As a one-time EEO Counselor for the Agency - the 10 mistakes enumerated here are absolutely on the mark.
However, there are Government Managers and Supervisors who are completely unfit to be in that position, they play favorites, they tell outright lies, and make assumptions on second and third hand information. They supervise by intimation.
How about the 10 most mistakes that supervisors and managers make concerning employees.
Re: Supervisors
Customer Service VA Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:12 AM
Oh my goodness, somebody (Asset Manager GSA) actually hit the nail on the head with this one! WOW! This is so very, very true, and disappointing for employees who have to deal with ineffective leaders. Where is the justice in that.
Re: Supervisors
DHS Employee USCIS Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:30 PM
I've seen one supervisor who physically attacked an employee. She was investigated and demoted, but not fired. The assaulted employee didn't file criminal charges. There are bad supervisors out there. However, most supervisors are good. That was only one "rogue" supervisor out of many.
Re: Supervisors
Support HEALTH CARE Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:06 PM
One always thinks the quality of their work will carry them in the workplace. Not! If a supervisor doesn't like you and lacks integrity, they can ruin you. Everyone is inclined to believe the supervisor's lies because they are a supervisor and their peers find it more difficult to believe the supervisor is a liar than the subordinate is trying to cover up. I have had a supervisor who would lie and look me in my face. I was up the river without a paddle and the union was worthless. I was totally afraid.
If they would only listen
LER Manager VA Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:56 AM
Bob,
Good article. Problem is this may fall on deaf ears! As a former union rep, I can understand and agree with #6. Too many times I have been in meeting in which the union representative was representing THEIR own interests, not the employees.
Re: If they would only listen
Support HEALTH CARE Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:13 PM
In my last union grievance, the steward was in a GS5 position hoping for an upgrade. He wouldn't stand up for me because the people we were discussing it with were the same ones he might want to hire him at some point. From that experience I learned to get a steward with nothing to gain from your conflict. (That steward later applied for the job I left.)
Critical Mistake #1
Former HR Specialist Federal Agency Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:06 AM
The most Critical Mistake that I ever saw, which I saw several times, was continuing to use drugs and/or alcohol as a way to deal with the problems at work. As a recovering alcoholic myself, I saw this from both sides. I ended up in a job I hated so much that I got sober, and I haven't looked back except to go and make amends to those that I put through hell.
Re: Critical Mistake #1
Reformed Conservative DFAS Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:30 AM
"This job is driving me to NOT drink!"
Congratulations on your sobriety, Former HR Specialist, and may the Lord make his light shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
Re: Critical Mistake #1
Anonymous Army Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:31 PM
Glad to see another fed in recovery. I didnt hate my job, but I did get sober immediately after my first fed job.
Good points!
ER Specialist DOD Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:50 AM
Bob, you are right on the money with the information. Unfortunately, most of the people who would benefit from reading and really comprehending this information are not likely to believe you. I deal with employees day in and day out who are SURPRISED when we discipline them for not calling or not showing up for work, for telling their supervisors to go "F" themselves, taking government property that does not belong to them, being rude to customers both internal and external and other myriad misconduct. I say all the time that while the names and faces change, the behavior does not. There is always one or two people who just don't seem to think like the rest of us. They have two sets of rules, rules for themselves and rules for everybody else. A lot of times, the employee has a LOOOOONG history of misbehaving but nothing has ever been done about their conduct. Probably their parents didn't discipline them and let them get away with being rude, argumentative, lazy and dishonest.
Re: Good points!
Retired Supervisor Department of the Army Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:42 AM
Allow me to address the point of "a LOOOOONG history of misbehaving but nothing has ever been done about their conduct". Very, very true, but there are a couple reasons why that happens. First is the EEO system. After years of being told that you were discriminating against the poor gentleman who craws through the office door late and drunk, supervisors tend to throw up their hands and give up. Second is the military system itself. Military commanders want to come in, make a splash for a couple years, and then get out of town before things get hot. A big part of that script is to give bad performers whatever they want in order to avoid Union and EEO problems. I've seen departing commanders settle EVERY EEO complaint regardless of merit just so they could get out of town without the complaints following them. The system stacks the cards against supervisors, particularly in DOD, and THAT is a big reason why contractors get our jobs.
Re: Good points!
