Tomato, Pepper and Potato Grower Oaklandon Wed Jul 1, 2009 7:16 AM
1. Article was way too long and rambled too much.
2. Author should have explained that disapproval of a contract means that the Agency head review authority found what he/she believed to be an unlawful clause, not that the reviewer merely did not like the clause. And, that the vast majority of dispproved clauses are upheld by the FLRA.
3. If author wants the lawful portions of the contract to be implemented while awaiting an FLRA decision on the dissapproved portions, I would use an old but questionable management tactic. Get union concessions on management's lawful proposals in return for agreeing on unlawful clauses the union has proposed. This is easily done but rarely used as most management negotiators have scruples. But it works.
4. Finally, mangement should use the "well, we plan to implement for non-unit employees immediately" tactic and make it public to the workforce. Management should also do a better job of explaining to the workforce the status of negotiations.
Re: Points
AFGE UNION LOCAL VP SSA and AFGE Wed Jul 1, 2009 11:06 AM
Regarding: "Get union concessions on management's lawful proposals in return for agreeing on unlawful clauses the union has proposed. This is easily done but rarely used as most management negotiators have scruples. "
Thanks for tipping Social Security Administration negotiators. We''ll have to watch for that tactic as they do NOT have scruples.
If only federal union had the same right to negotiate over major issues like the REST of the public sector in the USA there would not be all the nitpicking over petty stuff that management wastes many taxpayer dollars on.
Typical nonsense
Director DOI Wed Jul 1, 2009 7:22 AM
It's quite entertaining to read how the defenders of the universe have so eloquently criticized managements role
and rules of the process. Just like a little kid at a toy store, you better buy me a toy or I'll have a tantrum.
or.....
I'll just take my ball and go home.......
or ....
everyone's stupid except me....
Re: Typical nonsense
worker Fed Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:29 AM
This is typical nonsense. Director DOI is a management official who always says management is right and the unions are wrong. Get real. No one is always right or always wrong. That is why you have 2 sides to an issue which must be resolved.
HR'S Station Stop Called Disapproval
LRS IRS Wed Jul 1, 2009 9:16 AM
Funny the author picked on a Treasury contract issue since he has spent many years playing the same exact game for which he is now accusing management. Why-oh-why do you continue to give this man a platform?
Re: HR'S Station Stop Called Disapproval
worker Fed Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:32 AM
To LRS IRS
He used a Treasury issue because he knows treasury better than the other agencies. He worked Treasury issues for a period of time.
As to why he gets a platform, it is the same reason that pro management entities get a platform. It is to here all sides, not just your side.
Re: HR'S Station Stop Called Disapproval
Retired Fed turned Consultant former Army LR Chief Wed Jul 1, 2009 3:20 PM
In defense of Frank, everyone is entitled to a platform. Isn't that what blogging is all about?? I don't know Frank from the man in the moon, but I honor his right to use as many words as he chooses to say his piece. I don't have to read it.
Keep writing Frank. I enjoy reading your views. I even get pleasure out of Bob Gilson's article. Better yet, I usually have a belly laught or two from comments on his articles.
Re: HR'S Station Stop Called Disapproval
Liberal Government Employee Independent Agency Thu Jul 2, 2009 7:34 AM
To LRS/IRS
It's called freedom of speech and it is in the constitution. Moreover, whether you disagree with Ferris or not, he has the right to share his views. Closing platforms for people with different views somehow does not seem to be the answer to having a continuing dialogue.
As I often with the viewpoint taken by Mr. Gilson, he has the right to express those views and to have them published.
Huh?
Wkr Navy Wed Jul 1, 2009 12:02 PM
I fell asleep a quarter of the way into the article. Just what was the point?
Re: Huh?
worker Fed Thu Jul 2, 2009 10:14 AM
Good point. It was not well written. The train concept was very poor.
How I Used to Approved Contracts/Mid-Term Agreemen
Retired Fed turned Consultant former Army LR Chief Wed Jul 1, 2009 3:16 PM
I don't know how others approvee or disapprove during the "agency review." All I know is how I did it 10 years ago. If several provisions had to be disapproved, I made it clear that the remainder of the agreement was approved ofr implementation in accordance with the parties implementation procedures (whatever they agreed to.) Whether this was right or wrong - I didn't give a hoot. So much for how I did it. Just thought I'd share this with whoever might care.
Modest Proposal
ERS DA Thu Jul 2, 2009 2:51 AM
Hows about we swap agency head review for ratification? Seen activities do as suggested by Grower in agreeing to stuff that wouldn't pass review to get concessions from a union but then I've also seen unions misuse their ratification process in a similar way. Really screws up the dynamics of the negotiation process to sever out the disapproved portions and try to rebargain them. They say you get the union you deserve. Looks like that must apply to DOI guy. This is a good counterpoint to Gilson's rants. DA LR chief, if that's you, it's me. Hope you are well.
