Re: Power

DoD worker is correct. I often saw federal unions sacrifice employees in power plays. Even when I disagreed with their position, I respected unions when their goal was to protect employee rights and benefits. Too often that was neither the aim or result of union activity. They usually only contributed to the problems. Union susccesses are rare and extremely costly to members and taypayers alike. At best they are not cost effective. At worst, they harm workers too.

Re: Power

There are three parties in the relationship: agency, union, and employee. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of labor law to group any two of them together as having inherently the same interest.

Re: Power

Labor lawyer: Well stated, but meaningless. Union positions and policies should benefit the workforce as a whole. Unfortunately, union leaders often push their own bias and agenda at the expense of employees. They frequently go to great effort simply to make management look bad, harming workers in the process. Union activity comes at significant additional and unnecessary expense to both members and taxpayers. At best they are ineffective and costly. At worst - useless or detrimental.

Re: Time for True Collective Bargainlike rest of USA

Sorry AFGE, but the better answer is to abolish the union. How could the union stand in the way of pay raises for its bargaining unit members and then delay them further by going to the FSIP?

Granted management totally screwed up by not waiting for the FSIP. Management should have waited and told its employees that it could not give them pay raises because of the union.

Re: Time for True Collective Bargainlike rest of USA

I agree CS should have the ability to negotiate pay but they have to do it with the taxpayers!!!!
Want to bet they will get take aways rather than ever seeing another dime

Re: Time for True Collective Bargainlike rest of USA

That you could compare your employment in the federal government with being a slave on a plantation is obscene. How much is your pay increase this year?

Re: Time for True Collective Bargainlike rest of USA

What a mess here. Tone it down.
We are not working in a plantation. We are not slaves or serfs. Granted, we cannot negotiate wages or go on strike, but we are not slaves.
Unions are necessary because certain managers and management officials will walk all over you. I have seen it with bad managers. However, the union steward was worthless with this one. A previous union steward was very good with the same manager on the previous occasion. I now have an excellent manager. A present union steward works with us in a positive way.
Diversity manager should write with some sense. The union is to negotiate with 200000000 taxpayers? Get real.
Our next raise will probably not be very good due to the depression we are in. However, we are not slaves.

Re: Respect

I'm not sure I understand what respect has to do with this. This was essentially a Queen's gambit masterfully played by the Union. They gambled that management would not wait for the completion of FSIP proceedings and they were right. This gave them the opportunity to capitalize on that error and wrest even more money from the agency. This is a prime example of how goofy the Labor Laws are that they allow the Union to punish an agency for doing something good for their employees. Agree with them or not, you have to admire NTEU for knowing how to play the game.

Re: SEC Dispute

Accordng to the actual decision, "(b)oth the Union and SEC management had eagerly anticipated the passage of this Act. The Union signaled ... its willingness to begin bargaining... On 4/18, SEC Chairman Pitt sent out an email to all mployees stating the SEC hoped to implement the new system on 5/19. Formal bargaining began 4/22. Negotiations reached an impasse and the Union filed for assistance with the Federal Services Impasse Panel on 5/15. The SEC and the Union were unable to break the impasse when they met again ..., at which point management notified employees that it would unilaterally implement the SEC’s proposed pay plan ... On 11/18, the NTEU filed 2 unfair labor practice charges, alleging the SEC violated ... the Federal Service Labor-Management Statute..by unilaterally implementing the new pay plan and ending automatic annual within-grade increases ... before the completion of the bargaining process." This was hardly a case of NTEU fighting to pay.

Re: SEC Dispute

Rather than fighting to preserve power and deny employees a pay increase, NTEU was fighting to ensure that the new pay system would be fairly and equitably implemented. I realise the actual content of the decision is not as sensational as the excerpt cited in the article and, consequently, failes to stir anti-union animus; however, SEC management circumvented due process and its statutory obligation to negitate in good faith. It's E-mail notification to employees of the desired date for implemetation and unilateral implementation, make its attempt to negotiate as sincere as the prior administration's atempt to perusade the United Nations of the merit of its case for war. Both efforts were disingenuous and only briefly deterred the administration and agency, respectively, from doing what they wanted. The Court interpreted the statute correctly.