LER Manager VA Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:29 PM
Then the supervisor has nothing to complain about if they are unwilling to take action.
too slanted
attorney retired agency counsel Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:56 AM
Good article, especially given the limitations of its length. I would only add that if you've been with the government for a sort time, best thing to do is quit before charges are brought, and look for someone you worked with to give you a letter of recommendation. If you are trying to stick around long enough to get your pension, that is worth fighting for, and your best bet is to hire a lawyer who does nothing but federal employee cases. Agency counsel are often intimidated by such attorneys, and being up against a good opposing counsel means alot more work, which they are often not inclined to do. Also, the idea of losing and being blamed for it can lead to agency counsel urging their client to settle, usually by offering a last chance agreement. Practice tip: try to find out which private attorney most recently won for their client at the facility you work at, and hire that attorney even before charges are brought.
As for #3...
Fed DoD Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:05 AM
sometimes it IS discrimination, on some basis. But this is where feds need to know: (1) what constitutes discrimination (2) what warrants a grievance, ULP, etc and (3) what their union can do about it and hold them accountable.
Doing any or all of the above usually means having a "baptism by fire," as I have. But I've survived, despite some really arrogant and ignorant supvrs. As a union steward/officer, I've also imparted those "hard knocks" to others.
As for #6--you've got to go THROUGH the system to BEAT the system. This does NOT mean filing frivolous charges, and I never represent anyone who lies to me. You must have valid grounds for any appeal avenue, keep good records, and have a rep who knows their stuff. It helps if YOU know your stuff too.
And there are lots of ways to win. If you don't get exactly what you asked for, but some change has been effected, that's YOUR victory. (My bad boss left, so I won.)
Just as there are bad workers, there are bad supvrs...
small but confusing errors
ordinary worker dod Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:21 AM
great article, but you made a couple of mistakes that may confuse people. You wrote "Critical Mistake #6 – Engage a Representative with No Interests Other Than Yours" --- wouldn't it be a mistake to engage a rep who DOES have interests other than yours? Also, in Smart Move #10, you wrote "It is really difficult to be subjective about your own mistakes..." but I'm sure you meant that it is really difficult to be OBJECTIVE about your own mistakes.
Re: small but confusing errors
editor FedSmith.com Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:48 AM
The grammatical errors have been corrected. Thanks!
Critical Mistake 6 Error?
Analyst DA Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:41 AM
"Critical Mistake #6: Engage a Representative with No Interests Other Than Yours"
I think it's supposed to read "Engage a Representative with Interests Other Than Yours"
The paragraph that follows as a "Smart Move" seems to explain why you should hire someone who only works to get what's best for you.
Management
Engineer HUD Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:19 AM
Smart Move #1 – My supervisor made up two stories in order to give me two suspensions. I filed an EEO complaint and the judge ruled in my favor. No disciplinary action was taken against the manager.
Smart Move #2 – "Treat all involved with respect and politely. Diverting attention.." This does not apply to management. They lie and raise unrelated nonsense when they have no case. No disciplinary action will be taken against them.
Smart Move #3 – ".. if you think government lawyers are dumb.." Some are dumb. They are also liars and bigots.
Smart Move #4 –" So either cooperate or find yourself with a, perhaps, more serious charge." Does not apply to management.
Smart Move #5 –" Inventing answers or fudging facts may be cause for additional disciplinary charges." Does not apply to management. Some are sociopaths who are chronic liars and they know that no disciplinary action will result.
Smart Move #7 – "Attorney accepting a contingency fee." No chance of this occurring.
In your defense
Project Wildlife Biologist Dept of the Navy Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:19 PM
Having dealt with this with the Dept of Interior I would recommend seeing an attorney very early on, and try not to represent yourself before the EEO or judge unless you can emotionally detach yourself, and of course do your homework on the rules of engagement. Read case law.
Unfortunately
Retired HR Officer DOI Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:53 PM
Employees generally go into protection and/or fight mode when their conduct is challenged rather than looking deep inside to see what might have provoked the supervisor to take action. Usually in conduct cases there is history and a "straw" breaks the camel's back. In many EEO and other third party cases the employee becomes so enmired in his/her case that they lose all perspective. They live and breath it every minute and become ineffective at the job or get physically or mentally ill. Unfortunately, these cases take their toll on all involved. Employees should think long and hard before fighting it through the system.
Bad Managers
Retired RAC Galveston ICE Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:38 PM
"I have seen supervisors that took some pleasure in an employee's problems. " Bob Gilson
Unfortunately they get to be Deputy Special Agents in Charge!
Another argument for not going to hearing
Retired Agency Attorney NASA Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:49 AM
This is an excellent article, Bob.
I would add one consideration to your discussion on Mistake No. 9--going to hearing when you did the deed.
