Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 27
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

Bargaining Permissive Subjects: Will Your Agency Sign Up?

B (1) Bargaining

Union Representative
U.S. Forest Service
Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:22 AM

Post Reply

Jack...why don't you open up B(1) there in North Korea where you are at? Good a place as any. 80% membership before expanded bargaining kicks in...nother good one Jack. I'm sure you know...how many if any barganing units have that type of membership. Like most Americans...federal employees lap up the benefits proved for them by the Union but when it comes to paying...they like you ...would rather pay their county club dues. Why join...it's all free...right! Enjoy your weekend Jack...remember who it was that got you two whole days off each week.

Re: B (1) Bargaining

Retired
none
Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:09 AM
I have a better idea. No one should pay dues. Federal usions are useless and an unnecessary drain on taxpayers.

Re: B (1) Bargaining

Civ
USN
Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:23 AM
The public/private pay gap just went over 26%. Since my union takes total credit for "improving" my pay and benefits, should I thank them now or later? How about I withhold my dues until there is parity? My union is pathetic. All they do is gripe and blame management. What are THEY doing? Every year I tell myself to quit wasting my money. This may be the time.

Re: B (1) Bargaining

worker
us govt
Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:45 PM
I can't imagine how bad working conditions would be after the last head of my agency got done with us. No raises for older workers, no protection of leave (you could have leave cancelled at whim of management, no reason needed to be given), being told that you are nothing to the agency and are easily replaced even after 30 years of service. Just a few of the things they had in store for us.
Now I know a lot of you think that is how it should be, after all management is better than labor. All labor is not to be trusted. Gilson seems to think that way.
However, my union stopped quite a bit of that from happening. For one thing I still get my raise this year.
So the blanket statement that unions are useless just isn't so.
Give your agency a honest days work for your pay, but show me some respect, management, I have earned it.
The current head of the agency is trying to make thing better for all, I wish him luck!!

Re: B (1) Bargaining

Civ
Navy
Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:54 PM
Worker, you will get your annual pay adjustments. No one can take that from you or stop you from getting them. You are misinformed if you think your supervisor has a say in that. And the union cannot take any credit for it--no matter what they say.

Re: B (1) Bargaining

Union Secretary
Army Corp of Engineers
Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:15 PM
Our union has a membership rate over 80%. Our officers and stewards all work full time and the majority of our union business is done on our own time. We are easily contacted by all of our members, give back to our membership with emergency benefits and retirement dues refunds, plus we have a decent relationship with management. Not always perfect, but we have continued partnership in my District since the Clinton EO. We have IBB'd such items as crane certifications, training programs and drug testing. It can work well and not everyone needs to be lumped in to the category of idiot managers or useless unions.

The only thing that bothers me on this website is it seems to be a sounding board for biased contibutors trying to sell their services to agencies. Both releases of the EO have been just drafts yet FedSmith is allowing the authors headlines like it is law. Who knows what the final version will look like.

Re: B (1) Bargaining

FAA retired
FAA
Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:38 AM
Civ
Navy
"Worker, you will get your annual pay adjustments. No one can take that from you or stop you from getting them...."

You are absolutely wrong, Civ. If you don't believe me, check out what the FAA has done over the last 3 years to the Air Traffic Controllers. They have been denied their "annual pay adjustments" while others in the FAA got them. Please recall that the Controllers had a "contract" imposed on them by the FAA in 2006, and just recently ratified a new contract.

At the same time, FAA Technicians were protected by their contract, and continued receiving the "annual pay adjustment". And managers, with no contract, also received the "annual pay adjustment".

Just take a whim to impose.

Re: B (1) Bargaining

Civ
Navy
Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:35 AM
If Worker had identified himself as FAA, I would have stated that as an exception. Otherwise, my statement stands.

Jobs

Civ
Navy
Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:11 AM

Post Reply

Maybe this is part of the President's job creation package. Create more (unnecessary) work so the govt will have to hire more personnel. Yeah, Yeah, that's the ticket!

Some work some will not

LER Manager
VA
Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:20 AM

Post Reply

Partnerships/collaborations will only work when BOTH parties are willing to work together. In some agencies it will not work because of the relationship between labor and management. Labor wants to co-manage; management isn't willing to listen to the ideas of labor.

I was involved in the Clinton era, I help set up the first National Guard partnership as the labor representative. My eyes were opened big time and the union membership held me accountable for things that affected then, real or not!

Note for Labor: Be careful what you wish for you might get it, then find out you really don't want it because now you will be held accountable.