Re: SEC Dispute

Rather than just knocking the summary and headline as a defense of the union's actions in this case, keep in mind it was the opinion of the court that this is the "sort of dispute that could only arise between public employees and a governmental agency...Counterintuitive though it may be, we agree the FLRA has properly resolved this odd controversy...."

Re: SEC Dispute

HRS-IRS, you are right on in your assessment of the situation, surprisingly given your institutional position within the agency. What many of the posters and author of the article have failed to do was to investigate the underlying labor law and more importantly the issue itself. Strange on the media can twist news. Yes the conservatives can do it as effectively as the liberals. NTEU's filing of the ULP was to protect the entire workforce within the SEC, over which it has exclusive representation. Rather than rush a new system into existence without protections, NTEU sought to negotiate the ground rules on such things as how the raises would be computed, distributed amongst the workforce and would there be proper checks and balances should certain employees have if they felt they were not treated properly. We all know what a mess PFP was. This was an attempt to eliminate that prior to instituting the new system.

Re: SEC Dispute

Many times management ,in its rush to implement a new system, does not consider consequences of its actions. The fact that NTEU halted this by filing an ULP, does not harm the entire workforce. In fact it can often be said that it benefits everyone, not just the few. I'm sure there will be retro-active pay raises once an agreement is reached at the bargaining table. Abolish the unions and you will be back in the civil service era of the 30's and 40's where cronyism ran rampant. For those that lament the unions, especially agencies within Treasury, one can assume that you may have had some issues with NTEU that may have left you feeling less than whole.

Re: Power Play

What was the obligation of the SEC to prevent exorbitant legal costs? Delaying implementation until bargaining and potentially arbitration were completed would have avoided a court battle. If you are in Labor Relations,would you have advised SEC to unilaterally ignore its statutory obligation and dismiss the designation of the Union as the sole representative of its bargaining employees, so that it could unilaterally implement a potentially unfair system?

Re: Due Process

Those who think employees have meaningful rights and benefits they would not have without union negotiation are either ignorant or delusional. There is little difference between agencies with and without unions(except increased cost and delay of implementation in the former). Negotiated "benefits" are myths created by unions to promote membership. Employees in agencies not covered by unions have the same rights. Unions mainly represent and "protect" poor performers and malcontents. This often harms the employees actually doing the work. The public views us as overpaid, underworked, and ineffective. Unions contibute to that image. Many of the employees the unions fight so hard to protect should be removed. If you are so weak and ineffective that you "need" a union to protect you, you probably do too. Union abuse of power is also common. Local leaders often promote personal bias and issues, even at the expense of other employees. Federal unions are not worth their cost.

Re: A Dispute That Could Only Arise Between Public Emp

Cronyism is not the issue here. Implementation of a new pay system with bargaining rights or lack thereof under federal law is the issue. While it is expected that many negative comments would come from Labor Relations since they have had many battles with unions, it truly amazes me that many malcontents work for DoD or the Armed Services. I wonder if their union representation is below average, hence their malcontent. For those that think the union does nothing for them, I can only offer sympathy. If you need examples look at Nixon's postponement of our pay raise. NTEU took it to the Supreme Court and won back pay. When Clinton was given the line item veto, which every fed employee should have shuddered at, NTEU took it to the Supreme Court and won. It is constutionally Congress's job to create the budget and the President to sign or veto it, not selectively remove parts he doesn't like. I can only hope that the malcontents witness some effective representation in the future

Re: A Dispute That Could Only Arise Between Public Emp

IRS Agent - Federal unions have accomplished little in their long tenure, but the cost to members and taxpayers has been staggering. Any honest comparison of expense to success would demonstrate a sad ratio. Union leaders exaggerate "sucesses" to maintain dues payers. Members accept this drivel because not doing so would them to admit they have wasted money on dues. I pity those so weak of mind and performance that they require unions to protect them, but I care only minimally that they waste their money. I care greatly that my tax money is wasted on such trivia. Federal unions rarely engage in meaningful negiotation of major issues. They mostly fight over insignificant matters and "protect" poor performers. Their claimed "successes" rarely benefit most employees and often do more harm that good. I wouldn't care if they were funded solely by dues, but most of the costs is borne by taxpayers. It is a silly and needless waste. No wonder we are judged so poorly by the public.