If you go to hearing and lose, eventually there will be a published decision so all the world can see that your agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and possibly an appeals court if you insist on going that far, concluded you were guilty of the offense. Can you spell "Google?" If so, trust me, prospective employers will quickly discover your past. The Internet makes it a breeze.
Feedback
Tim BOP Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:14 AM
While I generally agree with the information in the article it is premised on the assumption that management is always fair and objective. Of course they try to be and of course most managers are decent people, the fact is that we live in an imperfect world where that is not always the case. I am long time union rep and can attest to the fact that life at work is like society as a whole. Very often truth and objectivity are about the balance of power, maiantaining authority and ones personal beliefs. More specifically, justice and fairness will always be something that has to be fought for. It is not automatic, never has been and never will be. Having unions in the federal workforce make it better and the private sector should take heed. As Federal employees, we should defend government as a good example of modern employment and nothing less, This of course while knowing that perfection is an ideal, not reality.
10 errors
Examiner IRS Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:15 AM
This sounds like a bad manager wrote this article. You said do not blame a bad boss. The problem is that it could be an incompetent boss with a huge ego is at fault. I know that factually. That boss may be a liar, a sneak, and worthless if needed. The best thing to do is to tell the truth whatever it is. Others in the group also agree about the boss.
The second problem with your article talks about a representative. Unless you really know the rules you will be railroaded. You need a qualified representative he will fight for you. Problem is they are rare. I am talking from experience.
I hope the writer will show a little less bias when writing his articles. One can tell that he represented management and not the workers. If I am wrong in the last sentence then that is not the impression he creates.
Re: 10 errors
Bob Gilson FedSmith Writer Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:42 PM
I write with an unrepentant federal management-oriented take on the world. You can read pro-union views on just about every other website. An insider's, experienced Agency representative take is much less available due to a wide variety of legitimate (and a few illegitimate) reasons not not discuss such matters publicly. Among the legitimate concerns are the Privacy Act and the bent of certain Congresspersons to use Agency statements as political hammers. Political correctness weighs high on the list of illegitimate factors. Federal unions, as a result act almost exclusively without a vocal ctitic. If holding up a mirror to union activity is a problem, shame on them and their representatives. _bob
10 Critical Mistakes made by employees
FEDUP2 USMC Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:34 AM
This would have been a great handout for new employees at a couple of DOD activities I worked with during my 33 year career. I've seen many employees do all of the 10 don't do's with less than positive results. Should be required reading for the new employee.
Definitely written to benefit management
IT Pro DoD Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:41 AM
Every one of the points made in some way benefits management by telling the employee to give up and settle. Sorry, but that is just unethical. As a union rep, I can tell you that we must have interests beyond the immediate case because every case has the potential to affect future policy. That does NOT mean that we do not care about the case at hand because we want to win it for that employee.
I was on the receiving end of false accusations (violating a policy that did not exist until AFTER I was exonerated) because of my union affiliations, so management can and does lie and use their positions for retaliation whenever they get the chance.
All I can get out of this article is a primer to alert my co-workers about what management will try to get them to sign off on "to make it easier" for everyone. Quit to avoid a fight, my foot! Sheesh!
Why is this behavior so predictable?
Attorney NASA Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:05 AM
My personal opinion (not NASA's) after only three years practice at another agency is that problem employees (BTW--many are managers) exhibit the same behavior prior to discipline: they place their supervisor in a parent role against whom they must rebel & win, & see the workplace as their "turf"--when challenged the problems start. Do we hire them or make them that way? Can we blame problem employees for using the tactics you describe when Congress has invited them to complain in so many venues, from the union grievance to EEOC, to MSPB, to Office of Special Counsel, all with differing rules, so you can rehash & litigate anything? MSPB requires written notice before discipline, but EEOC considers that adverse. It is true that these folks stand no chance of reversing actions where the agency has proof, but THEY DON'T CARE. They feel they are getting back at their unfair critics. What's the cost of this to the gov't and taxpayer? How many good employees get disgusted and leave?
Number Three
USRO Dept. of Veterans Affairs. Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:55 PM
I really don't understand why you included baldness and a host of other non factors in discrimination, as you know this defense is used by minorities and they have it honed as sharp as a razor. It does not even get close to goverment lawyers and their private counterparts. It is well known in the goverment that using the discrimination defense works 99.9% of the time. It is amazing how managers find out they are racists on a near daily basis in the goverment under Mistake#3 overnight!
