John L. Lewis UMW (AFL-CIO Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:01 AM
What is this official time referred to in this article? Is it the opposite of unofficial time? If so, what is unofficial time? How much of this "official time" also involved another bargaining unit employee? I guess you can add that time in there too. Also, how much time involved a manager? I guess you can add that time in there too.
It seems to me that it was cheaper back in my time when, if we disagreed with management, we just smashed windows of the plant-and we did it on our own time-. You can repair a heck of a lot of busted windows with that kind of dough.
You know very well what official time is. It's the time during normal work hours that you are being paid to do a job that is used to conduct union business instead. Your nasty remarks just scream disingenuousness.
You don't like the fact that some of your dirty little secrets are being aired in public so you make fun of the author rather than try to justify the use of public funds to pay for union activity. I guess that would be a pretty hard case to make though.
Re: Official Time?
Teamsters Member Teamsters Union Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:01 PM
Jimmy, is that you? How you been boy? Long time no see.
Re: Official Time?
Retired Executive IRS Fri May 1, 2009 8:51 AM
The OPM estimate is far short of the actual cost. Official time is rarely accurately recorded or reported. The actual time used in supporting union activity would astound and anger all but zealots. More importantly, the value received for this excessive expenditure is minimal. Taxpayer awareness of this waste would further diminish the image of federal workers and confidence in government. Unfortunately, accountability is a low priority.
And the numbers are on the Very Low side too!
Director FED Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:09 AM
Agencies seem to fudge these numbers as one agency I seen there was at least double of hours the management leadership submitted to OPM. They knowingly missrepresented the number so it did not look like they were using excessive official time! so this number is on the low side believe me.
Official time
LRS IRS Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:42 AM
Hey Obama, here's a great opportunity to cut spending, put these guys back to work and get 'em off our dime!
Re: Official time
Diversity Manager HHS Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:44 PM
Exactly! These mopes have nothing better to do than justify their existence (and increase dues) by continuing to denfend lazy, borderline criminal "employees" who don't want to follow the rules.
I mean, just LOOK at your typical union employee. Are you proud of that? They are what drove this economy, a la Detroit's pig trough of bennies, into the gutter.
It's been my experience that the "serious" issues brought up by the union are normally related to defending those employees not up to the task. They love socialism where no one really has to do any work but everyone gets paid. Overwhelmingly votring for obama and his ilk, they hope for a time when they run the Animal Farm.
It's sad, really.
Re: Official time
IT Specialist IRS Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:12 PM
I've known union reps who spent their entire pay period in the union office. I think there should be a limit to the amount of time a union employee is allowed to work under official time. One of my co-workers was in an area where he worked with 3 employees. One of the employees was a union rep and spent all his time in the Union office. There were 2 employees physically working while on paper they had 3 employees and couldn't hire an additional employee because they couldn't justify hiring or giving a temporary detail to another employee because 3 employees was enough to get the job done statistically. They had to pick up the slack for this Union Employee who went directly to the Union office to work every day. Meanwhile this employee received award pay for the work that their area did even though he didn't spend much time working in the area. When they had mandatory overtime, the Union Employee didn't have to work any of it. Is that fair?
Re: Official time
RETIRED DOD Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:29 PM
For some reason, it does not surprise me that an agency Diversity Manager and a LRS (assumed to be a Labor Relations Specialist) would hold such views. These are the very management attitudes that unions are confronted with in representing employees.
Re: Official time
Diversity Manager DOL Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:59 PM
There is an easy fix let the dues pay for the stewards time, watch how quick the gravy train ends
Re: Official time
The Pres DoD Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:32 AM
Concerning the orginal comment on this trend. The Union says the same back at you with these high paid management jobs. There is no doubt that there is plenty of fat to trim there. The US Congress created official time since federal Unions can not have closed shops. Federal Union people are doing nothing wrong, check chapter 71 of title 5. The US congress determined that there needed to be checks and balances in the work place and oversight for the fair and equitable treatment of federal employees.
Re: Official time
IT Specialist DOD Fri May 1, 2009 11:50 AM
Diversity Manager ...The Gravy Train would not end. The Unions would get Congress to support Closed Shops which would allow Union Dues to flow like water into the Coffers. There would be plenty of money to pay the stewards to go "0ff the Clock", File more grievances, and do more arbitrations. Open shops are Managements best friend. It limits the actual number of dues paying members which limits the amount of capital available to the Union.
Anti-labor sentiment
National President Federal Agency Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:43 AM
Perhaps this is no more than a sign of the anti-labor environment that has existed for the past eight years. Just because it is in the federal sector, does not mean the anti-labor sentiment does not exist here too. I think this increase is only indicative of the problems that labor unions face....keep in mind, unions are a response to poor management. Poor management can (and does!) occur in the federal government, too.
In our union, much of our time is spent researching issues which includes a lot of time reading case law, rules and regulations of our agency. Unfortunately, this does take a lot of time. None of us want to spend more time than we have to, but when managers are violating the collective bargaining agreement, we have to ensure that we protect the rights of the employees. Now, if only managers would pay as much attention, perhaps the official time would be reduced.
Re: Anti-labor sentiment
employee OIG-USPS Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:40 AM
you are clueless...or just blind!!!
Not so quick to judge!
DOD Manager Army Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:45 AM
First, I've been on both sides. Not that many years ago, I was the Union Representative.
Its difficult to account for official time on an agency basis. As we know, there are several hundred differernt unions just within the DOD and the numbers grow once you realize an organization may deal with several of them within a small geographic area.
Sometimes the use of official time is to deal with employee grievances, but often it is related to changes in working conditions that need to be mutaully negotiated. Frequently, these changes are proposed by managment.
Let's not be quick to blame Labor for wasting government time and money. Their is plenty of blame to go around and yes, even if Mr. Gilson or I dont want to admit it Management deserves their part.
I believe Mr. Gilson does not serve the public well in his constant Labor criticism.
And how much time does management take?
Longtime Fed Cabinet Agency Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:48 AM
The real question is: how much time do management, general counsel and labor relations take on personnel issues? For the union is only responding to situations where management is disciplining an employee - very often because of trumped up charges - or behaving in ways that violate the law. It's federal law that the union represents employees in these cases - there's no-one else. So - need a comparison to be fair.
Gilson's sarcasm!
atty A big one Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:49 AM
I am an Agency Rep and even I am bothered buy your tone and sarcasm. It is like you have no understanding of the history of the FSLMRS and just want to write to inflame a response. The American public has a choice...they can either give Union officials official time to do their jobs or give them the right to strike. What do you think will cost more? If Federal govt employees could strike it would cost the govt billions of dollars in lost productivity as well as put the mission of the govt at risk. So if you look at thelegislative history behind the FSLMRS, that is why official time exists. It was a trade-off for not allowing employees to strike. You do the math and tell me which one you would prefer!
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
HR Spec DoD Agency Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:06 AM
Or, even better, the employees that want to use the union's services could actually pay for it instead of sticking the taxpayer with the cost. Having worked in a number of agencies, there is more sloughing off by people on official time than anything else.
And, even more ironic, the taxpayer pays for the union to file numerous complaints, appeals, etc. against the government--while also paying the agency fees.
It is a classic government scheme for the taxpayer--in this case the unions wins big and the taxpayer picks up the entire bill.
Actually, the tradeoff occurred on Jimmy Carter's watch. They traded Chapter 71 (right to collectively bargain) for Chapter 43 (performance based actions). Unfortunately for agencies Chapter 43 became almost impossible to administer so we got unions but it was not easier to fire poor performers. This remains the issue, however--employees need protection, there needs to be some interactive process or input when management changes working conditions but agencies need to be able to remove the small percentage of workers who will not or cannot do the job and it must be quick and fair. We're not there with the present situation--unions are just another layer of inefficient bureaucracy in the way. Face it, with the MSPB (not to mention the EEOC) federal workers have more job protections than most private employees--the right to arbitration adds time and inefficiency to the equation. It's time for an overhaul of Chapters 43 and 71--but that would require thinking and work??
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
Supervisor DoD Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:53 PM
What if Federal Employees did strike ... and no one missed us? We were furloughed in 1995, and for 2 weeks most of us feds were not on the job ... no one noticed ... so, be careful what you ask for!
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
RETIRED DOD Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:34 PM
We could change all that by allowing federal employees or thier representatives to file civil law suits against agency officials for thier ill action.
Allow the right to strike and bargain wages in lieu of official time, and allow a closed shop by a vote of the represented employees to be determined by a simple majority of those who vote in such an election.
Unions would no longer have to fight for official time. Nor would they have to save thier pennies for arbitrations.
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
Diversity Manager DOL Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:10 PM
I would love to have CS strike, when the gov't was shut down during the Clinton regime they weren't even missed. The only blow back from the taxpayers was when they got back pay.
This would be a real test case for the BO administration as to identifying waste, see how many taxpayers complain when an agency is on strike
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
Retired - Union Officer DOL Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:46 AM
I worked for DOL 40 years and just retired in January. I am still an officer. We were originally told that the monthly reporting of official time was temporary but that was never what the Government intended. Also, it should be noted that most union reps are still given the same work load or more and are still doing the representational work as well. We get no accommodation for doing 2 jobs and if management tells you differently and you believe it, I've got a bridge I can sell you. I had an outstanding performance appraisal during my entire career. I believe that the report is inflated or perhaps management has gone amok and ergo more official time was used?
If we weren't missed, how come the politicians who caused the shutdown were kicked out of Congress in the next election?
