Eliminate federal unions. They achieve little at excessive cost. "Partnership" sounds good, but such efforts have been mostly fruitless in the past. We do not need unions to speak for us, and effective partnerships can be established without them. At the local level, unions spend much of their time defending malcontents and poor performers. "Negiotiations" involve trival matters. Even at the national level, they have minimal impact. It is time to accept reality and eliminate an unnecessary impediment. Union aruments that they are needed to protect employees against agency amd manager abuse are bogus. The rights of federal workers are firmly established. We do not need unions to protect, defend, or exercise those rights.
Re: Partnership
Ernest T. Bass rock chucker Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:59 PM
So I guess you think it is ok for your manager to cancel your leave that you planned and paid for on 4:30 Friday afternoon before you were to leave Saturday.
Maybe mow the bosses lawn, or forced to use his/her spouse for real estate needs. These things have happened.
An employer gets the work force it creates. A union would not be needed in an agency where the managers do abuse their power.
Re: Partnership
Special Agent various Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:45 AM
In 27 years of working in law enforcement and intelligence I have never had union "protection". I have ever needed it. Nor have my coworkers. Those who believe they do are either mistaken or delusional. Weak performers probably disagree, but those people I have seen fired or disciplined deserved it. Weak or abusive managers are usually identified and removed quickly. My observatioin has been that those so lacking in self reliance and confidence that they "need" unions are often not pulling their weight in the organization. They are the ones who should either improve or be fired. I agree that unions are unnecessary and excessively costly.
Re: Partnership
Retired Exec IRS Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:04 PM
Ernest T. - As Andy Griffith would say, hogwash. Unions are not necessary to pevent or resolve employer abuse. Your later two examples are criminal violations. I spent over 20 years supervising subordinate managers. I did not put up with managerial abuse or misconduct, and employees did not need union support to rectify it. More common sense and fortitude might improve your outlook and perception.
Re: Partnership
worker Fed Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:47 AM
To retired manager and exec,
Perhaps you are good managers or perhaps unions are a pain to you. I do not know because I never worked for you to the best of my knowledge. I have had managers who are incompetent and or vindictive. For example, the manager violated the manual on some issue. His manager said we do not always go by the manual. Additionally, this work should not been assigned to me according to the manual. His manager did not try to stop this. The work was being done by someone else. So it would have been done.
This same manager also tried to have me work off the clock which is illegal. His manager did not stop this. This is not the only bad manager. There are plenty of others. That is why unions are needed.
To the CI person-You are not permitted to have a union. I do not know if this is law or what. So whether you need them or not, it is not relevant. You are stuck.
Re: Partnership
Special Agent various Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:57 AM
Federal unions are unnecessary, excessively costly, and ineffective. If federal workers who "need" unions fully funded them I would care only slightly, but since tax money supports federal union activity, I am disgusted. They should be eliminted - NOW. They hinder far more than they help.
Re: Partnership
worker Fed Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:44 AM
To special agent various
I have demonstrated why unions are necessary. You chose to ignore the issue.
One never knows when he (she) will need the union. That is why your comment about funding the union makes no sense.
Unions provide benefits for the entire constituency. They negotiated flex place, flex time, transit subsidies, award program, etc.
Re: Partnership
Exec retired Sat Aug 1, 2009 9:39 AM
Worker: The only thing you have "demonstrated" is that you are narrow-minded and poorly informed. Federal unions are heavily subsidized, and the benefits you credit to union bargaining are introduced in non-union organizations sooner, faster, and at less cost. Your compulsion to justify and validate the money you have wasted on dues is natural, but your aguments are specious and short-sighted.
Partnership
Beach Bum Retired DoD Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:22 AM
Transparency? Ok, who is kidding who? There is no transparency - they will not even tell us where all our money went.
Honestly, I do not expect transparency from the Unions. I expect a gaggle of clowns trying to fit into a very small barrel.
Stop using abusive natured titles!
USFS USFS Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:32 AM
I rescue horses and animals from abusive situations. Please don't use titles that even suggest that it is ok to allow the thought!
P.S. Would it have made a difference if the horse in the title was dead instead of merely old?
Re: Stop using abusive natured titles!