Comments to 10 critical mistakes
Manager USDA Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:50 PM
Some other mistakes I see employees make, is react too quickly and don't take the time to provide a good response on the merits of the allegation. Many times I see responses turn into allegations the reason this came forward is that the manager does not like them and claim its purely personal and not focus as the article said on the facts and/or the law; passing on their best arguement by going negative and personal attack. Also, I see many employees get into more trouble by the actions after the fact than the substantive act to begin with. I have advised co-workers or persons that I have mentored is go in, only if you did wrong now, to own up to it and seek to work out a resolution, take the lumps, I sincerely believe the outcomes can be more favorable for the employee in the long run. Its a waste of time on some protracted battle thats a lose/lose, focus on win/win! I understand there are some bosses who are rats, for that keep your cool and protect your integrity.
BU Rights
BU Treasury Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:57 AM
The author & this web site do a huge diservice to it's readers by not noting that this article is geared for the NBU employee. Although union representation is covered briefly, and negatively, it MUST be pointed out that if there is a labor agreement in effect and you are a BU employee, there are very significant rights and appeal processes that are available to you despite behavior of the union reps. Failure to point this out is a glaring ommission and frankly irresponsible.
Re: BU Rights
lr manager Dod Agency Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:41 PM
Actually, it sounds like the author gave pretty good advice. Most of the errors he mentioned happen time and again regardless of the process that is used. So what if it is in the negotiated grievance procedure or MSPB? The advice is still solid and worthwhile. My guess is that you didn't like him pointing out the items that those of us in the field, whether for union or management, see every day but the average employee is unaware of until too late.
My compliments to the author and to this site for publishing this type of info that is fairly seldom seen in the federal sector because of the vested interests that often have nothing to do with what is better for the employee and everything to do with what is best for the union or a program within the agency.
10 critical mistakes
Mediator Independent Federal Agency Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:00 PM
What amazes me is there are people taking this seriously. Bill Simmons, the ESPN Sports Guy, does a routine called the "unintentional comedy scale" where an attempt to be serious is really funny. On a scale of 1-10 on that scale, this article is a clear 10. The idea that any federal employee in trouble would remotely listen to Mr. Gilson is comedy of the highest order.
Even if some of what he says makes sense, and I have my doubts, you need to consider the source. Mr. Gilson is, always was, and always will be pro-management. This is like the Republican Party telling us how to reform Social Security when their real goal is to end it. There is a question of credibility.
If I represented management, then Mr. Gilson would clearly be someone I would consider talking to for advice and guidance. If I was a federal employee, especially one that was in trouble, then Mr. Gilson would be the LAST person I would seek advice and guidance from.
Re: 10 critical mistakes
Employee DoN Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:48 PM
If you are truly certified to conduct mediations, I suggest you get retrained immediately!
Re: 10 critical mistakes
Mediator Independent Federal Agency Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:34 PM
I find your criticism interesting since you do not dispute what I said. I do not question Mr. Gilson's qualifications to represent and give advice to management. He is an expert in that area and would provide sound advice. I question his credibility in providing advice to employees because I believe he lacks the understanding and empathy for the employee's point of view.
As to my being retrained, I have over 300 hours training, have mediated several hundred disputes and have a resolution rate over 85%. While I may not seem qualified in your eyes, the evaluations from my clients prove otherwise. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to the facts. You are also not entitled to question my qualifications and integrity when you don't know what they are.
10 Critical Mistakes and One Horrible Union
Benefit Authorizer Social Security Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:40 PM
Frankly, I think he does us a great SERVICE by writing from the management point of view. After all, the best way to defeat your 'enemy' is to 'Know Your Enemy'. And I can say from personal experience that when I ran afowl of management (by doing something slightly shady) and was threatened with a one month suspension for being caught doing it, when I went to the Union for help, they basically SIDED WITH MANAGEMENT! Because of their attitude towards me and my case, I wound up going it alone in my final hearing (and got the suspension reduced to two weeks ON MY OWN, with no help from the wussy union). As far as I am concerned, the union serving SSA employees is worse than useless. I REFUSE to contribute to it, and wish all our employees would refuse to do so (so that THEY would realize whose side they SHOULD be on, no matter what the situation-- and it isn't management's)!
Re: 10 Critical Mistakes and One Horrible Union
IT Pro DoD Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:52 PM
Um, didn't you just ADMIT you did the deed of which you were accused? Sorry, but if you wanted the union to lie for you, you were on the wrong page.
If it were known that the union was willing to lie for you, then the credibility would be out the door for all future union representation and you would have screwed all your co-workers on the way. I wouldn't take a case if you were guilty as sin and wanted me to make it disappear. I would, however, see if the penalty could be softened (depending on your previous performance and discipline records).
