Re: Partnership

So I guess you think it is ok for your manager to cancel your leave that you planned and paid for on 4:30 Friday afternoon before you were to leave Saturday.
Maybe mow the bosses lawn, or forced to use his/her spouse for real estate needs. These things have happened.

An employer gets the work force it creates. A union would not be needed in an agency where the managers do abuse their power.

Re: Partnership

In 27 years of working in law enforcement and intelligence I have never had union "protection". I have ever needed it. Nor have my coworkers. Those who believe they do are either mistaken or delusional. Weak performers probably disagree, but those people I have seen fired or disciplined deserved it. Weak or abusive managers are usually identified and removed quickly. My observatioin has been that those so lacking in self reliance and confidence that they "need" unions are often not pulling their weight in the organization. They are the ones who should either improve or be fired. I agree that unions are unnecessary and excessively costly.

Re: Partnership

Ernest T. - As Andy Griffith would say, hogwash. Unions are not necessary to pevent or resolve employer abuse. Your later two examples are criminal violations. I spent over 20 years supervising subordinate managers. I did not put up with managerial abuse or misconduct, and employees did not need union support to rectify it. More common sense and fortitude might improve your outlook and perception.

Re: Partnership

To retired manager and exec,
Perhaps you are good managers or perhaps unions are a pain to you. I do not know because I never worked for you to the best of my knowledge. I have had managers who are incompetent and or vindictive. For example, the manager violated the manual on some issue. His manager said we do not always go by the manual. Additionally, this work should not been assigned to me according to the manual. His manager did not try to stop this. The work was being done by someone else. So it would have been done.
This same manager also tried to have me work off the clock which is illegal. His manager did not stop this. This is not the only bad manager. There are plenty of others. That is why unions are needed.
To the CI person-You are not permitted to have a union. I do not know if this is law or what. So whether you need them or not, it is not relevant. You are stuck.

Re: Partnership

Federal unions are unnecessary, excessively costly, and ineffective. If federal workers who "need" unions fully funded them I would care only slightly, but since tax money supports federal union activity, I am disgusted. They should be eliminted - NOW. They hinder far more than they help.

Re: Partnership

To special agent various
I have demonstrated why unions are necessary. You chose to ignore the issue.
One never knows when he (she) will need the union. That is why your comment about funding the union makes no sense.
Unions provide benefits for the entire constituency. They negotiated flex place, flex time, transit subsidies, award program, etc.

Re: Partnership

Worker: The only thing you have "demonstrated" is that you are narrow-minded and poorly informed. Federal unions are heavily subsidized, and the benefits you credit to union bargaining are introduced in non-union organizations sooner, faster, and at less cost. Your compulsion to justify and validate the money you have wasted on dues is natural, but your aguments are specious and short-sighted.

Re: Stop using abusive natured titles!

I recommend to you and all others who worry about the political correctness of trite old sayings (Oops! Did I say "old". How insensitive of me!), the following from this month's Smithsonian magazine:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/The-Last-Page-There-Oughta-Be-a-Law.html

P.S. Would it have made a difference if the horse in the title was dead instead of merely old?

Re: Stop using abusive natured titles!

I for one believe that beating an old horse is wrong. A good horse can live 20+ years, and 2 or 3 animals can ensure your fields are plowed for years to come.

I think if you beat a horse early in its life (2 or 3 years old at best), that discipline should carry it thru for the rest of its life. So please, let's make sure we beat only young horses.

Unions should be treated the same way. Beat young union members, and leave the older ones alone.

Re: Partnership hooray!!!!!

A Partnership EO wasn't and isn't necessary to negotiate conditions of employment under the Statute. Your union failed you on that one if they failed to negotiate their rights under 5USC71, not management.

Re: Partnership hooray!!!!!

To "VA Patient Business Assistant": you can't get back what didn't go away. All Dubbya did was eliminate the NPC, revoke all EO's that expanded Billy's original EO, revoke the Internet Wizard's feckless "Reaffirmation Memo", and order OPM and agency executives to purge written products concerning the above. At the end of the day, EO 13203 preserved partnerships where CBA's contained them, and returned the Feds to the status quo, meaning that agencies were free, at their election, to negotiate your precious (b)(1) matters. Look around, that's VA! Your weren't on the NPC, so why do you care? Instead, you liberals want to flush the law down the drain and hide behind "cure all" EO's. When are you left-wingers going to leave your "hate" behind and just let the current law be the law? At least Dubbya believed that the law was good enough and didn't need interventionist EO's to make govenment more efficient. With the exception of NSPS, Dubbya had it right all along! Get over it!