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
Diversity Manager DOL Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:57 PM
better check you facts the republicans continued to rule and Bill was impeached As I said the blow back from the taxpayers was that the CS got PAID>>>
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DoD DoD Fri May 1, 2009 7:24 AM
I hear over and over how employees need "protection." You know, the rest of the non-unionized world seems to survive without this so-called "protection." EEO claims, wage and hour claims, OSHA claims, on and on - yes, unions were responsible for a lot of these things, but now that they exist, do we really need the unions? And frankly, most of my interactions with union representatives have revealed them to be misinformed, misguided, and ill-equipped to represent the interests of their members.
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
Reformed Conservative DFAS Fri May 1, 2009 8:22 AM
Hi DOD,
Research working conditions in the Marianas Islands--a conservative, non-union paradise--and then get back to us.
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
IT Drone DoD Fri May 1, 2009 9:13 AM
Seriously? You sound like my brother who still thinks he gets breaks and lunches because his boss is "a nice guy". He doesn't "get" that those things, along with the majority of his other benefits and protections came from 100+ years of union struggles.
The rest of the world does NOT survive without protection. They just take advantage of whatever changes get negotiated. Of course, all those claims DoD whines about are still filed no matter if it is a union shop or not. At least with a union, there is a better chance of the WORKER being protected.
Our managers love to say they are offering a "new benefit" when, in reality, the benefit is a result of long hours at the table negotiating said benefit to be the best it can be for everyone. And yes--every time a new benefit is negotiated, it trickles up. Management gets the same terms as the workers, even as they complain about it.
Official time for union stewards etc.
worker Fed Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:57 AM
I cannot speak about the agency author is talking about, but I can give my impressions concerning the agency I work for.
The purpose of this time is for union activities. A major part of union activities is to represent non management people who are accused of various wrongdoings by management. This is done by union stewards who are paid their normal salaries for this activity. There are other union activities that I am not familiar with, but an NTEU officer or steward would have to explain that. These are charges that the author is talking about. They are negotiated in the contracts with management.
Would the author prefer that the workers have no representation? Would the author prefer that the workers pay the full freight? Probably yes, because this is another example of his anti union-anti worker nonsense.
It is easu to put these numbers in perspective. What are these numbers relative to the cost of running the government. Bet it is very low.
Hourly rates
Attorney Fed Agency Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:04 AM
Bob - I think your comment that "union reps looking for more pay" should check out the MSPB or SEC is a bit misleading. It's not that certain agencies are simply more generous in paying their union reps. At least with respect to collateral duty union reps, they are paid at their regular rate of pay for representational activities. Thus, their rate of pay is a function of their position and not necessarily what Agency they work for. If you have agencies were only professional employees (generally GS-13+) happen to be represented by a bargaining unit, then their rate of pay will consequently be higher.
I do appreciate your providing the link to the OPM report - it is interesting to see that at my own agency (which shall remain unnamed!) there was a huge increase in the number of representational hours reported from FY2007 to FY2008. I have no idea why.
Numbers
PM DoN Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:05 AM
The hourly rate for the Armed Forces Retirement Home, $20.40, somehow seems lower to me than the $21.30 for the IBWC, and they actually charged some time. I also found it interesting that there is an Agency with one member in a Union; I wonder how frequently they need to hold elections to pick representatives, etc.
Is that all?
Supervisory Admin Services Spec Navy Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:46 AM
ONLY $120 Million?! Under-reporting is definitely a problem. At our activity we have at least 20 folks on FULLTIME union time plus all the part-timers running around. At an average of $50k each that comes to $1 million just for the full-timers (just in salary, not the accelerated rate to cover benefits). By those stats our one activity would have 1 percent of the official time, for the ENTIRE government. I'm sure we are not the only ones where official time is virtually uncontrolled. Just one union has a budget providing for 17 fulltimers, but they think they need 23.
YOUR tax dollars at work. I suspect the real figure is more like $1 billion, not $120 million.
Here's an Opinion for the Author!
ISO USCIS Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:50 AM
Don't think your piece of writing is fooling any conscientious readers. No matter what side of the Labor/Management debate folks are on, it's an easy mark to imply that this is wasteful money without presenting any information as to what the official time hours are used for. Please do us all a favor and at least try a little harder. Talk is cheap. Official time costs money for a reason.
There are only a few full-time union officers (GS-12) usually in the National Office. The rest of the union reps range from GS-7 to GS-12. Management usually is GS-13 and above. The official reports are broken down into 3 categories: Representation, Negotiations and Labor- Management. Why not break it down...or better yet why not keep another reports - Management's Time (managers and LROs) representing Managers gone amok. After all LRO's spend 100% of their time representing the managers and Manager's spend at least 40% of their time doctoring the records. I bet the cost would be double just for management's side.
Union Official Time
AFGE President Local 2032 HUD Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:54 AM
What he report should measure is not the cost versus what the Union brings in in dues, but what Union's try to save the Agency/what improper employment actions they correct.
For example, it was my local that brought out management's waste of over $4 million on an inter building move. Even when we elevated the issue, nothing was done to correct the problem. I have always advocated that if a contractor can do the job effectively and more efficiently, they should do so. Our local as well as several others documented hundreds of millions in waste. Since that was not the policy at the time, we were ignorred - and continue to be.
Maybe not all Union locals act the same way, but some of us make every attempt to protect the taxpayer (because we are them); protect the Agency (since that is our best means to job security), and protect our people from arbitrary rules promulgated by untrained management.
Official time
Chief Steward Agriculture Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:54 AM
There is no causal relationship between official time and dues. By linking the two measures, your piece implies that some sort of mechanistic or causal relationship must exist. This is a dubious assumption at best, and one you should explicitly articulate if you aspire to intellectual honesty rather than just union bashing. You may as well howl at the moon about the costs of agency management as a ratio of managers' association membership fees. The amount of official time used should be related to the amount of legitimate representational work that must be performed. That's the system. Dues have nothing to do with it. Though I do have to agree with you that I'd like to see the dues/official time ratio increase -- there are too many employees getting representation for free who need to step up, join up, and pay their fair share for services rendered.
Just ask
Manager, Labor Relations Group OPM Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:58 AM
Bob,
All you had to do was ask us for a copy. It isn't on the website yet because we are revamping it and the reports will be added when the new screens are up.
Frank
Thanks for finding report
HR Spec DoD Agency Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:02 AM
The main point that seems to have escaped many of those commenting is that this report would probably never have seen the light of day if Bob Gilson had not searched it out and made it available. The $120 million is vastly understated but at least it scratches the surface.
Many in the media just parrot the press releases. I am pleased to see that someone actually took the time to find the report and make it available. If you don't like what is in it, or don't like the fact that it is available, or don't think the public should even know about it, you are probably just trying to cover up the real cost of unions in government. And, rather than employees deciding whether they are worth spending money on, the government just hands over the money.
In fact, come to think of it, the administration is doing the same thing. Isn't America great? We will all get something for nothing. I wonder who will eventually get stuck with the bill? Perhaps our grandchildren.
Thanks, Bob, for digging this up and not going along with the crowd that usually just caters to those that scream the loudest about being abused--while scarfing up the many benefits available to them.
Official Time
Reformed Conservative DFAS Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:14 AM
It seems to me that the best way to cut the use of official time is for management to honor the labor contract they agreed to. Fewer grievances=less official time used. I was a steward once and working even a cut-and-dried grievance is time-consuming.
Re: Official Time
Emp Fed Govt Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:58 AM
The problem with your suggestion is that there is no "validity" test on the submission of a grievance. The union can file, file, file, all day long and managment is obligated to go through the process. It's the same for filing EEO complaints, although I know that's not the subject of this thread. I think it's called job security. The majority of grievances at my Agency are denied at the top step and never taken to arbitration (another waste). That tells me they weren't valid to begin with.
That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't valid. At most agencies, management and the union split the cost of arbitration. I don't know about the other unions, but AFGE, unlike the U.S. Government, cannot print money. Therefore they are very selective about the cases they take to arbitration because they can only afford so many.
When I was a steward, we discouraged the filing of grievances where the management had a strong case and the employee was in the wrong. They waste everybody's time, and we stewards didn't have it to spare.
Re: Official Time
Emp Fed Govt Fri May 1, 2009 2:25 PM
Reformed, I appreciate the fact your union does not file frivolous grievances, but unfortunately, that is not common. One of the local Presidents where I work stated he would file a grievance on everything management did, just to make them work. Is that serving the agency well, or the taxpayer, for that matter?
Management funds spent fighting Union's
NFPAAC Social Security Administration Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:22 AM
The agency Labor Relations, CREO, Human Resources spend 100% of their time, in greater number, fighting union's seeking fair and equitable treatment of employees. One union steward against a team of management officials per case. Cut the amount of management personnel and time spent by management on each case against one union official.
OPM's Closely Held Report of Union Official Time U
Consultant HHS Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:29 AM
How do you spell theft? By the end of the Obama Administration the union fat cats will be doing better than there Teamster idols.
fair and balanced
mid term fed Executive Branch Agency Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:35 AM
Do you have the numbers for the time and money spent by Labor and Employee Relations? I'm sure "official time" costs are a fraction of that number. Hopefully, with the current administration, the need to use official time will decrease.
Reporting Official Time
Fiscally Responsible Fed Somewhere Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:42 AM
Some agencies do not code time the way OPM codes official time for union representation so there is a huge fudge factor.
I have been in agencies where managers' time was quite a bit more in total than union's time, so double or triple these figures to come up with how much is spent on labor management relations.