Oh, and you may not like the union but you will be the first to cheer if they save your bacon vis a vis NSPS and your BU rights (which you don't want to help support). The Bush-stacked FLRA has already ruled that the unions don't have to help those who are not members--but you know what? We still do because we believe in fairness.
You, on the other hand, seem to only believe in getting over and are upset because your rep wouldn't help you.
Union Reps
Mgmt Analyst DON Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:03 AM
After reading through the comments, it's apparent this has become a battleground for union vs. management.
I like to see management views (thank you Mr. Gilson) even if I don't agree with them. Some of the pro union folks one here give me insight into that mentality as well. I've seen the "union reps" we have, and met a few of the ones that are supposed to defend you if you go wrong (of course as a NSPS minion and an exempt employee I'm no longer eligible) and wouldn't depend on them to help me. No, if it ever comes to an engagement I'll take care of it myself. I don't need some inarticulate "bubba" making a bad matter worse.
Well stated. And how about #11?
Specialist nonDOD Agency Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:27 PM
Employees who do achieve some form of "out-of-court" resolution or settlement with their agency and keep their jobs, often feel emboldened and, no matter what the minimal terms of the settlement were, they feel obligated to proclaim to the world how they "won" and got over on management. With respect to any response, management's hands are tied to a large degree because any response, even if true, can often easily be twisted into a new retaliation claim. Ultimately this behavior usually backfires on the employee and other future employee-litigants, because the employee typically resumes their inappropriate behavior which led to the action the first goaround (and people won't forget), and after so much of this flaunting of settlement "victories" in the workplace some managers will begin to adopt an anti-settlement approach to new claims/appeals that doesn't serve anyone very well.
Employees in trouble who obtain settlements would be wise to quietly enjoy the settlement.
Retort
ASI FAA Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:22 PM
Sometimes it's best to say You're right or I made a mistake, I won't do it again. What could they possibly say to that, unless it was a very serious "crime".
Supervisors
GSA
Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:21 AM
As a one-time EEO Counselor for the Agency - the 10 mistakes enumerated here are absolutely on the mark.
However, there are Government Managers and Supervisors who are completely unfit to be in that position, they play favorites, they tell outright lies, and make assumptions on second and third hand information. They supervise by intimation.
How about the 10 most mistakes that supervisors and managers make concerning employees.
Re: Supervisors
VA
Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:12 AM
Re: Supervisors
USCIS
Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:30 PM
Re: Supervisors
HEALTH CARE
Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:06 PM
If they would only listen
VA
Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:56 AM
Bob,
Good article. Problem is this may fall on deaf ears! As a former union rep, I can understand and agree with #6. Too many times I have been in meeting in which the union representative was representing THEIR own interests, not the employees.
Re: If they would only listen
HEALTH CARE
Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:13 PM
Critical Mistake #1
Federal Agency
Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:06 AM
The most Critical Mistake that I ever saw, which I saw several times, was continuing to use drugs and/or alcohol as a way to deal with the problems at work. As a recovering alcoholic myself, I saw this from both sides. I ended up in a job I hated so much that I got sober, and I haven't looked back except to go and make amends to those that I put through hell.
Re: Critical Mistake #1
DFAS
Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:30 AM
Congratulations on your sobriety, Former HR Specialist, and may the Lord make his light shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
Re: Critical Mistake #1
Army
Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:31 PM
Good points!
DOD
Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:50 AM
Bob, you are right on the money with the information. Unfortunately, most of the people who would benefit from reading and really comprehending this information are not likely to believe you. I deal with employees day in and day out who are SURPRISED when we discipline them for not calling or not showing up for work, for telling their supervisors to go "F" themselves, taking government property that does not belong to them, being rude to customers both internal and external and other myriad misconduct. I say all the time that while the names and faces change, the behavior does not. There is always one or two people who just don't seem to think like the rest of us. They have two sets of rules, rules for themselves and rules for everybody else. A lot of times, the employee has a LOOOOONG history of misbehaving but nothing has ever been done about their conduct. Probably their parents didn't discipline them and let them get away with being rude, argumentative, lazy and dishonest.
Re: Good points!
Department of the Army
Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:42 AM
Re: Good points!
VA
Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:29 PM
too slanted
retired agency counsel
Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:56 AM
Good article, especially given the limitations of its length. I would only add that if you've been with the government for a sort time, best thing to do is quit before charges are brought, and look for someone you worked with to give you a letter of recommendation. If you are trying to stick around long enough to get your pension, that is worth fighting for, and your best bet is to hire a lawyer who does nothing but federal employee cases. Agency counsel are often intimidated by such attorneys, and being up against a good opposing counsel means alot more work, which they are often not inclined to do. Also, the idea of losing and being blamed for it can lead to agency counsel urging their client to settle, usually by offering a last chance agreement. Practice tip: try to find out which private attorney most recently won for their client at the facility you work at, and hire that attorney even before charges are brought.