Source of EO

Union President
DOD
Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:38 PM

Post Reply

Would you please provide the source of this latest version of the Executive Order? I may be missing something, but nowhere could I find the source of the EO in any of your articles.
Did you write this version of the EO yourselves?........perhaps to stir up some conversation or get the administration to water it down some?

Re: Source of EO

FedSmith Author
FedSmith
Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:13 PM
If you left-click your mouse on the highlighted(blue) type (it's called a hyperlink), it will take you to the location of the document. Write it myself? I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. As to stirring up conversation, that's what FedSmith is all about in case you weren't looking.

Re: Source of EO

Union President
SATCO
Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:21 PM
You didn't answer the question. Where did you get this latest version of the EO? Yes, I did click the hyperlink and (by the way I know what a hyperlink is), and it directs me to another Fedsmith page with the EO. Once again, it does not identify the source. Fedsmith at least identified the Washington Post as the source of the previous version of the EO. Please identify the source of this new EO. Any publication with ethics, principle or integrity would properly credit the author.

Again, I've searched for it but couldn't find the source.

Re: Source of EO

ATC
FAA
Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:46 PM
Union President, you will notice Gilson is short on facts and very long on anti union diatribe. He believes management can do no wrong and that unions are a waste. He will never change his stripes and will never let facts get in they way of his right wing agenda.

Re: Source of EO

Programmer
TSO
Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:02 PM
Comments by ATC are so typical these days, any criticism of unions is labeled as an anti union rant no matter what the criticism is based upon. It gets really old, give it a rest.

Re: Source of EO

Fed
Worker
Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:40 AM
programmer TSO,
Your statement about any critisism of unions is incorrect.
Make the critisisms valid and sensible and not ranting. Present all of the facts and not just the facts that support your position. That makes sense. Gilson does not do that. he ignores facts not supporting his ppostition. Writers just say to eliminate unions because they are not cost effective when that not the purpose of unions. Writers say they just handle cases from poor workers which iss grossly wrong. However, unions should handle cases involving allegedly poor workers as unions represent all bargaining unit workers.
Unions have their place in the work force. Unions are not perfect. No one is. But some of the critisisms are so bad as to be stupid. That is clearly ranting.

Let FAA do it.

Union Rep
FAA
Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:12 PM

Post Reply

Bob says “I might ask him a simple question to test his Agency's readiness for the pilot: what's the difference between technology, methods and means? If he or anyone else at OPM has a clue, then send him to the (B)(1) table forthwith.”


OK Bob, I’ll bite. Send the FAA first- because we’re the Agency that has Union members who know. Plus, we’re the ones who are adversely affected in PAY when the decisions made by Management go wrong.

What's the difference between technology, methods and means you ask?

Technology: a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge

Method: A way, technique or process for, or of, doing something.

Means: The methods and resources for accomplishing a task.

While your Management official might not be able to figure that out, we Union negotiators will be happy to teach them, and then sit down and work with them to find solutions.

(b)(1) Conituned

Union Rep
FAA
Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:15 PM

Post Reply

Let’s take, for example, an FAA Inspector.

(b)(1) Bargaining about the technology, method and means for performing the job as an FAA Inspector would look something like this:

Let’s start with hypothetical (b)(1) bargaining over TECHNOLOGY.

1. TECHNOLOGY: Our inspectors want to use laptops and a program called “Word” to write down and process findings on an airline inspection. The Agency, instead, wants us to use a #2 pencil and a piece of paper. Under (b)(1), we would gain the right to bargain over whether or not we’ll use laptops of pencils. Today, we get no such bargaining.

Could it cost the Agency more if we use laptops? Yes. We understand that, and so would the Impasse Panel. But the impasse panel also will get to take into account whether or not our proposal to use Laptops rather than #2 pencils would be a better, more effective way of conducting the mission of the work force.

(b)(1) page 3

Union Rep
FAA
Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:16 PM

Post Reply

Remember, the impasse panel is charged with meeting these goals:

(A) safeguards the public interest,
(B) contributes to the effective conduct of public business.

Will they safeguard the public interest if they rule in favor of the Union’s proposal to use laptops? Maybe. Without the ability to bargain over it, however, we’ll never know. The competing interests of reasonable use of taxpayer dollars by investing in laptops vs. cutting spending and only using pencils could be part of the discussion presented by both sides to the impasse panel. The Union can make the case that taxpayers are better served by using the TECHNOLOGY of laptops, while the Agency can use their $500 an hour executive labor consultant to argue that pencils are a better value.

We’ll be happy to let the Impasse Panel decide which proposal better meets (A) and (B).

Without permissive bargaining being allowed, however, we’ll never know.

Total Comments: 27
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.