Re: Abolish Federal Unions

Amen. Where do you preach? I want to hear more. It is too bad Congress is not so enlightened. I saw through the propaganda of federal unions early in my career. All they do is complain and sing their own praises. They waste time and criticize, but they accomplish nothing. Just read their simplistic newletters. They are successful at recruiting more lemmings, but many members become disillusioned quickly. They are valueless, but costly.

Re: Abolish Federal Unions

Nice job of edit-copy-paste from your previous posts. They say the same thing. Perhaps you changed a few words, but the comments are the same.
You must have gotten frustrated because you were unable to work with unions as they probably impeded on your authority.
Unions are not perfect. They are far from it. But they are better than nothing especially when dealing with unreasonable managers and management officials. Many managers are good with less above that. Unfortunately, some are not. That is why we need unions.
Hope you respect freedom of speech from someone who disagrees with you.

Re: You Have a Point Dennis

It is not co management because the union cannot make the final decision. Management does. Therefore, it is not comanagement.

Re: the right tool

I concur in your remarks re: the probability of hitting the fly; i.e., it will likely be long gone before the hammer head arrives. Were I to try this feat, the most likely outcome would be that I would somehow manage to park an unoffending finger where the fly is supposed to be. Dennis

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

Those unaware of the subsidy of federal unions need to do a little research and independent thinking. Gilson wrote an article for FedSmith on the topic in 2006. Look it up using the search function above. It was enlightening, but it only scratched the surface of the extent of the problem. If all you can think of is salaries, you need to think harder and more broadly. While I have come to believe that federal unions are unnecessary and government agencies would run better without them, I would be satisfied if federal union subsidies were eliminated. That is unlikely.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

The subsidy consists primarily of official time which can add up to quite an expense. In some activies, I have seen one 100% official time "union" employee for every 200 employees that were represented. At an average of say a GS-11 salary and benefits, we are talking about $100,000 taxpayer subsidy for each 100% official time employee. Government-wide full- or part-time official time adds up to tens of millions of dollars.
In addition, unions are generally provided offices, phone and computer service, copiers and office supplies. Travel and per diem is often provided by the taxpayers for many union representatives. During partnership, each locality often budgeted $100,000 a year for meetings, training costs, and facilitators.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

The fact that federal unions are subsidized is clear. The amount of subsidy and its value is not. A little research will disclose it to be far greater than most recognize. Let's address the two greatest bogus claims made by federal unions. They claim credit for improving pay and benefits. This is like the WH recently claiming credit for "saving" over a million jobs. Both claims are impossible to prove or disprove, but it is likely both are exaggerated. Also, unions do not accept responsibility when benefits decline, which they actually have. The other major claim is that they protect workers from abusive and evil managers. This is a scam too. It reminds me of the firms willing to "fight" IRS for you if you owe back taxes. It is true the firms will represent you, it is untrue you need them or that they can negiotate a better deal than you could do alone. Federal unions are unnecessary to ensure fair tratment of workers. This is proven in non-union agencies.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

Again...you are essentially making conclusory statements with providing factual merit.

Official Time is paid for the government because the government is meeting it's statutory burden. (The government will not pay a dime for conducting Union business, it can't, that's actually illegal.) But, just like a government accords the salary of a public defender, so to the government statutorily pays union officials to discharge their statutory responsibilities. We are elected officials, do congressman draw salary for their representational duties?

However let's get back to something, in continuance of your logic that you don't need a union to defend yourself; neither do you need a lawyer to defend yourself in a court of law. I suppose you won't be using one should you ever find yourself in a legal predicament. Oh sure.

