Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 21
Page 1 of 1

Dancing With the Cobra

Suggestion

Controller
FAA
Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:07 AM

Post Reply

Federal unions are unnecessary and too costly to taxpayers. "Bargain" them out of existence.

Re: Suggestion

Retired
IRS
Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:45 AM
Got a real problem with unions don't cha. Didn't they win your case?

Re: Suggestion

Controller
FAA
Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:16 AM
They got a lot of people fired. My suggestion stands.

Re: Suggestion

ATC
FAA
Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:36 AM
Retired, They did not win his case, he is MANAGEMENT, and thought it was appropriate that he receive annual pay raises and increase his high three, while the real controllers did not

Re: Suggestion

Special Agent
retired
Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:48 PM
Controller does not sound like a manager. Regardless, his suggestion is good. I thought Reagan FIRED about 1,100 striking controllers in 1981 and decertified PATCO . The union memory of that event may differ. Several former controllers applied to be agents. They did not meet the standards. If federal unions don't want accountability they should decline subsidies.

Re: Suggestion

Fed
Worker
Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:18 AM
Special agent does it again. I agree that PATCO screwed up. Unfortunaltely unions are necessary to represent (defend) employees against management. The law allows the time to do so because management takes the time to write up employees. So the so called subsidy is quite fair.

GOOD FAITH?

DO
DHS/ICE
Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:11 AM

Post Reply

Seems to me that foloowing recommendation #1 would indicate that management is not bargaining in good faith. They would be going thru the motions and then cutting things off at critical points. Immoral and unethical. Like most federal managers.

Re: GOOD FAITH?

Dennis Reischl
fedlrcentral.com
Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:32 AM
I can understand your perception, but there is no point in providing unsound advice, and this particular point is well-established in case law. See, for example, Social Security Administration, 52 FLRA 677 (A party may withdraw from the negotiation of a permissive matter at any point prior to agreement.)

Dennis Reischl

Re: GOOD FAITH?

Diversity manager
HHS
Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:18 PM
So the knucklehead DO from ICE got slapped down with facts? Wow, that's a shocker.

This is exactly what I've come to expect from union types. Mealy mouthed punks who spout off nonsensical jibberish and later get slapped down with cold, hard FACTS.

Know what, DO? Keep getting the childish giggles from your dawgs. When you finally tire of that nonsense, grow up and want to promote to an SDDO, remember to put on your big boy clothes.

We're charged with an important job. "People" like you just make us all look bad.

Incredible...

Re: GOOD FAITH?

Special Agent
retired
Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:28 PM
I'm not sure what a DO does, but it sounds like law enforcement. If MOST of your managers are immoral and unethical, you don't need a union, you (and we all) need a new agency. In almost three decades of federal law enforcement, I met a few managers who were overbearing and two who were only marginally competent, but I can't recall one who was immoral and unethical. We did not have a union, and I never needed one. Unless you are exaggerating or incompetent, I can't imagine why you would "need" one either. If your remarks are accurate, we are in major trouble, and union action will not help.

Re: GOOD FAITH?

Retired
IRS
Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:41 PM
Special agents usually pull no punches. Diversity managers often do. Not this time. I salute you both. DO is a typical union lemming spouting anti-management rhetoric without foundation. Unions talk a good game, but they deliver little. Their claim that they protect workers from abusive managers is hogwash. Agencies without unions usually run more efficiently, and their workers have the same rights and equally effective safeguards. If taxpayers were aware of the subsidies federal unions receive they would be aghast. Federal unions are not cost effective.

Re: GOOD FAITH?

Fed
Worker
Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:34 AM
Diversity manager does it again. what facts? I wish he would say something with facts. what does dawgs mean?
To retired IRS,
Special Agents may not have a union. Therefore, whether they need one or not, they are stuck.
You are right in that most first level managers are reasonable and someone competent or higher. Most managers I have met are not technically good because they are promoted too early without good experience.
I have met some who were very good for the workers, but management did not like them. They are not managers.
I have met a few who were incompetent and immoral. Unions are definitely needed to protect employees against this type of person. Unions are also needed to protect people who are targets of higher level and first line managers. They targets should be evaluated objectively and not because they disagreed with a manager or higher level manager.

Thanks

employee
USACE
Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:59 AM

Post Reply

Your analogy between Unions and Cobras is a good one. I find that most Management LER don't understand or have a clue as to what they are doing at the negotiating table in the first place. This is why LER's feel like they are being overrun or controlled by the Unions. If LER's took the time to get educated or even if Management hired experienced LER's like yourself, maybe then an honest and open approach to bargaining B1 could be realized. Until then, management will always be afriad of what they don't know.