In one agency the union negotiated groundrules over one year, because they COULD. They have gone over 20 years without a new master labor agreement and were impassing everything they could under Bush 43 just so they could get serious when a new administration would be installed--again, because they could. Figures don't say anything about abuse of process
Figures don't reflect where pro-active labor management relations is practiced (as where I am now) resulting in little formal third party procedures because both parties recognize that win-win (collaboration) is better than win-lose (traditional bargaining) or lose-lose (litigating everything).
union time
driver safety instructor US Postal Service Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:50 AM
I bet if union time was off the clock at there own location we would have a lot less cry babys trying to get out of work. They always complain about someone else doing there job, but refuse to quit taking half hour breaks. Wake up people................
employee protection
lettercarrier on non-sched day USPS Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:03 AM
In these days of "performance pay" mgm't will go to the edge of the rules to squeeze for the numbers that get the bonus. To hell with service and union contracts (unless enforced!)
All of you need to get back to your work...NOW.
Unions make a positive difference
President NFFE/IAMAW Local # 1 San Francisco VA Medical Center- Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:15 AM
As a Registered Nurse who proudly serves American Veterans and those who care for them, our Union protects workers and assures them a fair deal. After 30 years of service at the VA, in staff positions and as a Associate Chief Nurse and now Union President, we are worth every cent. Our Local won the Secretary of the VA Award for Labor/Management Relations for 2007 because we were able to demonstate how working in partnership with management improves productivity, staff morale and performance and thus patient care and outcomes. We file very few grievances and no ULP's under my watch, because we know how to talk to each other and accomplish a win-win. I work 24/7 because I represent the Professional staff who work 24/7 and neither request of recieve any additional money. My first responsibilty remains the same as it was when I walked through the door of this great Medical Center 30 years ago. The American Veteran comes first followed by those heroes who care for them. Patricia RN, MS.
Re: Unions make a positive difference
usda worker Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:13 PM
Thank you Patricia for your well thought and true comments. In my local and agency we practice Interest Based Bargaining vs position based and we have few grievances and very few arbitrations and ulps. Working together AND having a management in place that values employees and their work will always produce the least friction and fewer cases. This is not easy. It is very hard to give up the old position based thinking, but until you do, it will be the same. And after you do give it up, you may even enjoy meeting with management!!!
Re: Unions make a positive difference
Diversity Manager DOL Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:16 PM
Too bad the Vets don't have a union to deal with all the bad treatment done to them at the hospitals. If they did the majority would be shut down
Re: Unions make a positive difference
Prof Small College Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:49 AM
re Patrica, RN. As a disabled veteran and a user of some DVA medical services I am 100% in agreement with her. The medical professionals at DVA facilities have done so much, with so little for so long, they can do anything with nothing. The medical doctors have their association, i.e., American Medical Association (AMD), and the Nurses have a union. Neither association has harmed the quality of DVA health care. The medical staff at DVA are professional, well trained, and care. Some of the few friends that I have owe their lives to these great people.
From conservative to labor leader and Gilson's why
union president transportation related Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:28 AM
I grew up in a southern state as a conservative hating unions. Government management and doctrinaire and myopic views like that expressed by Gilson are why I became a union founder and leader.
The time we spend providing checks and balances against a management that is often outright malfeasant or random and indignant at its most innocent are in the nation's and taxpayers interest. The public is safer because the union is here providing information to it and oversight to management.
Official Time
Electrical Engineer Army Corps of Engineers Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:44 AM
Having been a Union Steward I can comment on the implication that the Government is subsidizing the Unions.
My Union steward time was generally spent fighting managers who could or would not follow the Government's own rules.
It is rather unfair to say that the taxpayers are subsidizing the Union when in fact much of the time is spent keeping the Government managers honest.
By doing so, the Professional Union and I, acting as a steward, were actually attempting to protect the Government from costly and harmful actions initiated by aggrevied employees resulting from harm done to them by maverick managers.
Re: Official Time
usda worker Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:19 PM
well said!! And it always amazes me when we union officials are being told we are not doing the agencies business when working for the union. Who provides us the work? Your right, the Agency. Just about everyone agrees that the management workforce is ill trained and because of that it sends a lot of work to the defenders of the rights of employees and workers, THE UNION!!!
use of offical time
NCFLL, V.P. OFCCP-SOUTHEAST OFCCP Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:47 AM
Mr. Glisson:
As usual you continue to belittle the Union and it's role for the employees in government. Additionally, you continue to solicit for more work by advertising your expertise in dealing with Unions - wow (double dipper, eh?).
If, the Agencies and their managers basically conducted themselves in a proper way and didn't become such pompas asses - we probably would not need a Union per se. However, the reason we continue to have a Union is basically because of people who hold the same ideals and values that you do - "Do As I Say Types" and I'm in Command - Bullying types as well.
Maybe, you should rethink that if we did not have Unions - you would not have anything to talk about or speak from the Bully Pulpit about.
These comments are soley mine and you can talk with me anytime about them - I implore you to discuss with me anytime.
Re: use of offical time
Prof Small College Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:56 AM
Is it not Mr. Gibson? I suggest that some of the union responders invest $2.00 in a used English book, and study the book. You convey the impression that most of you are not very well educated. You fellows have a lesser grasp of the English language than some of my first year students that graduated from high school in May. "Official Time" is most of the time a ripoff of taxpayer money.
Wake Up Call
Karl Nervous Hospital Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:16 PM
I reckon Bob woke up all the union apologists with this article. Stop it Bob. It's too easy.
some good and bad on both sides.
clerk IRS Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:24 PM
Ihave heard there are good union stewards out there but.....I havent seen one at work yet.
I did witness one that smoked for up to 6 hours on union time, then worked only 1 hour a day. Now, dont go attacking me for stating what I witnessed. But in the times I asked the union to help me, I did a much better job doing the work myself. EEO was more in touch with the employees, union makes you feel like they are just after your money. They use to say, "we are the ones responsible for getting you your raises".........well.......are they also responsible for 'bama boy taking our raises away this year?......oh whoopsie, that was our lack of "stimulus" package........bankers do a better job then the union does.......they at least get money from the goverment and the healthy bonus' too.....yep, thats it, we need the bankers to be our union reps!
Finally something that makes sense!
Um, don't you think " 'bama boy" is just a teensy bit racist? Does anybody flag these posts for appropriateness?
Union Value (lack thereof)
PM DON Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:34 PM
The unions may have been a good thing in the past but if they persist all jobs will be outsourced because Americans will not pay outlandish prices for goods manufactured by overpaid workers. The unions only serve to line their pockets and stiffle productivity. They will go to the ends of the earth to protect an unproductive worker. Also, the unions tend to skew to local fair makret values. Where else but in Detroit can a high school graduate earn $30 an hour to install gloveboxers? Only in union stronghold areas does that seem appropriate.
Union Official Time
President, Local 1209, AFGE, MCBHawaii American Federation of Government Employees Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:29 PM
Mr. Gilson,
After reading your article on Union Official Time I have a couple of questions for you.
How much government time is used by the full time GS11/12/13 or YA Labor Relations Specialist and Directers each year, including all the travel to training and etc? Thats not counting the GS14/15 or YA government attorneys. They don't always handle grievances & etc.
Is if fair to have all these Labor Relation Specialist working to protect management from their mistakes or errors, along with baby sitting them when there is a justified action that needs to be taken against an employee?
Is it only fair that employees have someone to represent them, just as management has someone to represent them. On Government time.
I am a retired WG11 Building Inspector who was elected to the President of Local 1209 when I still was working. I have continued to be President after I retired with little compensation. I feel it is important that employees have a representive.
Aloha, Frank J. Ethridge
And on the other hand
RETIRED DOD Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:23 PM
I was a union official for nearly 20 years. And was amazed at how I would have to face three managers, a labor relations officer, and a labor attorney because they questioned my use of literally, a few minutes of "official time". Once we got past that, the time was spend settling the issue.
So excuse me for my use of offical time, for which I am not ashamed. But lets look at the resources management uses. If agencies made actions by idiot supervisors a firing offense instead of promoting those same managers, then maybe you'd see the hours come down even further.
Almost forgot - all this time is not a drop in the bucket compared to what they spent on NSPS in DOD.
on the clock
Big cheese postal Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:41 PM
If managers would start obeying the contract...they would not have as much time....a no brainer!!!!
So What?
PM Army Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:50 AM
I understand that $100M in cuts would keep the government running for an additional 53 seconds. In that context, the numbers cited by the author are small potatos.
OPM REPORT ON OFFICIAL UNION TIME.
REVENUE OFFICER - RETIRED INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:37 AM
Unions, like governments are a necessary evil of modern society. I feel better knowing that there are organizations out there devouted to protecting the working person and fighting for better pay and benefits.
What employer would voluntarily give an employee a pay raise and more benefits if it didn't have to?
I would rather have the government spend some of its resources on my well being than on the well- being of illegal aliens. I implore you to stop portraying unions as the bad guys and acknowledge that unions are an important part of a free society that aren't "free"
Unions
Human Resources Specialist (Employee/lLabor Relations) Internal Revenue Service Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:18 AM
You write about unions as if they were some intrusive, parasitical foreign entity free-loading off taxpayer dollars. Federal unions are government employees collectively organized to preserve their rights and benefits. When i buy my automobile, inherent in the cost are similar labor costs neccesary to ensure auto workers' rights and benefits. What a shock. after thirty years of anti-labor administrations, representation costs are high. Rather than lamenting the dollar figure, agencies should be looking at the problems and dissatisfaction among employees that such high costs represent.
Re: Unions
Karl Nervous Hospital Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:37 AM
I reckon I'm ashamed this was written by an LR person. Whoever posted a while back that all the good LR types were purged during the Clintonistas' regime may have a point.
I reckon I was struck by the naivete of the comment about costs-any costs-being "inherent" in the production cost of an automobile, or any other product for that matter. This type of thinking gives rise to business failures. GM and Chrysler come to mind for some unknown reason.