And as far as looking at the results at non-union Agency's. That's like arguing that arrests aren't an issue at places where there aren't any cops around.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

HR manager - Your estimate is off by a factor of at least ten. In his 2006 article, Gilson "conservatively" estimated the subsidy at $500 million. His fiqures were extremely generous to the unions. Many agencies do not even tract "clock" time used by union representives at all. IRS is an example. The National Office went ballistic when I asked my local chapters to report the official time they used. I was asked to withdraw my request. IRS may know now, but they did not have a clue how much official time was used by NTEU ten years ago.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

It is difficult to support the continued subsidy of federal unions. That task is compounded significantly if they do not have a role in improving the efficiency of govenment operations. If representation is their sole fuction, we are indeed paying too much.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

By the way, the trade off that Federal Unions have with the Federal Government is that we are obligated to represent non-dues paying BUE's. If you want to do away with Official Time, then we need to change the law allowing employees to decide if they want a Union Shop. If they vote it in, they every BUE must pay their dues. But that isn't the current environment federal unions operate in. The other option is to eliminate the requirement for unions to represent scabs.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

To Union VP/DOJ: You're correct, you don't need a lawyer to defend yourself in a court of law...and I'm here to tell you that you don't need a Union Rep to represent you at work.

Early in my career, nearly 30 yrs ago, I entered a discussion with a manager on what I now know as "Conditions of Work." At the appointed meeting time a person (who I did not know from Adam) sat down at the table. I asked who he was to which the relpy was, "I'm the Local Rep". To my displeasure and objection, he sat there (a Union right) while I discussed the issue with management. The Rep sat there without saying a word because, using your words, I was a SCAB.

My issue with management was resolved, not because of any Union help, but because we, management and I, discussed the matter in a professional, respectful manner in which the resolution was Win-Win (a term Unions do not understand) for both management and me.

Sorry, I agree with some folks here...away with the Unions! It's been too long coming

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

Indeed, representation and bargaining are the sole functions of the union. All other activities of the union are ancillary are subordinate in nature.

"The efficiency of the service" is a delivery of mission metric. Management, not the Union is responsible for delivery of mission throught their right to assign work and determine the mission. If you are judging a Union by what they contribute to the efficiency of the service, then you are implicitly suggesting a partnership responsibility on the part of the union to make sure those things happen.

I would then ask why management should not be evaluated based on what it contributes to the efficiency of the Union?

Managers and Unions have distinctly separate functions, this issue of "Unions are inefficient" is a straw man argument. They are a necessary expenditure to ensure fair and equitable treatment in the work place and advocacy on behalf of an otherwise powerless group of subordinates.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

Those unfamilar with the difficulty (nay futility) of working with unions should read VP's comments. His logic is convoluted and his language tortured. He uses words I understand, but his intended meaning requires decryption. His arrest reference is especially amusing. In VP's case I lack the patience to contiue trying to understand him. He appears to be educated beyond his intelligence.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

VP - Is blogging an inherent or ancillary function? I worked in both union and non-union agencies, but I never felt "powerless". One only feels powerless if they believe union propaganda about needing the union to "protect" them. That claim is just as false and inflated as the "look at all the things we have done for you" rhetoric. Unions are valuable in many settings, but in federal agencies they are unnecessary.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

VP - If you have points, do so, but spare us your meaningless rhetoric. Union propaganda appeals only to union lemmings - save it for your newletter. Your members will render the adoration your seek; you are not so well received in an open forum.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

First, do not use Gilson as a reference. He only uses "facts"that support his position. He leaves out relevant facts that oppose his position. He admitted this years ago.
Second, I am glad that one of the posters was able to go to his manager and resolve an issue. That is the sign of a good manager. I have had that also. Many managers are like that. However, there are some managers and above manager who are less than reasonable. This is when you need a union steward who knows law and procedures.
I will not say that all union stewards are good. However, there is a better chance of positive results with a good union steward than without one.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

So basically, dumb down my rhetoric so you can respond....I see.

Might I also point out that given the last three responses, I suppose the talking point about Unionists doing nothing but launching personal attacks at those who disagree - is now off the table?

Perhaps the reason you guys don't want to respond to the points has nothing to do with your patience or my rhetoric; you just not used to having to respond to actual points where dismissive always sufficed. Go ahead though, respond with substance anyway....you can do it.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

@GM-15 Branch Manager/DOE

Quote: "Those unfamilar with the difficulty (nay futility) of working with unions should read VP's comments. His logic is convoluted and his language tortured. He uses words I understand, but his intended meaning requires decryption. His arrest reference is especially amusing. In VP's case I lack the patience to contiue trying to understand him. He appears to be educated beyond his intelligence."