Engineer FAA Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:12 AM
I for one believe that beating an old horse is wrong. A good horse can live 20+ years, and 2 or 3 animals can ensure your fields are plowed for years to come.
I think if you beat a horse early in its life (2 or 3 years old at best), that discipline should carry it thru for the rest of its life. So please, let's make sure we beat only young horses.
Unions should be treated the same way. Beat young union members, and leave the older ones alone.
Partnerships
Fiscally Responsible Fed Somewhere Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:49 AM
In one agency, we had partnership meetings and an an inordinate amount of time spent at the meeting was discussing when and where the next meeting would be. The union reps got really miffed if we tried to end when the agenda discussion was completed. How dare we suggest that they go home a day early when they had brought their wives with them to Ocean City, MD or Virginia Beach, VA. They were there for a "well earned" vacation from the other 40+ weeks of "official" travel they spent on the government's dime "representing" their members and agreeing to disagree--because they COULD.
This was an abuse that went way over the top. But management was complicit and I was told as an LR representative, "that's the cost of doing business."
I am now at an agency that has an excellent collaborative relationship and no costs beyond responsible and reasonable time and expense for union officials, and certainly no "junkets" to resort locations.
Above article
HR Specialist OPM Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:50 AM
It would seem indeed that the equivalent of a environmental impact statement on the Federal LMR process would be in order. The flashpoint of Clinton's EO 12871 centered around the seemingly innocuous provision stating that agencies WOULD negotiate on the permissive "management rights" topical issues cited in 5 USC 7106(b), i.e., "...the numbers, types, and grades of employees or positions assigned to any organizational subdivision, work project, or tour of duty, or on the technology, methods, and means of performing work.... , [the] procedures which management ... will observe in exercising any authority under this section, or ... appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by [management's] exercise of any authority under this section." Senior managers rightly saw that to so negotiate would effectively gut their ability to run their agencies effectively and efficiently so as to achieve mission goals, and basically - and successfully - revolted against doing so.
Partnership hooray!!!!!
Patient Business Assistant VA Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:55 AM
I would love to see this come back. One of the reasons we as Union have had a hard time in negotiating for employees rights is because partnership was dissolved, at least in my facility. When G.W. dissolved partnership, mangmt realized they were no longer forced to work with Union to come to agreements, fairness and reason dissolved. Mangrs in my VA began to disregard and discard the Master Agreement contract as if it were the morning paper. I for one hope that this is a new step in repairing the rip in the whole negotiation process and the processes that allowed us to force mangmt to abide by the contract. Maybe even get the regulatory agencies to actually do their jobs, instead of blaming their lack of a back bone on congress. Last time I had cases with 2 regulatory agencies I was told (and I'm quoting BOTH an OPM AND MSPB caseworker )"they're tying our hands w/arbitrary laws, where evidence is not all we need. We just don't have the time or the resources to dig that deep"
Re: Partnership hooray!!!!!
Wkr Navy Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:55 AM
A Partnership EO wasn't and isn't necessary to negotiate conditions of employment under the Statute. Your union failed you on that one if they failed to negotiate their rights under 5USC71, not management.
Re: Partnership hooray!!!!!
Concerned VA Manager VARO Indianapolis Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:24 AM
To "VA Patient Business Assistant": you can't get back what didn't go away. All Dubbya did was eliminate the NPC, revoke all EO's that expanded Billy's original EO, revoke the Internet Wizard's feckless "Reaffirmation Memo", and order OPM and agency executives to purge written products concerning the above. At the end of the day, EO 13203 preserved partnerships where CBA's contained them, and returned the Feds to the status quo, meaning that agencies were free, at their election, to negotiate your precious (b)(1) matters. Look around, that's VA! Your weren't on the NPC, so why do you care? Instead, you liberals want to flush the law down the drain and hide behind "cure all" EO's. When are you left-wingers going to leave your "hate" behind and just let the current law be the law? At least Dubbya believed that the law was good enough and didn't need interventionist EO's to make govenment more efficient. With the exception of NSPS, Dubbya had it right all along! Get over it!