I'm hungry. Whatcha got good ta eat in dare Ralph?
Re: Unions
Human Resources Specialist Department of Treasury Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:04 AM
Thanks, Karl, for the libertarian point of view. While you're dismissing union costs as a cost of doing business when employees organize collectively, why not throw in health care and all of the other benefits that saddle businesses with "unnecessary costs". They're all unnecessary; employee should just be grateful to have jobs, a minimal salary, no role in workplace decisions, and stop whining, right? I entered Labor Relations during the Reagan administration so you can't blame Clinton for my having my position.
Re: Unions
Karl Nervous Hospital Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:42 AM
Hey Treasury-
I reckon I said someone was talking about all the GOOD LR types that were purged.
I don't recall talking about unnecessary costs. I was talking about the mindset that all costs are inherent. I reckon you don't read so good. Myself, I read some books. I don't understand all of what I read but I reckon I understand a good deal of it.
Re: Unions
HR Consultant Been There/Done That Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:46 AM
I was amused to see an earlier post from someone professing to be an IRS LR Specialist suggesting that President Obama bears some responsibility for FY-2008 official time. My amusement was caused by an IRS LR specialist raising an issue about official time when IRS is a prime offender in this area. This current poster sounds much more like what one would expect from the IRS LR staff. After all, their main function for many years has been to serve as Frank Ferris' s dog robbers.
Union time use
engineer Ag Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:34 AM
Numbers are terrible things, aren't they? The unions view it as their sinecure. The rest of us view it as a waste of resources. But, of course, we are always told we don't know what we are talking about. So I tend to agree that such documentaion will be harder to comel by in the future.
Taxpayer's rights
Supervisory Admin Services Spec Navy Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:23 AM
Management rights ... Union rights ... employee rights ... Seems to me that everyone is losing sight of the folks who's rights should really concern us. Whatever happened to the TAXPAYER? Aren't they paying for this?
Re: Taxpayer's rights
Human Resources Specialist Department of Treasury Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:10 AM
Is there any reason why they are all mutually exclusive? Management has an obligation to ensure that the program needs of their agency are met; unions have an obligation to represent employees' interests in obtaining fair treatment and fair compensation when performing dutues to fulfill the mission of their agencies, and we all have an obligation to ensure that the public gets the services for which it pays. Until I began reading this newsletter and even though I have had profound disagreements with union representatives, I was unaware that unions should always be regarded with suspicion and hostility; Federal employees should be regarded as shiftless parasites on the public dole, and Labor Relations Specialist should be overtly opposed to any union positions regardless of merit. How preserving a hostile, disrespectful, and adversarial labor/management relationship serves the taxpayer is beyond me. It seems to me that the report depicts the high cost of that arrangement.
Gilson's Comments on Official Time
HR Consultant Various Federal Agencies Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:22 AM
Bob appears to have forgotten that unions and collective bargaining are in the public interest. How do we know? 5 U.S.C. 7101 tells us so. Giving lots of official time certainly furthers this objective.
Re: Gilson's Comments on Official Time
Supervisory Admin Services Spec Navy Fri May 1, 2009 9:34 AM
True, Congress made that finding in 1978. And we all know that Congress has never made any mistakes.
Ridiculous!
Scientist EPA Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:39 AM
As useless and inactive as AFGE is in my region, this amount of money is insane. No way they should be getting that much for so little useful activity.
A local is only as good as its members. If you don't like your local, get active and change it.
What would you do?
FLSA non-exempt VA Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:34 AM
It's always nice to bash the union until you need represntation. Currently, our management is of the mind set that they can conduct "mandatory" business meetings during our lunch break simply because they offer to buy the food. By doing this they don't have to report non-productive time to the headquarters.
So, you either give up your lunch break or complain to somebody; but, what if there was nobody to hear you?
Official Time
Union Vice President Army Corp of Engineers Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:57 AM
It's too bad that FedSmith does not have a contributing author to counter Mr. Gilson's anti-union, anti-worker biased numbers. Take my union for instance. Our CBA provides us with 1600 hours of official time per year. That is the total for the President, 4 Vice Presidents, a Secretary, a Treasurer and 40 local representatives. So, we are talking about 1600 hours out of a total of 83,200 total hours. Or looking at the numbers in a cost perspective, this 1600 hours totals about $64,000 in total cost. And considering the number of employees in the federal government, you are talking about $8.50 per year per employee that official time is costing the taxpayer. Not even considering the price that agencies pay for HR specialists and attorneys to keep their managers out of trouble, unions actually save money by making sure workplace conditions are safe and that the workforce is treated fairly, both which increase production.
Re: Official Time
Karl Nervous Hospital Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:28 PM
I reckon the mgmt negotiators should get some kudos from the Army Engineers Commander for doing such a good job. It can be done. Just say no to union demands and make them justify every crumb you give them and get a crumb in return (maybe two).
To diversity manager
worker Fed Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:01 PM
When managers have to pay for their time when they write up workers, then your point might be well taken. It is not appropriate for the government to pay for managers to take their time in writing up workers and the workers have to pay for the time to defend themselves against management garbage.
To Supervisor DOD
worker Fed Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:20 PM
Think we would not be missed.
Start with IRS not collecting any taxes for the government to operate.
Continue with social security not issuing any checks
Continue with the border patrol not on duty. All the non americans can come in.
Not a very good comment Sup DOD
Official Time
Retired LR Manager Retired Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:29 PM
Official Time has traditionally been under reported. Agencies permit union officials to enter their time in their time and accounting reports for payroll. This is a joke. Offical time needs to be better managed. Agency IG like FAA have reports open to public that show abuse. No brainer here.
Don't lose sight of the big picture
Engineer Army Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:22 PM
With all the negative talk about Unions and what they have achieved you think they rule the world. Don't forget only ~8% of the US workforce is Unionized. Is that 8% to be blamed for this country's woes? I don't think so. That 8% is given a lot of credit for the demise of the auto industry. Auto industry labor is less than ~15% per car. WOW! What does GM do with the rest of that money? ~8% impacts congress? What are the other 92% doing? Must be in their rocking chairs watching the show. The anti-union focus could be shifted to bigger targets. You might do this country some good by going after CEO's, Healthcare, Social Security, etc. That's where real change needs to happen.
Official Time Use
Materiel Handler Defense Distribution Mapping Activity Fri May 1, 2009 1:02 PM
There should be more of a concern about NSPS and Contracting Out which are the root causes of more Union Official Time being used and, the cost of these actions.
NSPS and Contracting Out cost a lot more than the increased Union Official Time will ever cost and the Official Time is being used as a smoke screen for to hide the actual cost of those actions. However just like you said Mr. Gilson, (those are your opinions and yours alone).
slanted reporting again
Manager NOT DOT Sun May 3, 2009 9:11 AM
The author's comment of "Plus the Agency likely provides such amenities as computers, printers, internet access, office space, phone service, copy services, paper, desks, file cabinets, and stationery." is completely out of line and intented to inflame the reader. The Federal Union I am affiliated with does not receive these items you mentioned from the Gov't. This author has a long history of Union animous and his comments should be taken accordingly.
Re: slanted reporting again
HR Spec DoD Agency Sun May 3, 2009 2:35 PM
I worked for five different agencies in and around Washington, DC and most of the agencies had several bargaining units.
All of the agencies provided the union with the items that Bob mentioned in his article. Bob is correct. It is routine taxpayer subsidies for the unions that then cost the agency huge amounts of time and money as the union uses its resources to routinely defend employees that should have been fired a long time ago. The big loser is the taxpayer.
One agency had it right. We gave the union president unlimited official time. He did not come to work and he got a check for his salary every two weeks like clockwork every two weeks. Occasionally he would bring a problem to our attention and he usually had a good point and we were able to work with him. He made his $50,000 or so a year; several employees were represented by him each year and we saved the agency hundreds of thousands by not having numerous frivolous complaints. Everyone was happy. Of course, the taxpayer got shafted as the employee never did any work and he was on 100% official time for a few years until he retired. That is how the system really works in some organizations. It is unfortunate to pay someone for doing nothing but, as we are becoming more like the former soviet union every day, it isn't surprising. I anticipate more of the same in private industry as the government takes control along with union ownership of companies like GM and Chrysler.
As a former union member and steward
Worker Bee Fed Agency Tue May 5, 2009 8:55 AM
I'd have to say "I've looked at clouds from both sides now." Was criticized for using too muc official time helping employees document and challenge performance evaluations. Watched my involvement in the union jettison my career as management no longer viewed me as a "team player."
At a new agency and uninvolved in the union, I have seen the stewards spend lots of time defending employees that mgmt has tried to discipline for excessive personal use of their computer to the detriment of agency mission and fail to defend an employee who was made the whipping post for their department (anybody could dump on them with impunity since the manager did it openly, during staff meetings). In the case of this second employee, the union told them to continue to document incidents (altho there were numerous witnesses who offered support). In the case of the lazy entrenched union officer who was reprimanded for spending hours every day shopping on line, the union couldn't do enough. Huh.
Where did the other report go?
Union Steward DOD Thu May 7, 2009 6:27 PM
Last year, I downloaded a LAIRS report on how much each union employee agent makes for my union's local and district offices. My business agent made $95K in 2007. Of course, Federal employees who are union officials, like me, make only their own GS/WG salaries, $48K in 2008 for me, plus the union receives "free paid services" in the amount of Official Time used. Mr. Gilson, Do you know where this report is now hiding?
