fed employee should have shuddered at, NTEU took it to the Supreme Court and won. It is constutionally Congress's job to create the budget and the President to sign or veto it, not selectively remove parts he doesn't like. I can only hope that the malcontents witness some effective representation in the future

Re: A Dispute That Could Only Arise Between Public Emp

Atty
DOJ
Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:49 AM
IRS Agent - Federal unions have accomplished little in their long tenure, but the cost to members and taxpayers has been staggering. Any honest comparison of expense to success would demonstrate a sad ratio. Union leaders exaggerate "sucesses" to maintain dues payers. Members accept this drivel because not doing so would them to admit they have wasted money on dues. I pity those so weak of mind and performance that they require unions to protect them, but I care only minimally that they waste their money. I care greatly that my tax money is wasted on such trivia. Federal unions rarely engage in meaningful negiotation of major issues. They mostly fight over insignificant matters and "protect" poor performers. Their claimed "successes" rarely benefit most employees and often do more harm that good. I wouldn't care if they were funded solely by dues, but most of the costs is borne by taxpayers. It is a silly and needless waste. No wonder we are judged so poorly by the public.

Think Again

Acting Director
Observer
Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:38 PM

Post Reply

Here is what management could have done, but did not:
1- Struck an interim deal that allowed for retroactive effect for the final deal.
2- Agreed to bring in a private neutral immediately to mediate or settle the dispute with an informal agreement to live by the terms of that recommendation.
3- Settled the case back before arbitration when the cost of settlement would have been much, much lower and without attorney fees entitlement.
4- Agreed to settle the case as part of the final deal on compensation.
5- Settled the case as part of settling the other multi-million dollar decision it lost on this compensation system.
6- Announced its last best offer and forced the union to the FSIP, which surely would have found against the union during the Bush years.

So, who in management should take the blame for failing to do any of those things and costing taxpayers lots of bucks?

only 7 years to implement?

retired
Immigration & Naturalization / DHS now
Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:50 PM

Post Reply

Back in 1995 - 96, pushing for Congressional support for law enforcement (20 year) retirement for border inspectors, the old INS detailed permanent "part time" inspectors to "basic academy training" despite the fact many were 50 and 60 years old with 15-35 years of service. No consideration of age / disability / or other common sense factors was provided. AFGE/NINS grieved, arbitated, successfully confronted the appeal. The award to return to employment with full back pay was final in 2000. It has yet to be implemented. Recertification of the bargaining unit meant inspectors now pay NTEU leaving AFGE no incentive to do anything. The list of 125-250 claiminants is now reduced to between 2 & 4. No hope for salvation on the horrizon. (Under DHS fresh waves of 'basic training' for old farts, mostly Customs legacy eliminated many more hopes for retirement.)

Total Comments: 27
Page 2 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.