Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 15
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

Bargaining over Policies, Instructions, Directives: Ten Ideas to Consider

Negotiations

worker
Fed
Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:36 AM

Post Reply

"Since Federal employees and their unions appear to hate change". Why does the author say this? It depends on the change.

The thrust of this article is to limit, to an extreme, what can be negotiated and how it can be negotiated. Why would the unions allow that? The unions will open up the issue as wide as possible. Thus we will have a stalemate. Management will implement the change and the union will appeal it. The change will be stalled and
nothing will be accomplished. Then the author will blame the unions for stalling the changes that are needed.
It would be better for both sides to negotiate a fair resolution to the problem. It would be better to leave out rights already granted by Congress such as transit subsidies and stick to the issue to be resolved.
Mr. Gilson's approach is confrontation and then blame the union because he did not get his way. Hopefully management will ignore him.

Re: Negotiations

Fed
Gov
Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:16 AM
For clarification, the transit subsidy is not a right. It's something that agencies are allowed to do, but no law requires it. At many agencies, it is a contractual benefit that was negotiated. I've seen agencies that have negotiated each increase.

It was "required" by an executive order under Clinton, I believe. I do not know if that is still in effect. There is not much recourse if an agency does not follow an executive order.

Thrust of Mr Gilson's Article

Management/Program Analyst
DOT
Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:18 AM

Post Reply

The thrust of the article negates the relationships between policy, the details of how the plicy is expressed and how it will be implemented, and bargaining. The spirit of the artiicle is not to bargain in good faith, but rather to avoid discussions of substance. This is unethical and contrary to the intent of labor-management negotiations. All it can lead to is trouble. You need a new writer. someone who can address bargaining in a mroe positive manner that will help lead to progress, good working relationships and productivity, not bitterness.

Re: Thrust of Mr Gilson's Article

NTEU Chapter President
IRS
Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:18 PM
Whew! I just finished the second 10 hour day in a row sitting across the table from IRS management and an LR specialist with no clue on the issues. As bad as it was - thankfully they had not read Gilson's article.
Federal employees value change - when it is constructive, purposeful and comes with training to learn new procedures. Gratuitous policy changes bargained post-implementationally does nothing but raise suspicions that management is up to no good. Have you ever thought of just talking with the bargaining unit and running pilots with real live field employees? Yeah - novel idea.
If the "P" word ever comes to pass, I fear poor Bob will stroke out or explode. Maybe "his" union can bargain some long-term care package for him.

Not Exactly

HR Consultant
Legion
Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:26 PM

Post Reply

Putting aside that the second clause of the lead sentence is a non sequitur, there's nothing like a gratutitous slap in the face to get an article moving. While, as usual, the author presents some good points, they tend to get obscured, as usual, in the anti-union rhetoric. My experience in negotiating policy changes is that the originating office spends two years or more developing a change that should have taken two weeks and then gets upset because the union is holding up implementation by exercising its right to negotiate. The LR staff is caught in the cross-fire.

If the intent of the second paragraph is to say that management need not conform an agency-wide policy to what is agreed to with the union, then I agree. As written, it suggests the dubious proposition that management need not negotiate changes in negotiable policies that are not otherwise covered-by an existing agreement.

Negotiations

Inspector
TSA
Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:00 PM

Post Reply

"Negotiations" should ALWAYS have the goal of "zero-sum". If a benefit is "pulled", one must be "pushed". (I am intentionally avoiding L and R due to the ubiquitous political overtone.)
Problems arise when one side wants to take more than is justifiably compensated.
When management says "change" they always mean "take from employee".
They take TIME by demanding longer hours.
They take SALARY by demanding more be done at same wage.
They take ENVIRONMENT by demanding lower "production cost" or "efficiency", usually sacrificing safety or work condition for short-term profit.
They take PRODUCTIVITY by reducing staff and demanding equal overall output.
In forty years of work, public and private sectors, I have found these to be universal facts. It takes a strong-willed employee OR a bargaining group to regain the "zero sum" goal of negotiation.
This does NOT mean profit lost or goals failed. A positive spirit on BOTH sides is necessary.

Re: Negotiations

Emp
Navy
Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:38 PM
Your comment is the epitome of why this country's biggest companies eventually go down the tubes. You say you have 40 yrs experience; you sound like the voice of the "everything is about me" workforce. Get over it; you don't run the company, thank goodness.

Everyone's Missing the Point

HR Type
DoD
Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:16 AM

Post Reply

1. The substance of most OIs and agency regulations isn't really substantively negotiable. Only HOW the agency goes about implementing it.
2. Higher headquarters at all agencies likes to implement things across the board without listening to the field, mgmt OR the union.

With these 2 things in mind, some of Gilson's tips cut down on a lot of wasted time in negotiations for BOTH sides.

Re: Everyone's Missing the Point

HR Consultant
Legion
Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:17 AM
Regarding your first point: most agency personnel policies are nothing but procedures, e.g., merit promotion, so to say that they are not substantively negotiable misses the point. They are still FULLY negotiable as procedures implementing the exercise of a management right.

As to your second point: unless the agency level can establish a "compelling need" , which hasn't been accomplished in recent memory, the policy must be negotiated at lower levels or risk a ULP.

Great Article--well done and clear to me

LR Manager 33 years
Retired
Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:06 AM

Post Reply

Nice job Bob

Re: Negotiations

Inspector
TSA
Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:45 AM

Post Reply

Response to Emp Navy:

Do you take a pay check?
Do you go home (or "off duty") at night?
Is your equipment adequate for your job?

Then someone, in your name (or group) has negotiated.

Total Comments: 15
Page 1 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.