Re: Thanks

Dennis Reischl
fedlrcentral.com
Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:11 AM
Please be clear on my analogy--I am not equating unions with cobras, but rather, equating what I see as the long-term risks inherent in (b)(1) contract provisions, and the negotiation of them with the forementioned reptiles; i.e., cobras. :-)

Dennis Reischl

Re: Thanks

Retired Biologist
None
Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:07 AM
Dennis - We know you were not comparing unions to snakes. That would be both politically and biologically incorrect. Snakes are apolitical, smooth, fast, and lack duplicity. Snails or slugs would be more apt.

We need leadership, not smoke n' mirrors

LR 33 yrs
Retired
Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:43 AM

Post Reply

Look, this is a time for true effective leadership, not a bunch on political crap. Unions in the federal sector are not objectionable and a good problem solving approach can deter many issues. But handing over mgmt decisions is nonsense and illogical. Let's vote these folks out of office. I am independent and I will vote in mid term for fiscal conservatism and protection of our freedoms and national security. The radicals calling for anarchy, fiscal collapse, and tyranny need to go. Read
Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" on the NY Times Best Sellers List. This book makes sense and will help us get out of this chaos. We need strong leaders that will uphold the values of this country not defer to European socialism and welfare which does not work. Wake up America. Fed employees push back when you see that these people in charge are causing fraud, waste and abuse of the gvt's resources. In my experience, unions oppose waste etc. Upfront predecisional problem solving can work.

Re: We need leadership, not smoke n' mirrors

Fed
Worker
Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:53 AM
Political is in the eyes of the beholder. To radical leftists, the radical rightists are political. The opposite is also true.
Socialism is not necessarily bad. Examples include social security and medicare. Free enterprise without monopolies and fraud are also good.
Unions are necessary for private and public enterprise. They are supposed to protect employees and bargain various items for them. Just like management has their experts, unions are needed for their experts
No one says that either side is perfect. We all know that is not true. Both sides have bad apples. However, those who say that unions should be abolished are nuts. Those that say that management is all bad are nuts.
Both sides should cool it and try to improve the system rather than making these outlandish statements.

Negotiating with the Cobra

Fed Emp
DOD
Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:49 PM

Post Reply

the advice provided on how to negotiate with "the cobra" reads like a manual on accountability: clear statements, clarify meanings, supporting documentation, ... Perhaps if these procedures were utilized more consistently in the government the US would not have such an out of control deficit, pricing on US contracts might be better, and the taxpayers might have more confidence in Politicians as well as Government employees!

Federal employees are generally required to have higher educations, are supposedly held to higher standards as they are caretakers of taxpayers money and trust, yet the federal supervisors and managers still want to "run" agencies as though they are dealing with mindless dolts.

The federal govt spends a lot of money on trying to bring managers and supervisors into a higher level of awareness and capabilities, but there are still too many who believe in the "good old boy" network and way of thinking. This is why we need unions and better oversigh

Geese and ganders

Consultant/Trainer
Government Personnel Services
Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:26 PM

Post Reply

Dennis--

You write, "I realize this opinion is not in sync with the current Administration—which continues to flirt with the notion that voluntarily giving up large chunks of critical management rights may somehow make sense."

I can remember (too many years back!) you opining that Federal sector bargaining was limited to peripheral matters of little significance to employees or management. Back then (before you flirted with employment in the private sector) you opined (one of your favorite endeavors) that the scope of bargaining needed to be expanded in order that union and management negotiators grow up. I was impressionable and impressed.

In my youth, I was advised that women have a right to change their minds. Looks like former LRS's do as well. Wherever I find a union with unrealistic ideas of what's best for employees I find a comparable number of managers whose ideas re: what's best for agencies are dubious, at best. Remember time clocks and "punching in"?

Re: Geese and ganders

Dennis Reischl
fedlrcentral.com
Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:16 PM
Good Lord, did I still have hair then? Never mind, I think I know the answer. I gather you have assumed that my (relatively) youthful opinions re: the scope of bargaining have changed with time. Actually not. If anything, they have grown stronger, in that I continue to believe that the leading reason for the endless attempts of federal sector unions to insert themselves into management decision making--without assuming any of the responsibilities for the outcome--is the limited scope of what's at stake at the bargaining table. Private sector unions seem to spend a lot less time trying to drive the bus, primarily, I believe, because they have other fish to fry; e.g., wages and benefits. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help believe the presence of such issues on federal bargaining tables would do much to shift union interests in this sector also. Dennis

Dancing With the Cobra

Joe
DVA
Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:27 AM

Post Reply

If you can’t Dance with the cobra why you were given the authority to play the music at the party. That is the Governments biggest problem from where I sit. I am a Union official, and believe me when I say every day is a struggle, from the min the union door opens till it closes at the end of the day. HR Specialist is the worst, but it doesn't stop there. My union board is made up of a licensed professional staff just like many other DVA unions are. Our first obligation is to veterans we serve. We chose to be union officials in order to protect both the patients we serve as well as the rights of the workers. When will management get that !!

Total Comments: 21
Page 1 of 1

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.