Labor and Management Partnership
HR Specialist USAF, DOD Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:00 AM
The term "partnership" infers an expectation of equal responsibility for a mutually desired outcome. In fact, there is no equal responsibility. When an AF jet crashes or a mission fails, or the requirements for a work unit are not met, it is management that shoulders full responsibility. If heads roll, they're management heads. As for mutually desired outcome--management's underlying driver is meeting the requirements of a mission. The Union's underlying driver--re-election. There is no such thing as partnership between Union and management, because there's no mutual/equal responsibility.
Partnership Deja Vu
Operations Specialist CBP Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:24 AM
I was involved in partnership at the Customs Service during the Clinton years, and I can prove that at least one labor/management collaboration on a fairly large scale resulted in drug, cash and controlled delivery increases on the order of 40%. I believe that the success of the partnership was what led it to failure - that is, the managers were threatened by the realization that the rank and file employees, when self motivated, were so much better at doing their jobs than the brilliant managers directing them with the same old inbred methods that had passed on to their drinking buddies through promotions. From a union prospective, partnership, if allowed to happen, gave the employees a little bit of ownership in the process. It truly motivated them the strive to succeed, and succeed they did. But management could not live with this, and so they did everything they could to ensure that partnership appeared to be a failure. It could work now, but management would have to buy in.
Why wait for an EO?
Training Manager (former career LR) Retired Army Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:31 AM
How can anyone disagree with Bob's suggestion that stakeholders have a say in what ultimately is decreed (or not decreed) from the administration on subject of partnerships. If I were asked for my views, they would be simple: An EO laying out how labor and management should work together is neither needed nor desirable. Several years of experience under the earlier EO provides evidence of what is likely to happen (not everywhere of course but in more instances than I can count): there will be lots of time and resources exhausted over the meaning of words in the EO. Both sides will play the game. And some productive partnerships will emerge, as they did before. My point is, workable partnerships can be created without direction from the White House. The synergism to do so best comes from to local players at the b.u. level.
Re: Why wait for an EO?
worker Fed Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:23 AM
I can very easily disagree. When unions and management in private industry negotiate over contracts, there are outside stakeholders. They have no say over the contract. Therefore, why should they here?
Another reason: Management represents the politicians who represent the contract. Therefore, outside stakeholders are represented.
Actually, the partnerships are supposed to help resolve issues without using the grievance procedure. Without Bush's cronies in FSIP and FLRA the union has a better chance winning its cases in a bad atmosphere. partnerships can resolve issues without the negativity.
The president is needed to foster more cooperation by both parties to get better results.
Executive Orders are Worthless without Teeth
AFGE UNION LOCAL VP SSA and AFGE Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:32 AM
The problem with Clinton's was the E.O.'s ending:
"Section 3: No Administrative or Judicial Review
This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right to administrative or judicial review, or any other right, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person."
You will notice that Obama's EO on Domestic Partners is just as (purposely) toothless.
Thanks, but no thanks Mr. President, this is like the lip service given in the early '60s on civil rights by the White House.
Re: Executive Orders are Worthless without Teeth
Prospective SESer DHS Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:10 AM
civil rights lip service...whoa be careful! Times have changed!!!
It May Make Good Sense, But Is It Common Sense
NCFLL, V.P. OFCCP-SOUTHEAST OFCCP Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:40 AM
Mr. Gilson:
I normally do not usually agree with you on some matters, but in this particular issue - we agree for the most part. Labor and Management (both) must first learn to use a very basic set of principles: 1) - communicate effectively and with purpose; 2) - defuse any existing hostile/toxic "feelings" generally displayed or felt by both sides; 3) - earnestly and with common sense understandings - develop a willingness to work collectively together for the benefit of all involved (employees, managers); and lastly 4) - be willing to relent and not hold onto the stick until it thunders.
Sincerely,
Ray M. Ables
NCFLL, V.P. OFCCP-SERO
NCFLL, REGIONAL LIAISON
Re: It May Make Good Sense, But Is It Common Sense
Fiscally Responsible Fed Somewhere Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:29 PM
And they say DOD is guilty of using acronyms that no one else can understand?
I just happen to be able to figure this out but if you are not from the Department of Labor, good luck.
Re: It May Make Good Sense, But Is It Common Sense
worker Fed Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:01 AM
Problem is Mr. Gilson wants to use his ideas to delay the forming of these partnerships. Shouldn't they be formed to resolve issues quickly on an informal basis without having to go through the grievance procedure and the courts? If so, then the partnerships should be formed as quickly as possible.
