Re: Let Them Sign

If your LR guy allows such grievances to have legs, u need a new LR guy.

Re: Let Them Sign

Apparently, the potato grower doesn't understand that many contracts in the Federal sector have craft jurisdiction clauses that prevent supervisors from doing craft work. Most of these contracts are pre-CSRA and management has been unable to change them for having so many other issues of higher importance than changing this issue.

On Robby's article, I fully agree that authority should be delegated to first line supervisors on reprimands. I even agree that the first line supervisor should have that authority on disciplinary proposed suspensions. Once the action advances to an adverse action, the responsibility should be escalated as it is in most agencies.

On another issue, apparently one responder took offense at the article. When agencies provide supervisory training on discipline to supervisors, it generally includes guidance on attempting to correct the misconduct of employees by counseling the employee on the offense before initiating a disciplinary action.

Re: Let Them Sign

Supervisors get paid to supervise. Not sure where you work, but they don't even have enough time in the day to perform all the administrative work that involves. And yes, it's in the CBA---only under "emergency" situations will a supervisor perform work normally assigned to bargaining unit employees. We're talking blue-collar work--I think that makes a big difference in this conversation.

Re: Should supervisors sign the document?

Reminds me of a First Line Supervisor who quickly spit out a proposal for a 14 day suspension because Senior Management wanted to remove a employee and the First Line Supervisor disagreed. The employee took the 14 days and kept his job because Management was bound by the 14 day proposal. Supervisor took the heat, but he was eligible to retire so nothing really could be done to hurt him. Got give him credit for taking the heat though.

Re: Should supervisors sign the document?

Where I work, I am required to sign these disciplinary actions. I'm also required to create the letter itself. Once written, I am required, as a supervisor, to run it by our LR manager for correctness and consistency before I deliver it to the employee. That makes perfect sense because I know the union is going to fight it tooth and nail once it is delivered.

To IT Specialist: If an employee of mine required a minimum of 14 days on the beach, and upper mgt was trying to terminate him, I'd probably side with upper mgt and go for termination. I can't imagine supervising someone who needed (at a minimum) a fourteen day suspension. This sounds like someone who knows trouble and doesn't mind being the creator of it. Seems to me I'd be doing the workforce a favor by letting this miscreant go so that he could maybe find himself another career choice and another group of people to torment.

Re: Should supervisors sign the document?

LM- My understanding of the situation was the "offense" by itself allowed for removal. but the mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense didn't call for termination. The first line supervisor disagreed with his management based upon a good sound review of the Douglas Factors. Maybe he was protecting upper level management from their own stupidity knowing the removal would not survive an independant review. The devil is in the details and your black and white response doesn't take that into account.

Re: Should supervisors sign the document?

IT, I pretty much live in a black-and-white world. Not too much grey matter exists in my vision. Maybe it was the way I was raised; who knows? Anyway, this perspective has served me pretty well throughout my life. There are the occasional mitigating factors which might explain (and excuse) someone's behavior, but I've found these factors, through experience, to be very few and far between.

It's difficult nowadays for some people to take responsibility for their actions. I'm not necessarily blaming them for this inability; afterall, today's mores and behavioral patterns all but encourage us NOT to accept responsibility. There's seemingly a lawyer or union rep on every corner who thrives in jumping into any situation where someone has crossed the line and is unwilling to accept the consequences.

I don't know the details of this example, but based on experience, I'd bet that termination would be the best for the agency (and maybe even for the employee).

Re: Why the Negative and Not the Positive

While I am not one to quote Barney Frank, I find that I must, "what planet are you on?"

The article had nothing to do with race, but you injected it. The article only advocates that first line supervisors need to be vested with the authority to take actions when necessary.

You automatically assume that there is no underlying basis for the action. The article presupposes that the action is valid. The author did not advocate the use of unwarranted disciplinary actions.

I hope you do not advocate such nonsense in the education of our children.

Re: Why the Negative and Not the Positive

Wow! The "Department Fo Education" sure has some dandy analysts! What cunning analysis of an apparently innocent article to expose yet another vendetta against a Certified Victim Group! What clever use of disarming questions to reach between the lines of Robbie's article. What bold use of cold, hard numbers to make a point. What brilliant juxtaposition of Rodent Rhetoric and Rodent Logic! De Department Fo Education should be proud of its stunning success!

Re: Why the Negative and Not the Positive

Wow! You sure came from left field with your comments. Maybe every agency is different based on who the mgmt are. I feel as a supervisor that I am to do the grunt work and have the responsibility without the authority. It's hard to be a working supervisor. I and others took supervisory training (lots) even from Robbie and we came back and we try to apply it. And those who don't or can't supervise need to go back to technical work. Unfortunately one bad apple can spoil the bunch and that's why the focus is on the negative. If people would only realize that they get paid each and every hour they are at work to do a job!! There are alot of people out there who would love to have our jobs.

Re: Why the Negative and Not the Positive

Analyst, why don't you give Dr. Phil a call and see if you can get on his show. You friggin' need help. Dept. of Education, huh?

Where do we get these people?

Re: Why the Negative and Not the Positive

Each person hold their own truths, so it is with the DfE analyst. All truths are true, and we shouldn't be so intolerant as to discount somebody's beliefs.

Analyst, even though your truths and mine do not match (in fact are probably polar opposites), they are both true in this universe. All truths lead to the same place (as religion teaches), and any statement, no matter how subjective, is valid.

(this message paid for by the "how ignorant are we that, no matter what is said or printed, we only see that portion that lights up our emotional centers of the brain in order to push our personal agenda Foundation")

The HIAWTNMWISORWOSTPTLUOECOTBIOTPOPA.

A great organization.

(special thanks to Richard Daughty)

Re: Why the Negative and Not the Positive

Analyst:

Who did you know to be hired? You have all of the earmarks of an "affirmative action baby". Apparently affirmative action is alive if not well. Are you one of those "educators" that send the third year seniors to me who cannot write a sentence? One third year senior thought that when I pointed out a lack of subject verb agreement I "was talking dirty".