Union Official Time
Chief, Human Resources Department of Veterans Affairs Mon May 11, 2009 9:13 AM
I believe the offical time usage in the Federal sector is a horrible waste of taxpayers money. The Federal sector has more appeals avenues than the private sector and for the congress to think we need to parallel the private sector with Federal unions is such a misguided notion.
Ronald Reagan, where are you when we need you!!
Mr. Gilson's Sarcasm
Project Manager DoD Mon May 11, 2009 9:27 AM
If all of what R.J. G says was true, then we would not be here. Proof, look at the case law. Many people would be out of a job and no recourse. Based up R.J. G's thinking. Everyone (management) will do the right thing for the worker. Hang in there R.J.G. maybe if you say it long enough and loud enough you will become the management dictator. You for get why we have laws and contracts to try to make sure that we and them have a level playing field. There is waste on both sides here. Remeber that it is managers that get stuck on stupid, that generate the official time usage.
Official time
Union Local President SSA Mon May 11, 2009 9:39 AM
Bob Gilson's article on use of "official time" by union officials in federal agencies might lead one to think that it is a rip-off of taxpayer money. However, in 1978, Congress enacted PL95-454, known as the "Civil Service Reform Act", designed to give clearer direction and create better order in labor relations in the federal government. One purpose of the law is "to provide the people of the United States with a competent, honest and productive Federal work force reflective of the nation's diversity, and to improve the quality of public service." In exchange for providing employees with full collective bargaining rights, the law provides for in-house employee representatives and access to "official time" in which to carry out representational duties. Perhaps instead of insinuating that the dollar cost of "official time" is excessive, Mr. Gilson would better serve us if he took an objective look at whether the use of official time is in keeping with the purposes of the law.
Union Official Time Use
Retired Social Security Administration Mon May 11, 2009 2:02 PM
As an emplyee who worked with union rep who was
assigned to the same work compotent as me. She spent more time in the union office than at her desk. Then when she became an officer of the union she never
work with us againunless there was overtime , then she
had the time to work. The only employees who seemed
to get the most help were the trouble makers and the ones who didn't do their job. Workers need representation but not the type they have at AFGE.
Thank you,
Cathy
Re: Union Official Time Use
BMEU USPS Wed May 13, 2009 12:30 PM
As a union rep, I'd LOVE to spend more time doing the job I'm paid to do, but mgnt's refusal, on a daily basis, to honor the Nat'l Agreement keeps me WAY busier with grievances & settlements than I want to be. Some of you posters seem to be laboring under the delusion that unions do this stuff for kicks-- 'til you need our help, of course--then you want us to file the ONLY righteous grievance you've ever seen...never ceases to amaze me
UNION OFFICIAL TIME USE
Retired Dept of Navy Wed May 13, 2009 12:02 PM
As a retired manager with the DON, I can attest to this abuse. As a first line supervisor, I fought continuously with the shop steward for not accurately reporting his "Union Time"! While I allotted time in my weekly meetings for the Steward to speak, the steward was continually holding "private counseling sessions" with friends. As I progressed up the management chain, the abuse was even more noticeable. While Management might have three or four people at a grievance hearing, the union would have eight to ten officials present. A drive by the union offices would consistently reveal in front, smoking and BSing.
I was in supervision/management for 28 of my 33 year career, and would say this was my #1 complaint and problem. I would say the problem in my area was 50% of union time went unreported, and I continually harped on it. In other areas (especially those having ex-union officials as supervisors), the unreported union time was closer to 80%!
What Official Time Is Used For
Former HR Specialist, Now Union Steward DOD Sat May 16, 2009 12:49 PM
Once the union business agent completes the contract, it's handed over to the employees. Who is there to deal with with daily management problems and research of issues? The lowly and mostly untrained union steward who needs all the Official Time to help employees. I've never met a union steward who was an experienced labor relations specialist but I've seen many former experienced union officials get great jobs in LER. In Federal service you start from the bottom grades (bargaining unit), get to management (supervisor), and then to top of the heap (HRO labor relations). This takes 10-20 years. As a staffing and benefits HR specialist for 22 years I got a lot of training (but limited experience) in labor relations. At least I know a little about the basis for contract provisions in law. It's still hard to find information on websites and obtain hard copies. And there are lots of websites with DOD but only the "good stuff" and professional advisors talk with managers on labor issues.
Postal Unions
Special Agent OIG-USPS Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:32 AM
Great Article! I have witnessed and reported, union officials that work, and I use that term lightly, all day in the "union room". The unions in the post office, especially the NALC, protect the worst of the worst..the slackers and most egregious offenders. Of course they push the big cases, with more chance of high levels of appeal, to get more time to #%*! off! When someone really needs union assistance, for something other than crying over being told to do their job, those employees get little help. Unions, at least in the postal service, have hurt the organization...I have seen it for 30 years. Granted, there are good union officials who work with management to solve issues, but they are in the minority. And headquarters wonders where all the money is...try getting some real work out of these union officials that protect employees with the poorest work ethic in the industry!
Official Time Costs Are A Joke
Council Of Prison Locals Local Treasurer Bureau Of Prisons Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:26 PM
Let's put official time costs in perspective . $120 million You must be kidding. As an example the Burea of Prisons has one of the smallest budgets in all the government in 2009 it is about 6 billion dollars. There are about 3 million Federal Workers so roughly it costs the Government $40.00 per year per employee . It seems kind of funny that they want to cut official time whne they don't want to get rid of agency legislative departments who are paid 100% by the government. The only reason members of congree would suggest such a simple minded cut is because they know Federal unionist oppose most of their hair brain ideas. Not because it will save any money. Please the Government spent more than 120 million in the time it took me to respond to the ignorance of the suggestion.
Official Time?
UMW (AFL-CIO
Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:01 AM
What is this official time referred to in this article? Is it the opposite of unofficial time? If so, what is unofficial time? How much of this "official time" also involved another bargaining unit employee? I guess you can add that time in there too. Also, how much time involved a manager? I guess you can add that time in there too.
It seems to me that it was cheaper back in my time when, if we disagreed with management, we just smashed windows of the plant-and we did it on our own time-. You can repair a heck of a lot of busted windows with that kind of dough.
Re: Official Time?
FAA
Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:29 PM
You don't like the fact that some of your dirty little secrets are being aired in public so you make fun of the author rather than try to justify the use of public funds to pay for union activity. I guess that would be a pretty hard case to make though.
Re: Official Time?
Teamsters Union
Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:01 PM
Re: Official Time?
IRS
Fri May 1, 2009 8:51 AM
And the numbers are on the Very Low side too!
FED
Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:09 AM
Agencies seem to fudge these numbers as one agency I seen there was at least double of hours the management leadership submitted to OPM. They knowingly missrepresented the number so it did not look like they were using excessive official time! so this number is on the low side believe me.
Official time
IRS
Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:42 AM
Hey Obama, here's a great opportunity to cut spending, put these guys back to work and get 'em off our dime!
Re: Official time
HHS
Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:44 PM
I mean, just LOOK at your typical union employee. Are you proud of that? They are what drove this economy, a la Detroit's pig trough of bennies, into the gutter.
It's been my experience that the "serious" issues brought up by the union are normally related to defending those employees not up to the task. They love socialism where no one really has to do any work but everyone gets paid. Overwhelmingly votring for obama and his ilk, they hope for a time when they run the Animal Farm.
It's sad, really.
Re: Official time
IRS
Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:12 PM
Re: Official time
DOD
Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:29 PM
Re: Official time
DOL
Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:59 PM
Re: Official time
DoD
Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:32 AM
Re: Official time
DOD
Fri May 1, 2009 11:50 AM
Anti-labor sentiment
Federal Agency
Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:43 AM
Perhaps this is no more than a sign of the anti-labor environment that has existed for the past eight years. Just because it is in the federal sector, does not mean the anti-labor sentiment does not exist here too. I think this increase is only indicative of the problems that labor unions face....keep in mind, unions are a response to poor management. Poor management can (and does!) occur in the federal government, too.
In our union, much of our time is spent researching issues which includes a lot of time reading case law, rules and regulations of our agency. Unfortunately, this does take a lot of time. None of us want to spend more time than we have to, but when managers are violating the collective bargaining agreement, we have to ensure that we protect the rights of the employees. Now, if only managers would pay as much attention, perhaps the official time would be reduced.
Re: Anti-labor sentiment
OIG-USPS
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:40 AM
Not so quick to judge!
Army
Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:45 AM
First, I've been on both sides. Not that many years ago, I was the Union Representative.
Its difficult to account for official time on an agency basis. As we know, there are several hundred differernt unions just within the DOD and the numbers grow once you realize an organization may deal with several of them within a small geographic area.
Sometimes the use of official time is to deal with employee grievances, but often it is related to changes in working conditions that need to be mutaully negotiated. Frequently, these changes are proposed by managment.
Let's not be quick to blame Labor for wasting government time and money. Their is plenty of blame to go around and yes, even if Mr. Gilson or I dont want to admit it Management deserves their part.
I believe Mr. Gilson does not serve the public well in his constant Labor criticism.
And how much time does management take?
Cabinet Agency
Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:48 AM
The real question is: how much time do management, general counsel and labor relations take on personnel issues? For the union is only responding to situations where management is disciplining an employee - very often because of trumped up charges - or behaving in ways that violate the law. It's federal law that the union represents employees in these cases - there's no-one else. So - need a comparison to be fair.
Gilson's sarcasm!
A big one
Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:49 AM
I am an Agency Rep and even I am bothered buy your tone and sarcasm. It is like you have no understanding of the history of the FSLMRS and just want to write to inflame a response. The American public has a choice...they can either give Union officials official time to do their jobs or give them the right to strike. What do you think will cost more? If Federal govt employees could strike it would cost the govt billions of dollars in lost productivity as well as put the mission of the govt at risk. So if you look at thelegislative history behind the FSLMRS, that is why official time exists. It was a trade-off for not allowing employees to strike. You do the math and tell me which one you would prefer!