Partnership
Retired LR Manager Retired Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:02 AM
In my 30 plus years of LR my position was that I would rather work with unions than against them. Finding those reps that are confident enough not to be driven by political considerations, however, is difficult. It is true that the parties do not really have shared goals. They shouldn't as they have very different purposes. On the other hand, there is no reason why the parties cannot strive to reach a balance that is reasonable. Simply resurrecting the failed Clinton model will not do it. Both parties have to realize that management is the one responsible and in charge but the unions speak for the members (usually) and a management can only be successful when the employees are doing their best because they want to.
Re: Partnership
Union Pres AFGE Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:01 AM
It seems that many responders to this article have not had very positive experiences with their Unions. Keep in mind that the feeling may be mutual. A shared respect for the LM process at the local level can achieve wonders. I strongly agree with the comments made by the Retired LR Manager. As a Union President I have found that working with management, while agreeing that we have different perspectives, will often achieve a solution based on commonalities. I have come to understand that most Union members support the agency mission, although they may disagree with management on how to achieve it. And, I belive that having members focused on doing their best each day they come to work would benefit everyone. There is no need for an Exec. Order to achieve that. Maybe we should just issue boxing gloves to everyone. To start with that would prevent all the finger pointing and those who cannot see any other way can just duke it out.
Re: Partnership
worker Fed Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:06 AM
To Union pres and retired manager
It is true that unions want to protect their workers. It is also true that most employees and managers support the agency mission. The objective of the partnmerships should be to reduce or eliminate the conflicts between the parties which should increase the chances of achieving the agency mission.
partnership
Clerk SSA Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:40 PM
We need to try some different venue. With the hiring of thousands of new, young, bright, technical people, they will not want to stick around unless there is an incentive and they are treated fairly. You cannot mend what GWB abolished. There must be more creative ways to handle the increasing workloads and the complexities of the work. When all the easy work is automated what remains? Who wants to process crappy work day in and day out. Something needs to be done to save the Agency and to ensure the employees are treated fairly. SSA cannot automate everything.
Executive Order
Executive Vice President, Local 375 afge Railroad Retirement Board Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:08 AM
A new executive order is in order changing the bargaining rights of the Unions. Making partnership optional is acceptable to me. Some agencies want partnership, others may not want to cooperate and could just bargain on issues. It is not a total solution, but it made management much more cooperative during Clinton's administration at my agency and since it ended we have had Unfairs, Arbitrations, Union Grievances that we did not need to file to resolve issues under Partnership.
Partnership
AFGE Council President USDA Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:38 PM
Mr. Gilson's cry to the President for allowing a Public debate includ stakeholders on the issue of Partnerships is in my opinion a pretty good suggestion. I doubt however that Mr. Gilson even knew what he suggested. ALL Federal employees work for the taxpayers, not merely an agency supervisor or manager. It appears that the way agencies manage is in step with the political party that is in control at the time. I would find it real transparant for every taxpayer to have a voice in this Partnership discusion just as they did in the election when they replaced an administration that took us to war under false pretense. America spoke then and should BOB's request be granted I'm sure they would speak again. In fact the Statute itself is predicated on the FACT that the public interest is served in BOTH public and private ermployment via employee's right to organize, bargain collectively and participate in decisions which affect them. Section 7101 is pretty clear to me.
Pardnership
Prof Small College Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:23 AM
This is akin to allowing the mental inmates run the institution. I live through the Clinton mess.
Re: Pardnership
worker Fed Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:13 AM
And did you live through the George Bush mess? How about the Reagan mess? Remember the 0% raise in one year and 2% raise the following year so we would not be demoralized. Meanwhile he increased insurance premiums by 50% and would not let us change policies until ordered to do so by the courts.
GOV
ISO USCIS Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:33 PM
The US GOV. had a policy of replacing employees with contractors. Thank GOD that has changed. Most contractors were never trained, hardly spoke English performed poorly and could'nt be replaced. Some contractors were even criminal aliens!!!!!!!!!!
It appears that must have worked for management!!!!!!!!