Your dismissive rhetoric aside, I'd be glad to expound upon (decrypt for you) any point I made so that you can clearly comprehend my meaning. Although I thought I was pretty straightforward.

Do you disagree that management and the union have distinctly different roles and therefor should be evaluated based on metrics aligned with their particular functions? I suspect if we are honest about what the Union's real J-O-B is, then we'd both agree that the Union has indeed been pretty damn effective.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

I can't tell if VP is being purposefully circumlocutory or if he is just pompous. Based on his simplistic public defender comparison, he may be an attorney wannabe. I'm sure his mother is proud and his union underlings are impressed. I am not. I find his logic twisted, and his writing distracting. He need not "dumb down", he is already dumb enough. The more he says the more he proves that it is better to remain silent and have others assume he is a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. I am sure few doubt that you are dumb and a fool.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

Retired DoD - You comment is excellent; it should be required reading. The examples you site are appropriate and enlightened. I am especially pleased with the "tax relief" scams you reference. Firms claiming to negiotiate better deals with the IRS on your behalf prey on the fears of the uninformed. They are scams. You can obtain the same deal without their "help".

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

Reading the above has been informative. I especially like the "educated beyond his intelligence" line. It is humorous and appropriatley applied. Anyone assuming he is talking above the head of others in this forum is only engaging in personal flattery. The issues and positions are clear. Personally, I find the pro-union positions less well stated and more speculative. I do not have a dog in this hunt (except as a taxpayer), but in my opinion the more persuasive arguments lie with the "federal unions are unnecessary" crowd. Let the blood-letting continue, but I hope the frequent responders on in a non-pay status.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

Still, no substantive analysis or responses, just more chest thumping and condescension.

Is this where you all trade places with the "union thugs" whom you've incessantly accused of having nothing other than personal attacks in their arsenal?

Again, anyone care to comment on the different roles of the management and the union and why "efficiency" is a straw man argument? Or is the question circumlocutory?

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

I started this discussion, now I will make a final comment. VP's reference to attacks stems from previous conversations on related topics. It has been noted before that unionists often attack rather than confront issues. It is a common for them to ascribe sinister motives to those who do not follow union dogma lockstep. They speculate the non-believer must harbor anti-union sentiment, be a tyrant, or hold a grude due to being "spanked" by unions before. As flawed as his logic has been, VP has addressed issues here. Attacking someone's actual comments (substance, logic, style, language, and volume) is fair game and quite different than attacking their motives. The only straw-man argument here has been VP's contrived indignation over personal attacks. My original posting is still correct. Federal unions are unnecessary and not cost effective.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

Arguing with a fool is like bathing a cat, but VP's questions have been addressed. He just does not like the answers. I have no stake in this argument, but everyone gains when our government agencies are efficient. Unions have other priorities and roles too, but mission accomplishment is vital to everyone. It appears VP believes otherwise. Readers should consider all sides of this topic and form their own conclusions. I have stated mine. I debated in college. The tactic of repeating questions until one hears the desired response usually fails. For what it is worth, I would not want VP to represent me.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

I was a teacher prior to my federal service. My teacher's union was largely inconsequential, but it was highly professional. That is not so here. I enjoy my job, but my NTEU chapter opposes everything management proposes. They seem to brag about it. Our newsletter is tripe. My steward seems competent and well-intentioned, but my chapter officials do not. They exude hatred and comtempt. Our chapter is not unique according to co-workers who have worked elsewhere. From what I have seen in the past three years, management is more concerned about my welfare than the union. Certainly, my managers are more professional. Were it not for they way non-members are treated, I probably would resign from the union.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

@Retired Exec/Treasury

Thank for (somewhat) answering the issues and for answering without personal attacks.

I get the point about your position and that of others here, that you feel Unions are inefficient. My question wasn't regarding whether they are or are not efficient, that is a subjectively driven argument fuelled mostly by ones perspective from which camp they are in (management or Union). So, it becomes a fuetile to argue an issue like "efficiency" when a manager's perception of efficiency is based on budget-driven results, and a unionist's perception of efficiency is based on how efficiently we can use member dues to forward our agenda and achieve the desired results we need to achieve.