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DoD Agency
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:06 AM
And, even more ironic, the taxpayer pays for the union to file numerous complaints, appeals, etc. against the government--while also paying the agency fees.
It is a classic government scheme for the taxpayer--in this case the unions wins big and the taxpayer picks up the entire bill.
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
SSA/DOJ
Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:04 AM
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DoD
Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:53 PM
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DOD
Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:34 PM
Allow the right to strike and bargain wages in lieu of official time, and allow a closed shop by a vote of the represented employees to be determined by a simple majority of those who vote in such an election.
Unions would no longer have to fight for official time. Nor would they have to save thier pennies for arbitrations.
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DOL
Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:10 PM
This would be a real test case for the BO administration as to identifying waste, see how many taxpayers complain when an agency is on strike
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DOL
Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:46 AM
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DFAS
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:37 PM
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DOL
Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:57 PM
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DoD
Fri May 1, 2009 7:24 AM
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DFAS
Fri May 1, 2009 8:22 AM
Research working conditions in the Marianas Islands--a conservative, non-union paradise--and then get back to us.
Re: Gilson's sarcasm!
DoD
Fri May 1, 2009 9:13 AM
The rest of the world does NOT survive without protection. They just take advantage of whatever changes get negotiated. Of course, all those claims DoD whines about are still filed no matter if it is a union shop or not. At least with a union, there is a better chance of the WORKER being protected.
Our managers love to say they are offering a "new benefit" when, in reality, the benefit is a result of long hours at the table negotiating said benefit to be the best it can be for everyone. And yes--every time a new benefit is negotiated, it trickles up. Management gets the same terms as the workers, even as they complain about it.
Official time for union stewards etc.
Fed
Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:57 AM
I cannot speak about the agency author is talking about, but I can give my impressions concerning the agency I work for.
The purpose of this time is for union activities. A major part of union activities is to represent non management people who are accused of various wrongdoings by management. This is done by union stewards who are paid their normal salaries for this activity. There are other union activities that I am not familiar with, but an NTEU officer or steward would have to explain that. These are charges that the author is talking about. They are negotiated in the contracts with management.
Would the author prefer that the workers have no representation? Would the author prefer that the workers pay the full freight? Probably yes, because this is another example of his anti union-anti worker nonsense.
It is easu to put these numbers in perspective. What are these numbers relative to the cost of running the government. Bet it is very low.
Hourly rates
Fed Agency
Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:04 AM
Bob - I think your comment that "union reps looking for more pay" should check out the MSPB or SEC is a bit misleading. It's not that certain agencies are simply more generous in paying their union reps. At least with respect to collateral duty union reps, they are paid at their regular rate of pay for representational activities. Thus, their rate of pay is a function of their position and not necessarily what Agency they work for. If you have agencies were only professional employees (generally GS-13+) happen to be represented by a bargaining unit, then their rate of pay will consequently be higher.
I do appreciate your providing the link to the OPM report - it is interesting to see that at my own agency (which shall remain unnamed!) there was a huge increase in the number of representational hours reported from FY2007 to FY2008. I have no idea why.
Numbers
DoN
Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:05 AM
The hourly rate for the Armed Forces Retirement Home, $20.40, somehow seems lower to me than the $21.30 for the IBWC, and they actually charged some time. I also found it interesting that there is an Agency with one member in a Union; I wonder how frequently they need to hold elections to pick representatives, etc.
Is that all?
Navy
Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:46 AM
ONLY $120 Million?! Under-reporting is definitely a problem. At our activity we have at least 20 folks on FULLTIME union time plus all the part-timers running around. At an average of $50k each that comes to $1 million just for the full-timers (just in salary, not the accelerated rate to cover benefits). By those stats our one activity would have 1 percent of the official time, for the ENTIRE government. I'm sure we are not the only ones where official time is virtually uncontrolled. Just one union has a budget providing for 17 fulltimers, but they think they need 23.
YOUR tax dollars at work. I suspect the real figure is more like $1 billion, not $120 million.
Here's an Opinion for the Author!
USCIS
Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:50 AM
Don't think your piece of writing is fooling any conscientious readers. No matter what side of the Labor/Management debate folks are on, it's an easy mark to imply that this is wasteful money without presenting any information as to what the official time hours are used for. Please do us all a favor and at least try a little harder. Talk is cheap. Official time costs money for a reason.
Re: Here's an Opinion for the Author!
DOL
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:01 PM
Union Official Time
HUD
Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:54 AM
What he report should measure is not the cost versus what the Union brings in in dues, but what Union's try to save the Agency/what improper employment actions they correct.
For example, it was my local that brought out management's waste of over $4 million on an inter building move. Even when we elevated the issue, nothing was done to correct the problem. I have always advocated that if a contractor can do the job effectively and more efficiently, they should do so. Our local as well as several others documented hundreds of millions in waste. Since that was not the policy at the time, we were ignorred - and continue to be.
Maybe not all Union locals act the same way, but some of us make every attempt to protect the taxpayer (because we are them); protect the Agency (since that is our best means to job security), and protect our people from arbitrary rules promulgated by untrained management.
Official time
Agriculture
Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:54 AM
There is no causal relationship between official time and dues. By linking the two measures, your piece implies that some sort of mechanistic or causal relationship must exist. This is a dubious assumption at best, and one you should explicitly articulate if you aspire to intellectual honesty rather than just union bashing. You may as well howl at the moon about the costs of agency management as a ratio of managers' association membership fees. The amount of official time used should be related to the amount of legitimate representational work that must be performed. That's the system. Dues have nothing to do with it. Though I do have to agree with you that I'd like to see the dues/official time ratio increase -- there are too many employees getting representation for free who need to step up, join up, and pay their fair share for services rendered.
Just ask
OPM
Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:58 AM
Bob,
All you had to do was ask us for a copy. It isn't on the website yet because we are revamping it and the reports will be added when the new screens are up.
Frank
Thanks for finding report
DoD Agency
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:02 AM
The main point that seems to have escaped many of those commenting is that this report would probably never have seen the light of day if Bob Gilson had not searched it out and made it available. The $120 million is vastly understated but at least it scratches the surface.
Many in the media just parrot the press releases. I am pleased to see that someone actually took the time to find the report and make it available. If you don't like what is in it, or don't like the fact that it is available, or don't think the public should even know about it, you are probably just trying to cover up the real cost of unions in government. And, rather than employees deciding whether they are worth spending money on, the government just hands over the money.
In fact, come to think of it, the administration is doing the same thing. Isn't America great? We will all get something for nothing. I wonder who will eventually get stuck with the bill? Perhaps our grandchildren.
Thanks, Bob, for digging this up and not going along with the crowd that usually just caters to those that scream the loudest about being abused--while scarfing up the many benefits available to them.
Official Time
DFAS
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:14 AM
It seems to me that the best way to cut the use of official time is for management to honor the labor contract they agreed to. Fewer grievances=less official time used. I was a steward once and working even a cut-and-dried grievance is time-consuming.
Re: Official Time
Fed Govt
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:58 AM
Re: Official Time
DFAS
Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:46 PM
When I was a steward, we discouraged the filing of grievances where the management had a strong case and the employee was in the wrong. They waste everybody's time, and we stewards didn't have it to spare.
Re: Official Time
Fed Govt
Fri May 1, 2009 2:25 PM
Management funds spent fighting Union's
Social Security Administration
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:22 AM
The agency Labor Relations, CREO, Human Resources spend 100% of their time, in greater number, fighting union's seeking fair and equitable treatment of employees. One union steward against a team of management officials per case. Cut the amount of management personnel and time spent by management on each case against one union official.
OPM's Closely Held Report of Union Official Time U
HHS
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:29 AM
How do you spell theft? By the end of the Obama Administration the union fat cats will be doing better than there Teamster idols.
fair and balanced
Executive Branch Agency
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:35 AM
Do you have the numbers for the time and money spent by Labor and Employee Relations? I'm sure "official time" costs are a fraction of that number. Hopefully, with the current administration, the need to use official time will decrease.
Reporting Official Time
Somewhere
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:42 AM
Some agencies do not code time the way OPM codes official time for union representation so there is a huge fudge factor.
I have been in agencies where managers' time was quite a bit more in total than union's time, so double or triple these figures to come up with how much is spent on labor management relations.
In one agency the union negotiated groundrules over one year, because they COULD. They have gone over 20 years without a new master labor agreement and were impassing everything they could under Bush 43 just so they could get serious when a new administration would be installed--again, because they could. Figures don't say anything about abuse of process
Figures don't reflect where pro-active labor management relations is practiced (as where I am now) resulting in little formal third party procedures because both parties recognize that win-win (collaboration) is better than win-lose (traditional bargaining) or lose-lose (litigating everything).
union time
US Postal Service
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:50 AM
I bet if union time was off the clock at there own location we would have a lot less cry babys trying to get out of work. They always complain about someone else doing there job, but refuse to quit taking half hour breaks. Wake up people................
employee protection
USPS
Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:03 AM
In these days of "performance pay" mgm't will go to the edge of the rules to squeeze for the numbers that get the bonus. To hell with service and union contracts (unless enforced!)
All of you need to get back to your work...NOW.