NO FEDERAL AGENCY IS NEUTRAL. WHY DO YOU THINK EEO COMPLAINTS ARE AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH?????????
WAKE UP!
Partnership
Treasury
Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:19 AM
Eliminate federal unions. They achieve little at excessive cost. "Partnership" sounds good, but such efforts have been mostly fruitless in the past. We do not need unions to speak for us, and effective partnerships can be established without them. At the local level, unions spend much of their time defending malcontents and poor performers. "Negiotiations" involve trival matters. Even at the national level, they have minimal impact. It is time to accept reality and eliminate an unnecessary impediment. Union aruments that they are needed to protect employees against agency amd manager abuse are bogus. The rights of federal workers are firmly established. We do not need unions to protect, defend, or exercise those rights.
Re: Partnership
rock chucker
Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:59 PM
Maybe mow the bosses lawn, or forced to use his/her spouse for real estate needs. These things have happened.
An employer gets the work force it creates. A union would not be needed in an agency where the managers do abuse their power.
Re: Partnership
various
Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:45 AM
Re: Partnership
IRS
Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:04 PM
Re: Partnership
Fed
Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:47 AM
Perhaps you are good managers or perhaps unions are a pain to you. I do not know because I never worked for you to the best of my knowledge. I have had managers who are incompetent and or vindictive. For example, the manager violated the manual on some issue. His manager said we do not always go by the manual. Additionally, this work should not been assigned to me according to the manual. His manager did not try to stop this. The work was being done by someone else. So it would have been done.
This same manager also tried to have me work off the clock which is illegal. His manager did not stop this. This is not the only bad manager. There are plenty of others. That is why unions are needed.
To the CI person-You are not permitted to have a union. I do not know if this is law or what. So whether you need them or not, it is not relevant. You are stuck.
Re: Partnership
various
Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:57 AM
Re: Partnership
Fed
Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:44 AM
I have demonstrated why unions are necessary. You chose to ignore the issue.
One never knows when he (she) will need the union. That is why your comment about funding the union makes no sense.
Unions provide benefits for the entire constituency. They negotiated flex place, flex time, transit subsidies, award program, etc.
Re: Partnership
retired
Sat Aug 1, 2009 9:39 AM
Partnership
Retired DoD
Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:22 AM
Transparency? Ok, who is kidding who? There is no transparency - they will not even tell us where all our money went.
Honestly, I do not expect transparency from the Unions. I expect a gaggle of clowns trying to fit into a very small barrel.
Stop using abusive natured titles!
USFS
Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:32 AM
I rescue horses and animals from abusive situations. Please don't use titles that even suggest that it is ok to allow the thought!
Re: Stop using abusive natured titles!
FedSmith
Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:55 AM
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/The-Last-Page-There-Oughta-Be-a-Law.html
P.S. Would it have made a difference if the horse in the title was dead instead of merely old?
Re: Stop using abusive natured titles!
FAA
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:12 AM
I think if you beat a horse early in its life (2 or 3 years old at best), that discipline should carry it thru for the rest of its life. So please, let's make sure we beat only young horses.
Unions should be treated the same way. Beat young union members, and leave the older ones alone.
Partnerships
Somewhere
Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:49 AM
In one agency, we had partnership meetings and an an inordinate amount of time spent at the meeting was discussing when and where the next meeting would be. The union reps got really miffed if we tried to end when the agenda discussion was completed. How dare we suggest that they go home a day early when they had brought their wives with them to Ocean City, MD or Virginia Beach, VA. They were there for a "well earned" vacation from the other 40+ weeks of "official" travel they spent on the government's dime "representing" their members and agreeing to disagree--because they COULD.
This was an abuse that went way over the top. But management was complicit and I was told as an LR representative, "that's the cost of doing business."
I am now at an agency that has an excellent collaborative relationship and no costs beyond responsible and reasonable time and expense for union officials, and certainly no "junkets" to resort locations.
