Re: Federal Unions

It's funny you should say that, as I have a proposal too. Eliminate all government execs. The frontline and mid-level managers are the ones that do all the work in management in the first place. Too many chiefs, too few Indians. I guess NTEU must have really beaten you up pretty badly for your animosity towards unions. Management has LR and its attorneys on its side, the employees have nothing if not for the union. I guess you must be related to GWB

Re: Federal Unions

Federal unions are largely powerless and generally cause far more problems than they solve. However, under the current administration we can be quite certain that union power will thrive as Obama's handlers make sure the unions are repaid for their support. What makes sense and the well being of America will have very little impact on the decisions.

Re: Federal Unions

Federal unions are a joke. Their accomplishments are minimal considering their cost. Much of that expense (direct and indirect) is paid by taxes - NOT dues. Claims that management would abuse employees without union protection are silly and inaccurate, as are boasts that employee benefits result from union activity. Unions achieve almost nothing nationally, and local chapters mainly represent poor performers and deadbeats. Many BU employees elect not to pay dues because they see that the unions are filled with malcontents and management haters. I orginally joined NTEU, but I soon saw it for what it was.

Re: Federal Unions

To retired-retired
This is your comment
Federal unions are largely powerless and generally cause far more problems than they solve.
If unions are powerless, then they cannot cause problems. Please make sense.

Re: Federal Unions

IRS Agent - I am not related to anyone of note, nor was I beaten up by NTEU. I had good relations with many local chapters, but the fact remains that federal unions achieve almost nothing. This is not animosity; it is simple truth. Many execs would gladly become GS-15's iin return for union abolishment. I can attest that there are few benefits to being in the SES. One need not hate unions to see that federal unions are needless. My main concern is the lack of return for taxpayer money wasted to subsidize federal union activity. I believe in accountability - at all levels. Federal unions should have to justify their costs and programs, as should federal managers. Those who fail to show results should be replaced or eliminated.

Re: Federal Unions

worker - If you believe only the powerful can create problems you have a poor understanding of history. Federal unions have little meaningful impact. They are insignificant. This does not prevent them from wasting much time and money. Unfortunately, most of that money is taxpayer provided. If you want to demonstrate wit, provide us with a cost/benefit analysis justifying why taxpayers should continue funding union activity that achieves so little.

Re: Federal Unions

Retired Treasury Exec - Your two sentence comment was accurate and complete. Federal unions are unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money.

Re: Federal Unions

To IRS Agent: You say "Management has LR..." This is the entire problem right there. This is why unions are necessary. LR is supposed to defend the federal regulations, even handedly, but unfortunately they have morphed into management defenders. This is not how it is supposed to be!! Until we end that indefenseable acceptable pattern of behavior, which amazingly is never challenge, employees will need union representation.

Re: Federal Unions

To retired exec,
You are already retired. You are not coming down to a 15. Your comment about trading SES for a grade 15 is a joke.
The unions are accountable to the members. They justify their cash costs to the members who pay union dues. If they are not wanted, they can be voted out.
To special agent retired,
Your logic makes no sense. If a union has no power, it can be ignored. If it cannot be ignored, it has power.
As far as your attempts to dump the burden of proof on me, you can do the cost benefit analysis analysis yourself. Please note that special agents cannot be represented by a union.

Re: Federal Unions

worker - Your comments and logic are flawed and simplistic.. The difference in salary between GS-15 and SES is minimal compared to the additional responsibility. Many GS-15's decline to enter the SES for that reason. The issue is not the waste of dues (if members are that stupid - so be it), it is the waste of tax money which heavily subsidizes union activity at all levels. Regarding power, your comments are too naive and dumb to discuss. Finally, one need not be a current BU employee to understand federal unions. Give at least some thought to your comments before you embarrass yourself.

Re: Federal Unions

Are federal unions worth their cost? Taking emotion away, the answer is no. Claims that without unions employees would be abused ignore that similar rules and procedures exist in agencies without unions. Even if every employee benefit were directly attributable solely to union activism (a gross exaggeration), the cost still would be excessive. Politicians are too beholden to unions and corrupt to confront the issue. Nothing will change.

Re: Federal Unions

Inspector - Amen. Ending federal union subsidy would save taxpayer money without impacting employees or public service - except for the poor performers who benefit from union overzealousness. By the way, "worker" will not do a cost benefit analysis because anyone with common sense knows the outcome.

Re: Federal Unions

To retired ATF,
More nonsense from you. You can do the cost benefit analysis. I will then pick yours apart.

Re: Federal Unions

worker - You are an example of one thing wrong with federal unions. You waste your worday writing drivel. If you got caught, you would expect the union to defend you - and they would. The more significant issue is that dealing with you would cost the taxpayers on both sides.

Re: State of Labor Relations

I did not know all of these entities were in union pockets. That must have happened fast as this was definitely not true during King George's era.
You can substantiate your comments, can't you?

Re: State of Labor Relations

WORKER, you apparently have not noticed that about 99% or more of the unfair labor practice charges are filed by UNIONS against management. The FLRA is supposed to be a neutral in investigating the matter (yeah, right!), bc whatever the agency turns over can be used against them. Then, once FLRA finds that there may be a basis, they turn it over to the attorney down the hall that prosecutes the charge, AT NO COST, for the UNION.

Former FLRA big-wigs are all working for the ADMINISTRATION on transition issues which coincidentally now is being memorialized in the union scripted draft Executive Order.

Now lets see who the Administration appoints to Federal Service Impasses Panel to replace all the Bush appointees that were fired.

Also, MSPB appointees are union-credentialed as well.

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/2074/obama-nominates-two-serve-merit-systems-protection.html

You need to READ the articles on FedSmith before submitting comments. To inform, be informed!!!

Re: State of Labor Relations

To career LR,
I believe you advise management about union management issues. You are showing your prejudice.
The FLRA is supposed to make its decisions based on the facts and law. Why do you say it is not?
The agency is required to turn over all files on an issue to get the case resolved. This includes documents supporting the agency and documents against the agency. Of course the latter will be used against the agency. So what else is new?
Why can't former FLRA people work on the transition you described? Are they all FLRA people?
The Bush people made some lousy decisions. Guess you do not like them being replaced by less prejudiced people.
So what if various MSPB people worked for unions? That was a paying job. Their job, as lawyers, was to represent their client.
Why do you say I did not read the article? Maybe you should stop making false assumptions and learn how to write properly.