As for #3...
DoD
Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:05 AM
sometimes it IS discrimination, on some basis. But this is where feds need to know: (1) what constitutes discrimination (2) what warrants a grievance, ULP, etc and (3) what their union can do about it and hold them accountable.
Doing any or all of the above usually means having a "baptism by fire," as I have. But I've survived, despite some really arrogant and ignorant supvrs. As a union steward/officer, I've also imparted those "hard knocks" to others.
As for #6--you've got to go THROUGH the system to BEAT the system. This does NOT mean filing frivolous charges, and I never represent anyone who lies to me. You must have valid grounds for any appeal avenue, keep good records, and have a rep who knows their stuff. It helps if YOU know your stuff too.
And there are lots of ways to win. If you don't get exactly what you asked for, but some change has been effected, that's YOUR victory. (My bad boss left, so I won.)
Just as there are bad workers, there are bad supvrs...
small but confusing errors
dod
Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:21 AM
great article, but you made a couple of mistakes that may confuse people. You wrote "Critical Mistake #6 – Engage a Representative with No Interests Other Than Yours" --- wouldn't it be a mistake to engage a rep who DOES have interests other than yours? Also, in Smart Move #10, you wrote "It is really difficult to be subjective about your own mistakes..." but I'm sure you meant that it is really difficult to be OBJECTIVE about your own mistakes.
Re: small but confusing errors
FedSmith.com
Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:48 AM
Critical Mistake 6 Error?
DA
Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:41 AM
"Critical Mistake #6: Engage a Representative with No Interests Other Than Yours"
I think it's supposed to read "Engage a Representative with Interests Other Than Yours"
The paragraph that follows as a "Smart Move" seems to explain why you should hire someone who only works to get what's best for you.
Management
HUD
Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:19 AM
Smart Move #1 – My supervisor made up two stories in order to give me two suspensions. I filed an EEO complaint and the judge ruled in my favor. No disciplinary action was taken against the manager.
Smart Move #2 – "Treat all involved with respect and politely. Diverting attention.." This does not apply to management. They lie and raise unrelated nonsense when they have no case. No disciplinary action will be taken against them.
Smart Move #3 – ".. if you think government lawyers are dumb.." Some are dumb. They are also liars and bigots.
Smart Move #4 –" So either cooperate or find yourself with a, perhaps, more serious charge." Does not apply to management.
Smart Move #5 –" Inventing answers or fudging facts may be cause for additional disciplinary charges." Does not apply to management. Some are sociopaths who are chronic liars and they know that no disciplinary action will result.
Smart Move #7 – "Attorney accepting a contingency fee." No chance of this occurring.
In your defense
Dept of the Navy
Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:19 PM
Having dealt with this with the Dept of Interior I would recommend seeing an attorney very early on, and try not to represent yourself before the EEO or judge unless you can emotionally detach yourself, and of course do your homework on the rules of engagement. Read case law.
Unfortunately
DOI
Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:53 PM
Employees generally go into protection and/or fight mode when their conduct is challenged rather than looking deep inside to see what might have provoked the supervisor to take action. Usually in conduct cases there is history and a "straw" breaks the camel's back. In many EEO and other third party cases the employee becomes so enmired in his/her case that they lose all perspective. They live and breath it every minute and become ineffective at the job or get physically or mentally ill. Unfortunately, these cases take their toll on all involved. Employees should think long and hard before fighting it through the system.
Bad Managers
ICE
Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:38 PM
"I have seen supervisors that took some pleasure in an employee's problems. " Bob Gilson
Unfortunately they get to be Deputy Special Agents in Charge!
Another argument for not going to hearing
NASA
Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:49 AM
This is an excellent article, Bob.
I would add one consideration to your discussion on Mistake No. 9--going to hearing when you did the deed.
If you go to hearing and lose, eventually there will be a published decision so all the world can see that your agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and possibly an appeals court if you insist on going that far, concluded you were guilty of the offense. Can you spell "Google?" If so, trust me, prospective employers will quickly discover your past. The Internet makes it a breeze.