So, as an adjunct point, I'd like to further examine how both sides can measure efficiency using agreeable metrics. The only way to do that is to use metrics based on each party's interests, priorities and goals. In that regard, aren't they inherently different? That was my point.

Re: Please flesh out your talking points a bit.

It is amazing how much more reasonable and civil one can sound with slight effort. Unions and managers have different interests, but they also should share common ones. Among them are the welfare of all employees and efficiency of operations, both of which aid the country and the workforce. Unions can help in shaping, recommending, and implementing change and improvements in ways best suited for employees. They are usually more effective when they do not approach negotiations and personnel actions in an adversarial mode. Sometimes aggressive disagreement is necessary, but demonizing managers is seldom helpful. I do not believe unions are inefficient; I believe they are not cost effective and unnecessary. My main issues are subsidies and the demeaning of non-members. Ending both subsidies and the requirement of federal unions to represent non-members in personnel matters might be worthwhile. I also believe chapters often pick their battles poorly.

Re: I will say this...

I agree. Thank you for this lucid comment. Using this newfound insight would help you represent the BU. However, if a union VP considers (and calls) non-members "scabs" rather than "non-members", the problem may be deeper and closer to home than you think. Finally, fighting against bullying managers should be only a small part of your responsibilities. Some managers are incompetent, others poorly trained, and a few tyrannical, but most want to do the right thing. Understanding when to fight, when to simply voice the employees position, and when to be helpful should be based on circumstances not dogma.

Re: I will say this...

Sage advice. And I agree 100%. Incidently, I am a consensus builder by nature, which comes in handy. Local managers prefer dealing with me. I don't sell out to them, but I at least pay close attention to what they are proposing and I try to understand their reasoning. I then always look for common ground as a basis for negotiations and I find that employees appreciate progress and detest impasses.

Having said all that, I have seen managers who do feel the union is an unecessary obstacle and therefore spend a great deal of time trying to find paths around the process and the contract because they feel the union is illegitmate to the mission and there authority as managers. This creates friction and animosity.

I have had the pleasure of working with some fantastic managers. The best one's USE THE UNION to their advantage. But often times that requires the foresight on behalf of managers to cede their immediate power of unilateralism, in favor of a more shared approach.

Re: I will say this...

As an exec in 2 agencies, I disciplined many employees and dealt with many chapters. My relations were outstanding with 2, good with 9, poor with 1, and awful with 1. I had disciplinary and EEO matters reviewed (independently, if possible). If management errors were fundamental, I settled; if minor, I compromised; and if de minimus, I stood firm. The main difference in union cases was that their rate of settlement and compromise was lower. Unions encourage members to resign far less than they should. They were more accomodating with non-members. I respect officials who represent everyone equally and who compromise when appropriate. One chapter president often met me about employee issues. We often agreed to beneficial compromises, and ncouraging poor employees to resign was common. At times we agreed to fight. I never minded as long as it was honest are fair. Demonizing managers is inappropriate, and interests often are aligned even if the roles are different.

Re: I will say this...

Managers are not all good, just as unions are not all bad, but I will highlight what I dislike about unions:
nationally, they: are not cost effective (especially considering subsidies); err in pushing a political agenda (ususlly liberal); exaggerate their achievements while accomplishing less than they should; and falsely claiming they alone hold managers "in check". Locally, chapters often: aggressively support (not just represent) those who should be terminated; engage in anti-management antics; lack professionalism; push personal agenda; play we win - you lose games; intentionally and needlessly waste time over trivial matters and negotiations; misuse official time; and display contempt for non-members and managers. That is why I am no longer a member. VP's suggestion to change from within is valid, but most of the people who feel as I do are non-members. Many members want the union to be adversarial and attack managers. They are too naive to see to the folly of it.

Re: I will say this...

These comments are revealing and have helped me understand why I have not been satisfied with my union. Many of the comments ring true for me. I am particularly disappointed to see that non-members are considered scabs. Also, many union claims have seemed hollow, now I see why. We should DEMAND more professionalism and accountability. I was unaware unions were subsidized. This has been an eyeopener.