Unions make a positive difference
San Francisco VA Medical Center-
Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:15 AM
As a Registered Nurse who proudly serves American Veterans and those who care for them, our Union protects workers and assures them a fair deal. After 30 years of service at the VA, in staff positions and as a Associate Chief Nurse and now Union President, we are worth every cent. Our Local won the Secretary of the VA Award for Labor/Management Relations for 2007 because we were able to demonstate how working in partnership with management improves productivity, staff morale and performance and thus patient care and outcomes. We file very few grievances and no ULP's under my watch, because we know how to talk to each other and accomplish a win-win. I work 24/7 because I represent the Professional staff who work 24/7 and neither request of recieve any additional money. My first responsibilty remains the same as it was when I walked through the door of this great Medical Center 30 years ago. The American Veteran comes first followed by those heroes who care for them. Patricia RN, MS.
Re: Unions make a positive difference
worker
Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:13 PM
Re: Unions make a positive difference
DOL
Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:16 PM
Re: Unions make a positive difference
Small College
Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:49 AM
From conservative to labor leader and Gilson's why
transportation related
Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:28 AM
I grew up in a southern state as a conservative hating unions. Government management and doctrinaire and myopic views like that expressed by Gilson are why I became a union founder and leader.
The time we spend providing checks and balances against a management that is often outright malfeasant or random and indignant at its most innocent are in the nation's and taxpayers interest. The public is safer because the union is here providing information to it and oversight to management.
Official Time
Army Corps of Engineers
Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:44 AM
Having been a Union Steward I can comment on the implication that the Government is subsidizing the Unions.
My Union steward time was generally spent fighting managers who could or would not follow the Government's own rules.
It is rather unfair to say that the taxpayers are subsidizing the Union when in fact much of the time is spent keeping the Government managers honest.
By doing so, the Professional Union and I, acting as a steward, were actually attempting to protect the Government from costly and harmful actions initiated by aggrevied employees resulting from harm done to them by maverick managers.
Re: Official Time
worker
Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:19 PM
use of offical time
OFCCP
Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:47 AM
Mr. Glisson:
As usual you continue to belittle the Union and it's role for the employees in government. Additionally, you continue to solicit for more work by advertising your expertise in dealing with Unions - wow (double dipper, eh?).
If, the Agencies and their managers basically conducted themselves in a proper way and didn't become such pompas asses - we probably would not need a Union per se. However, the reason we continue to have a Union is basically because of people who hold the same ideals and values that you do - "Do As I Say Types" and I'm in Command - Bullying types as well.
Maybe, you should rethink that if we did not have Unions - you would not have anything to talk about or speak from the Bully Pulpit about.
These comments are soley mine and you can talk with me anytime about them - I implore you to discuss with me anytime.
Re: use of offical time
Small College
Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:56 AM
Wake Up Call
Nervous Hospital
Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:16 PM
I reckon Bob woke up all the union apologists with this article. Stop it Bob. It's too easy.
some good and bad on both sides.
IRS
Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:24 PM
Ihave heard there are good union stewards out there but.....I havent seen one at work yet.
I did witness one that smoked for up to 6 hours on union time, then worked only 1 hour a day. Now, dont go attacking me for stating what I witnessed. But in the times I asked the union to help me, I did a much better job doing the work myself. EEO was more in touch with the employees, union makes you feel like they are just after your money. They use to say, "we are the ones responsible for getting you your raises".........well.......are they also responsible for 'bama boy taking our raises away this year?......oh whoopsie, that was our lack of "stimulus" package........bankers do a better job then the union does.......they at least get money from the goverment and the healthy bonus' too.....yep, thats it, we need the bankers to be our union reps!
Finally something that makes sense!
Re: some good and bad on both sides.
Cabinet Agency
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:40 PM
Union Value (lack thereof)
DON
Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:34 PM
The unions may have been a good thing in the past but if they persist all jobs will be outsourced because Americans will not pay outlandish prices for goods manufactured by overpaid workers. The unions only serve to line their pockets and stiffle productivity. They will go to the ends of the earth to protect an unproductive worker. Also, the unions tend to skew to local fair makret values. Where else but in Detroit can a high school graduate earn $30 an hour to install gloveboxers? Only in union stronghold areas does that seem appropriate.
Union Official Time
American Federation of Government Employees
Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:29 PM
Mr. Gilson,
After reading your article on Union Official Time I have a couple of questions for you.
How much government time is used by the full time GS11/12/13 or YA Labor Relations Specialist and Directers each year, including all the travel to training and etc? Thats not counting the GS14/15 or YA government attorneys. They don't always handle grievances & etc.
Is if fair to have all these Labor Relation Specialist working to protect management from their mistakes or errors, along with baby sitting them when there is a justified action that needs to be taken against an employee?
Is it only fair that employees have someone to represent them, just as management has someone to represent them. On Government time.
I am a retired WG11 Building Inspector who was elected to the President of Local 1209 when I still was working. I have continued to be President after I retired with little compensation. I feel it is important that employees have a representive.
Aloha, Frank J. Ethridge
And on the other hand
DOD
Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:23 PM
I was a union official for nearly 20 years. And was amazed at how I would have to face three managers, a labor relations officer, and a labor attorney because they questioned my use of literally, a few minutes of "official time". Once we got past that, the time was spend settling the issue.
So excuse me for my use of offical time, for which I am not ashamed. But lets look at the resources management uses. If agencies made actions by idiot supervisors a firing offense instead of promoting those same managers, then maybe you'd see the hours come down even further.
Almost forgot - all this time is not a drop in the bucket compared to what they spent on NSPS in DOD.
on the clock
postal
Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:41 PM
If managers would start obeying the contract...they would not have as much time....a no brainer!!!!
So What?
Army
Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:50 AM
I understand that $100M in cuts would keep the government running for an additional 53 seconds. In that context, the numbers cited by the author are small potatos.
OPM REPORT ON OFFICIAL UNION TIME.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:37 AM
Unions, like governments are a necessary evil of modern society. I feel better knowing that there are organizations out there devouted to protecting the working person and fighting for better pay and benefits.
What employer would voluntarily give an employee a pay raise and more benefits if it didn't have to?
I would rather have the government spend some of its resources on my well being than on the well- being of illegal aliens. I implore you to stop portraying unions as the bad guys and acknowledge that unions are an important part of a free society that aren't "free"
Unions
Internal Revenue Service
Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:18 AM
You write about unions as if they were some intrusive, parasitical foreign entity free-loading off taxpayer dollars. Federal unions are government employees collectively organized to preserve their rights and benefits. When i buy my automobile, inherent in the cost are similar labor costs neccesary to ensure auto workers' rights and benefits. What a shock. after thirty years of anti-labor administrations, representation costs are high. Rather than lamenting the dollar figure, agencies should be looking at the problems and dissatisfaction among employees that such high costs represent.
Re: Unions
Nervous Hospital
Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:37 AM
I reckon I was struck by the naivete of the comment about costs-any costs-being "inherent" in the production cost of an automobile, or any other product for that matter. This type of thinking gives rise to business failures. GM and Chrysler come to mind for some unknown reason.
I'm hungry. Whatcha got good ta eat in dare Ralph?
Re: Unions
Department of Treasury
Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:04 AM
Re: Unions
Nervous Hospital
Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:42 AM
I reckon I said someone was talking about all the GOOD LR types that were purged.
I don't recall talking about unnecessary costs. I was talking about the mindset that all costs are inherent. I reckon you don't read so good. Myself, I read some books. I don't understand all of what I read but I reckon I understand a good deal of it.
Re: Unions
Been There/Done That
Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:46 AM
Union time use
Ag
Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:34 AM
Numbers are terrible things, aren't they? The unions view it as their sinecure. The rest of us view it as a waste of resources. But, of course, we are always told we don't know what we are talking about. So I tend to agree that such documentaion will be harder to comel by in the future.
Taxpayer's rights
Navy
Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:23 AM
Management rights ... Union rights ... employee rights ... Seems to me that everyone is losing sight of the folks who's rights should really concern us. Whatever happened to the TAXPAYER? Aren't they paying for this?
Re: Taxpayer's rights
Department of Treasury
Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:10 AM
Gilson's Comments on Official Time
Various Federal Agencies
Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:22 AM
Bob appears to have forgotten that unions and collective bargaining are in the public interest. How do we know? 5 U.S.C. 7101 tells us so. Giving lots of official time certainly furthers this objective.
Re: Gilson's Comments on Official Time
Navy
Fri May 1, 2009 9:34 AM
Ridiculous!
EPA
Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:39 AM
As useless and inactive as AFGE is in my region, this amount of money is insane. No way they should be getting that much for so little useful activity.
Re: Ridiculous!
DFAS
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:39 PM
What would you do?
VA
Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:34 AM
It's always nice to bash the union until you need represntation. Currently, our management is of the mind set that they can conduct "mandatory" business meetings during our lunch break simply because they offer to buy the food. By doing this they don't have to report non-productive time to the headquarters.
So, you either give up your lunch break or complain to somebody; but, what if there was nobody to hear you?
Official Time
Army Corp of Engineers
Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:57 AM
It's too bad that FedSmith does not have a contributing author to counter Mr. Gilson's anti-union, anti-worker biased numbers. Take my union for instance. Our CBA provides us with 1600 hours of official time per year. That is the total for the President, 4 Vice Presidents, a Secretary, a Treasurer and 40 local representatives. So, we are talking about 1600 hours out of a total of 83,200 total hours. Or looking at the numbers in a cost perspective, this 1600 hours totals about $64,000 in total cost. And considering the number of employees in the federal government, you are talking about $8.50 per year per employee that official time is costing the taxpayer. Not even considering the price that agencies pay for HR specialists and attorneys to keep their managers out of trouble, unions actually save money by making sure workplace conditions are safe and that the workforce is treated fairly, both which increase production.