Feedback
BOP
Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:14 AM
While I generally agree with the information in the article it is premised on the assumption that management is always fair and objective. Of course they try to be and of course most managers are decent people, the fact is that we live in an imperfect world where that is not always the case. I am long time union rep and can attest to the fact that life at work is like society as a whole. Very often truth and objectivity are about the balance of power, maiantaining authority and ones personal beliefs. More specifically, justice and fairness will always be something that has to be fought for. It is not automatic, never has been and never will be. Having unions in the federal workforce make it better and the private sector should take heed. As Federal employees, we should defend government as a good example of modern employment and nothing less, This of course while knowing that perfection is an ideal, not reality.
10 errors
IRS
Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:15 AM
This sounds like a bad manager wrote this article. You said do not blame a bad boss. The problem is that it could be an incompetent boss with a huge ego is at fault. I know that factually. That boss may be a liar, a sneak, and worthless if needed. The best thing to do is to tell the truth whatever it is. Others in the group also agree about the boss.
The second problem with your article talks about a representative. Unless you really know the rules you will be railroaded. You need a qualified representative he will fight for you. Problem is they are rare. I am talking from experience.
I hope the writer will show a little less bias when writing his articles. One can tell that he represented management and not the workers. If I am wrong in the last sentence then that is not the impression he creates.
Re: 10 errors
FedSmith Writer
Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:42 PM
10 Critical Mistakes made by employees
USMC
Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:34 AM
This would have been a great handout for new employees at a couple of DOD activities I worked with during my 33 year career. I've seen many employees do all of the 10 don't do's with less than positive results. Should be required reading for the new employee.
Definitely written to benefit management
DoD
Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:41 AM
Every one of the points made in some way benefits management by telling the employee to give up and settle. Sorry, but that is just unethical. As a union rep, I can tell you that we must have interests beyond the immediate case because every case has the potential to affect future policy. That does NOT mean that we do not care about the case at hand because we want to win it for that employee.
I was on the receiving end of false accusations (violating a policy that did not exist until AFTER I was exonerated) because of my union affiliations, so management can and does lie and use their positions for retaliation whenever they get the chance.
All I can get out of this article is a primer to alert my co-workers about what management will try to get them to sign off on "to make it easier" for everyone. Quit to avoid a fight, my foot! Sheesh!
Why is this behavior so predictable?
NASA
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:05 AM
My personal opinion (not NASA's) after only three years practice at another agency is that problem employees (BTW--many are managers) exhibit the same behavior prior to discipline: they place their supervisor in a parent role against whom they must rebel & win, & see the workplace as their "turf"--when challenged the problems start. Do we hire them or make them that way? Can we blame problem employees for using the tactics you describe when Congress has invited them to complain in so many venues, from the union grievance to EEOC, to MSPB, to Office of Special Counsel, all with differing rules, so you can rehash & litigate anything? MSPB requires written notice before discipline, but EEOC considers that adverse. It is true that these folks stand no chance of reversing actions where the agency has proof, but THEY DON'T CARE. They feel they are getting back at their unfair critics. What's the cost of this to the gov't and taxpayer? How many good employees get disgusted and leave?
Number Three
Dept. of Veterans Affairs.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:55 PM
I really don't understand why you included baldness and a host of other non factors in discrimination, as you know this defense is used by minorities and they have it honed as sharp as a razor. It does not even get close to goverment lawyers and their private counterparts. It is well known in the goverment that using the discrimination defense works 99.9% of the time. It is amazing how managers find out they are racists on a near daily basis in the goverment under Mistake#3 overnight!
Comments to 10 critical mistakes
USDA
Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:50 PM
Some other mistakes I see employees make, is react too quickly and don't take the time to provide a good response on the merits of the allegation. Many times I see responses turn into allegations the reason this came forward is that the manager does not like them and claim its purely personal and not focus as the article said on the facts and/or the law; passing on their best arguement by going negative and personal attack. Also, I see many employees get into more trouble by the actions after the fact than the substantive act to begin with. I have advised co-workers or persons that I have mentored is go in, only if you did wrong now, to own up to it and seek to work out a resolution, take the lumps, I sincerely believe the outcomes can be more favorable for the employee in the long run. Its a waste of time on some protracted battle thats a lose/lose, focus on win/win! I understand there are some bosses who are rats, for that keep your cool and protect your integrity.
BU Rights
Treasury
Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:57 AM
The author & this web site do a huge diservice to it's readers by not noting that this article is geared for the NBU employee. Although union representation is covered briefly, and negatively, it MUST be pointed out that if there is a labor agreement in effect and you are a BU employee, there are very significant rights and appeal processes that are available to you despite behavior of the union reps. Failure to point this out is a glaring ommission and frankly irresponsible.