Above article
OPM
Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:50 AM
It would seem indeed that the equivalent of a environmental impact statement on the Federal LMR process would be in order. The flashpoint of Clinton's EO 12871 centered around the seemingly innocuous provision stating that agencies WOULD negotiate on the permissive "management rights" topical issues cited in 5 USC 7106(b), i.e., "...the numbers, types, and grades of employees or positions assigned to any organizational subdivision, work project, or tour of duty, or on the technology, methods, and means of performing work.... , [the] procedures which management ... will observe in exercising any authority under this section, or ... appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by [management's] exercise of any authority under this section." Senior managers rightly saw that to so negotiate would effectively gut their ability to run their agencies effectively and efficiently so as to achieve mission goals, and basically - and successfully - revolted against doing so.
Partnership hooray!!!!!
VA
Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:55 AM
I would love to see this come back. One of the reasons we as Union have had a hard time in negotiating for employees rights is because partnership was dissolved, at least in my facility. When G.W. dissolved partnership, mangmt realized they were no longer forced to work with Union to come to agreements, fairness and reason dissolved. Mangrs in my VA began to disregard and discard the Master Agreement contract as if it were the morning paper. I for one hope that this is a new step in repairing the rip in the whole negotiation process and the processes that allowed us to force mangmt to abide by the contract. Maybe even get the regulatory agencies to actually do their jobs, instead of blaming their lack of a back bone on congress. Last time I had cases with 2 regulatory agencies I was told (and I'm quoting BOTH an OPM AND MSPB caseworker )"they're tying our hands w/arbitrary laws, where evidence is not all we need. We just don't have the time or the resources to dig that deep"
Re: Partnership hooray!!!!!
Navy
Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:55 AM
Re: Partnership hooray!!!!!
VARO Indianapolis
Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:24 AM
Labor and Management Partnership
USAF, DOD
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:00 AM
The term "partnership" infers an expectation of equal responsibility for a mutually desired outcome. In fact, there is no equal responsibility. When an AF jet crashes or a mission fails, or the requirements for a work unit are not met, it is management that shoulders full responsibility. If heads roll, they're management heads. As for mutually desired outcome--management's underlying driver is meeting the requirements of a mission. The Union's underlying driver--re-election. There is no such thing as partnership between Union and management, because there's no mutual/equal responsibility.
Partnership Deja Vu
CBP
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:24 AM
I was involved in partnership at the Customs Service during the Clinton years, and I can prove that at least one labor/management collaboration on a fairly large scale resulted in drug, cash and controlled delivery increases on the order of 40%. I believe that the success of the partnership was what led it to failure - that is, the managers were threatened by the realization that the rank and file employees, when self motivated, were so much better at doing their jobs than the brilliant managers directing them with the same old inbred methods that had passed on to their drinking buddies through promotions. From a union prospective, partnership, if allowed to happen, gave the employees a little bit of ownership in the process. It truly motivated them the strive to succeed, and succeed they did. But management could not live with this, and so they did everything they could to ensure that partnership appeared to be a failure. It could work now, but management would have to buy in.
Why wait for an EO?
Retired Army
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:31 AM
How can anyone disagree with Bob's suggestion that stakeholders have a say in what ultimately is decreed (or not decreed) from the administration on subject of partnerships. If I were asked for my views, they would be simple: An EO laying out how labor and management should work together is neither needed nor desirable. Several years of experience under the earlier EO provides evidence of what is likely to happen (not everywhere of course but in more instances than I can count): there will be lots of time and resources exhausted over the meaning of words in the EO. Both sides will play the game. And some productive partnerships will emerge, as they did before. My point is, workable partnerships can be created without direction from the White House. The synergism to do so best comes from to local players at the b.u. level.
Re: Why wait for an EO?
Fed
Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:23 AM
Another reason: Management represents the politicians who represent the contract. Therefore, outside stakeholders are represented.
Actually, the partnerships are supposed to help resolve issues without using the grievance procedure. Without Bush's cronies in FSIP and FLRA the union has a better chance winning its cases in a bad atmosphere. partnerships can resolve issues without the negativity.
The president is needed to foster more cooperation by both parties to get better results.
Executive Orders are Worthless without Teeth
SSA and AFGE
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:32 AM
The problem with Clinton's was the E.O.'s ending:
"Section 3: No Administrative or Judicial Review
This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right to administrative or judicial review, or any other right, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person."
You will notice that Obama's EO on Domestic Partners is just as (purposely) toothless.
Thanks, but no thanks Mr. President, this is like the lip service given in the early '60s on civil rights by the White House.
