Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 5
Page 1 of 1

Bargaining Changes – How to Meet Your Objectives When Negotiating Outside the Labor Agreement

Tactics Vs Action

Supervisor & Past AFGE L-Pres
DOD, DAF
Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:21 AM

Post Reply

Good article. Very few understand Impact and Implementation and appropriate arrangements. These sound like stops but in all actuality can give rise to gaining support of the employee base through their elected leadership when management representative come to the table with a caring attitude (honest) which reflects a desire to help them fully understand the change, adjust their activities (normal work function) to meet the needs of the change and address/help them resolve any roadblock or difficulties in implementing the change including future problems that may arise or occure from unforseen circumstances. In essence what good employers do in industry that help them stay as a team and perform competetively. Most negotiations could be completed in one day or less ans actually accomplish what Pres. Nixon and Carter envisioned. If you can't or won't approach this way you should be discuplined for insubordination!!

bargaining

Retiree
IRS
Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:47 PM

Post Reply

The author, with an obvious management bias, ignores the fact that management "initiatives" frequently are presented in a vacuum. In other words, the proposal fails to consider the other duties and assignments with which employees need to contend.
In over 20 years as a union official dealing with the IRS, I never saw a single proposal which removed a job responsibility from employees so that a new one could be handled. "Piling on" seems to be management's biggest "right."

People are NOT afraid of "change"

Engineer
AF
Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:58 PM

Post Reply

I don't want to get into the pros & cons of management vs union, but I have to address one of the persistent myths that comes up. This quote "Since many employees in any organization, government or not, abhor change," is used constantly by management, consultants, and others to totally dismiss any concerns people may have about a "change." After all, if you can just brush off concerns with a statement everyone "knows" is true, then you can avoid addressing them. The reality is people are neither afraid of, nor in favor of "change," by itself. Instead people look at the cost/benefit of the supposed "change" and if good, they support it, if bad, then they are against it. If leaders would listen to the concerns of their staff instead of labeling them "afraid of change" they might learn something and come to a better solution for all concerned much quicker.

Bargaining changes

Labor Relations Specialist
IRS
Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:36 AM

Post Reply

Another good article Mr. Gilson. In my experience, when a union wants to delay a change for delay's sake, negotiations over ground rules for bargaining can take enormous amounts of time before even getting to the bargaining table to discuss the change. However, where the parties have negotiated the groundrules for any mid term change bargaining into the contract, this can really expedite the process.

Management Rights

Business Assistant
USDA-FS
Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:18 AM

Post Reply

Some management work in Partnership but most of newer management will invoke "Management Rights", therefore the Union must take time for I&I. Union representatives do not like to take time to negotiate as well as management so why must we be "us" and "them"? Most Union Reps have a full time job plus their union duties and try to work for the good of the organization and the taxpayers.

Total Comments: 5
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.