Re: BU Rights
Dod Agency
Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:41 PM
My compliments to the author and to this site for publishing this type of info that is fairly seldom seen in the federal sector because of the vested interests that often have nothing to do with what is better for the employee and everything to do with what is best for the union or a program within the agency.
10 critical mistakes
Independent Federal Agency
Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:00 PM
What amazes me is there are people taking this seriously. Bill Simmons, the ESPN Sports Guy, does a routine called the "unintentional comedy scale" where an attempt to be serious is really funny. On a scale of 1-10 on that scale, this article is a clear 10. The idea that any federal employee in trouble would remotely listen to Mr. Gilson is comedy of the highest order.
Even if some of what he says makes sense, and I have my doubts, you need to consider the source. Mr. Gilson is, always was, and always will be pro-management. This is like the Republican Party telling us how to reform Social Security when their real goal is to end it. There is a question of credibility.
If I represented management, then Mr. Gilson would clearly be someone I would consider talking to for advice and guidance. If I was a federal employee, especially one that was in trouble, then Mr. Gilson would be the LAST person I would seek advice and guidance from.
Re: 10 critical mistakes
DoN
Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:48 PM
Re: 10 critical mistakes
Independent Federal Agency
Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:34 PM
As to my being retrained, I have over 300 hours training, have mediated several hundred disputes and have a resolution rate over 85%. While I may not seem qualified in your eyes, the evaluations from my clients prove otherwise. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to the facts. You are also not entitled to question my qualifications and integrity when you don't know what they are.
10 Critical Mistakes and One Horrible Union
Social Security
Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:40 PM
Frankly, I think he does us a great SERVICE by writing from the management point of view. After all, the best way to defeat your 'enemy' is to 'Know Your Enemy'. And I can say from personal experience that when I ran afowl of management (by doing something slightly shady) and was threatened with a one month suspension for being caught doing it, when I went to the Union for help, they basically SIDED WITH MANAGEMENT! Because of their attitude towards me and my case, I wound up going it alone in my final hearing (and got the suspension reduced to two weeks ON MY OWN, with no help from the wussy union). As far as I am concerned, the union serving SSA employees is worse than useless. I REFUSE to contribute to it, and wish all our employees would refuse to do so (so that THEY would realize whose side they SHOULD be on, no matter what the situation-- and it isn't management's)!
Re: 10 Critical Mistakes and One Horrible Union
DoD
Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:52 PM
If it were known that the union was willing to lie for you, then the credibility would be out the door for all future union representation and you would have screwed all your co-workers on the way. I wouldn't take a case if you were guilty as sin and wanted me to make it disappear. I would, however, see if the penalty could be softened (depending on your previous performance and discipline records).
Oh, and you may not like the union but you will be the first to cheer if they save your bacon vis a vis NSPS and your BU rights (which you don't want to help support). The Bush-stacked FLRA has already ruled that the unions don't have to help those who are not members--but you know what? We still do because we believe in fairness.
You, on the other hand, seem to only believe in getting over and are upset because your rep wouldn't help you.
Union Reps
DON
Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:03 AM
After reading through the comments, it's apparent this has become a battleground for union vs. management.
I like to see management views (thank you Mr. Gilson) even if I don't agree with them. Some of the pro union folks one here give me insight into that mentality as well. I've seen the "union reps" we have, and met a few of the ones that are supposed to defend you if you go wrong (of course as a NSPS minion and an exempt employee I'm no longer eligible) and wouldn't depend on them to help me. No, if it ever comes to an engagement I'll take care of it myself. I don't need some inarticulate "bubba" making a bad matter worse.
Well stated. And how about #11?
nonDOD Agency
Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:27 PM
Employees who do achieve some form of "out-of-court" resolution or settlement with their agency and keep their jobs, often feel emboldened and, no matter what the minimal terms of the settlement were, they feel obligated to proclaim to the world how they "won" and got over on management. With respect to any response, management's hands are tied to a large degree because any response, even if true, can often easily be twisted into a new retaliation claim. Ultimately this behavior usually backfires on the employee and other future employee-litigants, because the employee typically resumes their inappropriate behavior which led to the action the first goaround (and people won't forget), and after so much of this flaunting of settlement "victories" in the workplace some managers will begin to adopt an anti-settlement approach to new claims/appeals that doesn't serve anyone very well.
Employees in trouble who obtain settlements would be wise to quietly enjoy the settlement.
Retort
FAA
Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:22 PM
Sometimes it's best to say You're right or I made a mistake, I won't do it again. What could they possibly say to that, unless it was a very serious "crime".