Re: Executive Orders are Worthless without Teeth
DHS
Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:10 AM
It May Make Good Sense, But Is It Common Sense
OFCCP
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:40 AM
Mr. Gilson:
I normally do not usually agree with you on some matters, but in this particular issue - we agree for the most part. Labor and Management (both) must first learn to use a very basic set of principles: 1) - communicate effectively and with purpose; 2) - defuse any existing hostile/toxic "feelings" generally displayed or felt by both sides; 3) - earnestly and with common sense understandings - develop a willingness to work collectively together for the benefit of all involved (employees, managers); and lastly 4) - be willing to relent and not hold onto the stick until it thunders.
Sincerely,
Ray M. Ables
NCFLL, V.P. OFCCP-SERO
NCFLL, REGIONAL LIAISON
Re: It May Make Good Sense, But Is It Common Sense
Somewhere
Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:29 PM
I just happen to be able to figure this out but if you are not from the Department of Labor, good luck.
Re: It May Make Good Sense, But Is It Common Sense
Fed
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:01 AM
Partnership
Retired
Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:02 AM
In my 30 plus years of LR my position was that I would rather work with unions than against them. Finding those reps that are confident enough not to be driven by political considerations, however, is difficult. It is true that the parties do not really have shared goals. They shouldn't as they have very different purposes. On the other hand, there is no reason why the parties cannot strive to reach a balance that is reasonable. Simply resurrecting the failed Clinton model will not do it. Both parties have to realize that management is the one responsible and in charge but the unions speak for the members (usually) and a management can only be successful when the employees are doing their best because they want to.
Re: Partnership
AFGE
Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:01 AM
Re: Partnership
Fed
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:06 AM
It is true that unions want to protect their workers. It is also true that most employees and managers support the agency mission. The objective of the partnmerships should be to reduce or eliminate the conflicts between the parties which should increase the chances of achieving the agency mission.
partnership
SSA
Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:40 PM
We need to try some different venue. With the hiring of thousands of new, young, bright, technical people, they will not want to stick around unless there is an incentive and they are treated fairly. You cannot mend what GWB abolished. There must be more creative ways to handle the increasing workloads and the complexities of the work. When all the easy work is automated what remains? Who wants to process crappy work day in and day out. Something needs to be done to save the Agency and to ensure the employees are treated fairly. SSA cannot automate everything.
Executive Order
Railroad Retirement Board
Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:08 AM
A new executive order is in order changing the bargaining rights of the Unions. Making partnership optional is acceptable to me. Some agencies want partnership, others may not want to cooperate and could just bargain on issues. It is not a total solution, but it made management much more cooperative during Clinton's administration at my agency and since it ended we have had Unfairs, Arbitrations, Union Grievances that we did not need to file to resolve issues under Partnership.
Partnership
USDA
Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:38 PM
Mr. Gilson's cry to the President for allowing a Public debate includ stakeholders on the issue of Partnerships is in my opinion a pretty good suggestion. I doubt however that Mr. Gilson even knew what he suggested. ALL Federal employees work for the taxpayers, not merely an agency supervisor or manager. It appears that the way agencies manage is in step with the political party that is in control at the time. I would find it real transparant for every taxpayer to have a voice in this Partnership discusion just as they did in the election when they replaced an administration that took us to war under false pretense. America spoke then and should BOB's request be granted I'm sure they would speak again. In fact the Statute itself is predicated on the FACT that the public interest is served in BOTH public and private ermployment via employee's right to organize, bargain collectively and participate in decisions which affect them. Section 7101 is pretty clear to me.
Pardnership
Small College
Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:23 AM
This is akin to allowing the mental inmates run the institution. I live through the Clinton mess.
Re: Pardnership
Fed
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:13 AM
GOV
USCIS
Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:33 PM
The US GOV. had a policy of replacing employees with contractors. Thank GOD that has changed. Most contractors were never trained, hardly spoke English performed poorly and could'nt be replaced. Some contractors were even criminal aliens!!!!!!!!!!
It appears that must have worked for management!!!!!!!!
NO FEDERAL AGENCY IS NEUTRAL. WHY DO YOU THINK EEO COMPLAINTS ARE AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH?????????
WAKE UP!