Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2102 | +0.0011 | +0.69% |
| F | $13.6263 | -0.0136 | +2.19% |
| C | $13.8822 | -0.0041 | +5.03% |
| S | $18.1185 | -0.0839 | +10.07% |
| I | $18.5861 | -0.1653 | +0.26% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.2757 | -0.0497 | +4.10% |
| L 2030 | $16.0266 | -0.0418 | +3.66% |
| L 2020 | $15.7897 | -0.0336 | +3.06% |
| L 2010 | $15.4792 | -0.0113 | +1.70% |
| L Income | $14.1011 | -0.0086 | +1.59% |
Renewed Call for Partnership: Will It Result in an Old Horse Beating or a New Opportunity?
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Partnership Deja Vu
CBP
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:24 AM
Post Reply
I was involved in partnership at the Customs Service during the Clinton years, and I can prove that at least one labor/management collaboration on a fairly large scale resulted in drug, cash and controlled delivery increases on the order of 40%. I believe that the success of the partnership was what led it to failure - that is, the managers were threatened by the realization that the rank and file employees, when self motivated, were so much better at doing their jobs than the brilliant managers directing them with the same old inbred methods that had passed on to their drinking buddies through promotions. From a union prospective, partnership, if allowed to happen, gave the employees a little bit of ownership in the process. It truly motivated them the strive to succeed, and succeed they did. But management could not live with this, and so they did everything they could to ensure that partnership appeared to be a failure. It could work now, but management would have to buy in.
Why wait for an EO?
Retired Army
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:31 AM
Post Reply
How can anyone disagree with Bob's suggestion that stakeholders have a say in what ultimately is decreed (or not decreed) from the administration on subject of partnerships. If I were asked for my views, they would be simple: An EO laying out how labor and management should work together is neither needed nor desirable. Several years of experience under the earlier EO provides evidence of what is likely to happen (not everywhere of course but in more instances than I can count): there will be lots of time and resources exhausted over the meaning of words in the EO. Both sides will play the game. And some productive partnerships will emerge, as they did before. My point is, workable partnerships can be created without direction from the White House. The synergism to do so best comes from to local players at the b.u. level.
Re: Why wait for an EO?
Fed
Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:23 AM
Another reason: Management represents the politicians who represent the contract. Therefore, outside stakeholders are represented.
Actually, the partnerships are supposed to help resolve issues without using the grievance procedure. Without Bush's cronies in FSIP and FLRA the union has a better chance winning its cases in a bad atmosphere. partnerships can resolve issues without the negativity.
The president is needed to foster more cooperation by both parties to get better results.
Executive Orders are Worthless without Teeth
SSA and AFGE
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:32 AM
Post Reply
The problem with Clinton's was the E.O.'s ending:
"Section 3: No Administrative or Judicial Review
This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right to administrative or judicial review, or any other right, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person."
You will notice that Obama's EO on Domestic Partners is just as (purposely) toothless.
Thanks, but no thanks Mr. President, this is like the lip service given in the early '60s on civil rights by the White House.
Re: Executive Orders are Worthless without Teeth
DHS
Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:10 AM
It May Make Good Sense, But Is It Common Sense
OFCCP
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:40 AM
Post Reply
Mr. Gilson:
I normally do not usually agree with you on some matters, but in this particular issue - we agree for the most part. Labor and Management (both) must first learn to use a very basic set of principles: 1) - communicate effectively and with purpose; 2) - defuse any existing hostile/toxic "feelings" generally displayed or felt by both sides; 3) - earnestly and with common sense understandings - develop a willingness to work collectively together for the benefit of all involved (employees, managers); and lastly 4) - be willing to relent and not hold onto the stick until it thunders.
Sincerely,
Ray M. Ables
NCFLL, V.P. OFCCP-SERO
NCFLL, REGIONAL LIAISON
Re: It May Make Good Sense, But Is It Common Sense
Somewhere
Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:29 PM
I just happen to be able to figure this out but if you are not from the Department of Labor, good luck.
Re: It May Make Good Sense, But Is It Common Sense
Fed
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:01 AM
Partnership
Retired
Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:02 AM
Post Reply
In my 30 plus years of LR my position was that I would rather work with unions than against them. Finding those reps that are confident enough not to be driven by political considerations, however, is difficult. It is true that the parties do not really have shared goals. They shouldn't as they have very different purposes. On the other hand, there is no reason why the parties cannot strive to reach a balance that is reasonable. Simply resurrecting the failed Clinton model will not do it. Both parties have to realize that management is the one responsible and in charge but the unions speak for the members (usually) and a management can only be successful when the employees are doing their best because they want to.
Re: Partnership
AFGE
Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:01 AM
Re: Partnership
Fed
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:06 AM
It is true that unions want to protect their workers. It is also true that most employees and managers support the agency mission. The objective of the partnmerships should be to reduce or eliminate the conflicts between the parties which should increase the chances of achieving the agency mission.
partnership
SSA
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:40 PM
Post Reply
We need to try some different venue. With the hiring of thousands of new, young, bright, technical people, they will not want to stick around unless there is an incentive and they are treated fairly. You cannot mend what GWB abolished. There must be more creative ways to handle the increasing workloads and the complexities of the work. When all the easy work is automated what remains? Who wants to process crappy work day in and day out. Something needs to be done to save the Agency and to ensure the employees are treated fairly. SSA cannot automate everything.
Executive Order
Railroad Retirement Board
Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:08 AM
Post Reply
A new executive order is in order changing the bargaining rights of the Unions. Making partnership optional is acceptable to me. Some agencies want partnership, others may not want to cooperate and could just bargain on issues. It is not a total solution, but it made management much more cooperative during Clinton's administration at my agency and since it ended we have had Unfairs, Arbitrations, Union Grievances that we did not need to file to resolve issues under Partnership.