Re: Official Time
Nervous Hospital
Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:28 PM
To diversity manager
Fed
Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:01 PM
When managers have to pay for their time when they write up workers, then your point might be well taken. It is not appropriate for the government to pay for managers to take their time in writing up workers and the workers have to pay for the time to defend themselves against management garbage.
To Supervisor DOD
Fed
Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:20 PM
Think we would not be missed.
Start with IRS not collecting any taxes for the government to operate.
Continue with social security not issuing any checks
Continue with the border patrol not on duty. All the non americans can come in.
Not a very good comment Sup DOD
Official Time
Retired
Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:29 PM
Official Time has traditionally been under reported. Agencies permit union officials to enter their time in their time and accounting reports for payroll. This is a joke. Offical time needs to be better managed. Agency IG like FAA have reports open to public that show abuse. No brainer here.
Don't lose sight of the big picture
Army
Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:22 PM
With all the negative talk about Unions and what they have achieved you think they rule the world. Don't forget only ~8% of the US workforce is Unionized. Is that 8% to be blamed for this country's woes? I don't think so. That 8% is given a lot of credit for the demise of the auto industry. Auto industry labor is less than ~15% per car. WOW! What does GM do with the rest of that money? ~8% impacts congress? What are the other 92% doing? Must be in their rocking chairs watching the show. The anti-union focus could be shifted to bigger targets. You might do this country some good by going after CEO's, Healthcare, Social Security, etc. That's where real change needs to happen.
Official Time Use
Defense Distribution Mapping Activity
Fri May 1, 2009 1:02 PM
There should be more of a concern about NSPS and Contracting Out which are the root causes of more Union Official Time being used and, the cost of these actions.
NSPS and Contracting Out cost a lot more than the increased Union Official Time will ever cost and the Official Time is being used as a smoke screen for to hide the actual cost of those actions. However just like you said Mr. Gilson, (those are your opinions and yours alone).
slanted reporting again
DOT
Sun May 3, 2009 9:11 AM
The author's comment of "Plus the Agency likely provides such amenities as computers, printers, internet access, office space, phone service, copy services, paper, desks, file cabinets, and stationery." is completely out of line and intented to inflame the reader. The Federal Union I am affiliated with does not receive these items you mentioned from the Gov't. This author has a long history of Union animous and his comments should be taken accordingly.
Re: slanted reporting again
DoD Agency
Sun May 3, 2009 2:35 PM
All of the agencies provided the union with the items that Bob mentioned in his article. Bob is correct. It is routine taxpayer subsidies for the unions that then cost the agency huge amounts of time and money as the union uses its resources to routinely defend employees that should have been fired a long time ago. The big loser is the taxpayer.
One agency had it right. We gave the union president unlimited official time. He did not come to work and he got a check for his salary every two weeks like clockwork every two weeks. Occasionally he would bring a problem to our attention and he usually had a good point and we were able to work with him. He made his $50,000 or so a year; several employees were represented by him each year and we saved the agency hundreds of thousands by not having numerous frivolous complaints. Everyone was happy. Of course, the taxpayer got shafted as the employee never did any work and he was on 100% official time for a few years until he retired. That is how the system really works in some organizations. It is unfortunate to pay someone for doing nothing but, as we are becoming more like the former soviet union every day, it isn't surprising. I anticipate more of the same in private industry as the government takes control along with union ownership of companies like GM and Chrysler.
As a former union member and steward
Fed Agency
Tue May 5, 2009 8:55 AM
I'd have to say "I've looked at clouds from both sides now." Was criticized for using too muc official time helping employees document and challenge performance evaluations. Watched my involvement in the union jettison my career as management no longer viewed me as a "team player."
At a new agency and uninvolved in the union, I have seen the stewards spend lots of time defending employees that mgmt has tried to discipline for excessive personal use of their computer to the detriment of agency mission and fail to defend an employee who was made the whipping post for their department (anybody could dump on them with impunity since the manager did it openly, during staff meetings). In the case of this second employee, the union told them to continue to document incidents (altho there were numerous witnesses who offered support). In the case of the lazy entrenched union officer who was reprimanded for spending hours every day shopping on line, the union couldn't do enough. Huh.
Where did the other report go?
DOD
Thu May 7, 2009 6:27 PM
Last year, I downloaded a LAIRS report on how much each union employee agent makes for my union's local and district offices. My business agent made $95K in 2007. Of course, Federal employees who are union officials, like me, make only their own GS/WG salaries, $48K in 2008 for me, plus the union receives "free paid services" in the amount of Official Time used. Mr. Gilson, Do you know where this report is now hiding?
Union Official Time
Department of Veterans Affairs
Mon May 11, 2009 9:13 AM
I believe the offical time usage in the Federal sector is a horrible waste of taxpayers money. The Federal sector has more appeals avenues than the private sector and for the congress to think we need to parallel the private sector with Federal unions is such a misguided notion.
Ronald Reagan, where are you when we need you!!
Mr. Gilson's Sarcasm
DoD
Mon May 11, 2009 9:27 AM
If all of what R.J. G says was true, then we would not be here. Proof, look at the case law. Many people would be out of a job and no recourse. Based up R.J. G's thinking. Everyone (management) will do the right thing for the worker. Hang in there R.J.G. maybe if you say it long enough and loud enough you will become the management dictator. You for get why we have laws and contracts to try to make sure that we and them have a level playing field. There is waste on both sides here. Remeber that it is managers that get stuck on stupid, that generate the official time usage.
Official time
SSA
Mon May 11, 2009 9:39 AM
Bob Gilson's article on use of "official time" by union officials in federal agencies might lead one to think that it is a rip-off of taxpayer money. However, in 1978, Congress enacted PL95-454, known as the "Civil Service Reform Act", designed to give clearer direction and create better order in labor relations in the federal government. One purpose of the law is "to provide the people of the United States with a competent, honest and productive Federal work force reflective of the nation's diversity, and to improve the quality of public service." In exchange for providing employees with full collective bargaining rights, the law provides for in-house employee representatives and access to "official time" in which to carry out representational duties. Perhaps instead of insinuating that the dollar cost of "official time" is excessive, Mr. Gilson would better serve us if he took an objective look at whether the use of official time is in keeping with the purposes of the law.
Union Official Time Use
Social Security Administration
Mon May 11, 2009 2:02 PM
As an emplyee who worked with union rep who was
assigned to the same work compotent as me. She spent more time in the union office than at her desk. Then when she became an officer of the union she never
work with us againunless there was overtime , then she
had the time to work. The only employees who seemed
to get the most help were the trouble makers and the ones who didn't do their job. Workers need representation but not the type they have at AFGE.
Thank you,
Cathy
Re: Union Official Time Use
USPS
Wed May 13, 2009 12:30 PM
UNION OFFICIAL TIME USE
Dept of Navy
Wed May 13, 2009 12:02 PM
As a retired manager with the DON, I can attest to this abuse. As a first line supervisor, I fought continuously with the shop steward for not accurately reporting his "Union Time"! While I allotted time in my weekly meetings for the Steward to speak, the steward was continually holding "private counseling sessions" with friends. As I progressed up the management chain, the abuse was even more noticeable. While Management might have three or four people at a grievance hearing, the union would have eight to ten officials present. A drive by the union offices would consistently reveal in front, smoking and BSing.
I was in supervision/management for 28 of my 33 year career, and would say this was my #1 complaint and problem. I would say the problem in my area was 50% of union time went unreported, and I continually harped on it. In other areas (especially those having ex-union officials as supervisors), the unreported union time was closer to 80%!
What Official Time Is Used For
DOD
Sat May 16, 2009 12:49 PM
Once the union business agent completes the contract, it's handed over to the employees. Who is there to deal with with daily management problems and research of issues? The lowly and mostly untrained union steward who needs all the Official Time to help employees. I've never met a union steward who was an experienced labor relations specialist but I've seen many former experienced union officials get great jobs in LER. In Federal service you start from the bottom grades (bargaining unit), get to management (supervisor), and then to top of the heap (HRO labor relations). This takes 10-20 years. As a staffing and benefits HR specialist for 22 years I got a lot of training (but limited experience) in labor relations. At least I know a little about the basis for contract provisions in law. It's still hard to find information on websites and obtain hard copies. And there are lots of websites with DOD but only the "good stuff" and professional advisors talk with managers on labor issues.
Postal Unions
OIG-USPS
Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:32 AM
Great Article! I have witnessed and reported, union officials that work, and I use that term lightly, all day in the "union room". The unions in the post office, especially the NALC, protect the worst of the worst..the slackers and most egregious offenders. Of course they push the big cases, with more chance of high levels of appeal, to get more time to #%*! off! When someone really needs union assistance, for something other than crying over being told to do their job, those employees get little help. Unions, at least in the postal service, have hurt the organization...I have seen it for 30 years. Granted, there are good union officials who work with management to solve issues, but they are in the minority. And headquarters wonders where all the money is...try getting some real work out of these union officials that protect employees with the poorest work ethic in the industry!
Official Time Costs Are A Joke
Bureau Of Prisons
Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:26 PM
Let's put official time costs in perspective . $120 million You must be kidding. As an example the Burea of Prisons has one of the smallest budgets in all the government in 2009 it is about 6 billion dollars. There are about 3 million Federal Workers so roughly it costs the Government $40.00 per year per employee . It seems kind of funny that they want to cut official time whne they don't want to get rid of agency legislative departments who are paid 100% by the government. The only reason members of congree would suggest such a simple minded cut is because they know Federal unionist oppose most of their hair brain ideas. Not because it will save any money. Please the Government spent more than 120 million in the time it took me to respond to the ignorance of the suggestion.