Mr. Ferris knows more than he is saying Part I
Retired HR Specialist Department of Defense Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:41 AM
HR'S Station Stop Called "Disapproval"
July 1, 2009
By Frank Ferris
Mr Ferris fails to note some key points that he surely knows:
(1) Unions get to ratify agreements, up or down in their entirety, based simply on whether they like the agreement or not. In other words, they aren’t held to the higher threshold agencies have to follow…whether the agreement complies with law, rule or regulation. Agencies can’t disapprove based on whether we like the agreement or not.
(2) he fact that an entire agreement can be held up based on disapproving one provision is not the fault of agency heads…this is driven by FLRA case law and its interpretation of the labor relations statute. An easy way to avoid it…and many smart negotiators do avoid it…is make sure you have a severability provision in your ground rules agreement. As Mr. Ferris knows, ground rules govern how the parties negotiate the agreement (i.e. number of negotiators, official time, location, use of experts, note takersetc).
He's Kidding, Right?
Author FedSmith Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:41 AM
This article, claiming the FLRA is around as a safety net if an Agency gives too much, is by the same writer who wanted to abolish the Authority just last year. Agency Head review is limited to provisions which, upon review, are determined to violate the law. Not be unpleasant, not be costly, not be stupid or even not be merely mistaken, but violate the law. I think the author, a frequent visitor to the FLRA over the years, has picked another silly point to press. In the incredibly complex world in which managers operate and which, by the way, the author's employer helped create through endless litigation to explore the meaning of the statute, it would literally be crazy to let an NTEU agreement, 100s of pages in length, go into effect without some review. You answer the question, did the Congress intend that Federal unions run the place or bargain working conditions? I think the author has lost sight of his organization's place in the process. But that's not a new thing.
Mr. Ferris Knows More Than He Says Part II
Retired HR Specialist Department of Defense Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:44 AM
Mr Ferris fails to discuss key points that he surely knows:
(1) Severability provisions essentially say…once the agreement goes to agency head review and the agency head identifies any specific provision as non-negotiable, the rest of the agreement becomes effective (minus the non-negotiable provision). If they have this…they are okay…the entire agreement is not held up. If they don’t have it, then yes, the entire agreement can be held up but this is driven by the law. Frank conveniently fails to discuss this as an easy solution. We encourage management negotiators all the time to use severability provisions to avoid delays in implementing the negotiable parts of their new agreement.
Mr. Ferris Knows More Than He Says Part III
Retired HR Specialist Department of Defense Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:45 AM
Mr. Ferris failed to state that disapproval is not necessary because illegal provisions are void and unenforceable is only partially correct. The FLRA looks at disapproved provisions with a different legal standard than provisions deemed unenforceable, particularly provisions dealing with management rights. It is far more difficult to get a non-negotiable provision thrown out for being unenforceable after a contract becomes effective than getting it thrown out because it was disapproved before the contract became effective.
Points
Oaklandon
Wed Jul 1, 2009 7:16 AM
1. Article was way too long and rambled too much.
2. Author should have explained that disapproval of a contract means that the Agency head review authority found what he/she believed to be an unlawful clause, not that the reviewer merely did not like the clause. And, that the vast majority of dispproved clauses are upheld by the FLRA.
3. If author wants the lawful portions of the contract to be implemented while awaiting an FLRA decision on the dissapproved portions, I would use an old but questionable management tactic. Get union concessions on management's lawful proposals in return for agreeing on unlawful clauses the union has proposed. This is easily done but rarely used as most management negotiators have scruples. But it works.
4. Finally, mangement should use the "well, we plan to implement for non-unit employees immediately" tactic and make it public to the workforce. Management should also do a better job of explaining to the workforce the status of negotiations.
Re: Points
SSA and AFGE
Wed Jul 1, 2009 11:06 AM
Thanks for tipping Social Security Administration negotiators. We''ll have to watch for that tactic as they do NOT have scruples.
If only federal union had the same right to negotiate over major issues like the REST of the public sector in the USA there would not be all the nitpicking over petty stuff that management wastes many taxpayer dollars on.
Typical nonsense
DOI
Wed Jul 1, 2009 7:22 AM
It's quite entertaining to read how the defenders of the universe have so eloquently criticized managements role
and rules of the process. Just like a little kid at a toy store, you better buy me a toy or I'll have a tantrum.
or.....
I'll just take my ball and go home.......
or ....
everyone's stupid except me....
Re: Typical nonsense
Fed
Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:29 AM
HR'S Station Stop Called Disapproval
IRS
Wed Jul 1, 2009 9:16 AM
Funny the author picked on a Treasury contract issue since he has spent many years playing the same exact game for which he is now accusing management. Why-oh-why do you continue to give this man a platform?
Re: HR'S Station Stop Called Disapproval
Fed
Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:32 AM
He used a Treasury issue because he knows treasury better than the other agencies. He worked Treasury issues for a period of time.
As to why he gets a platform, it is the same reason that pro management entities get a platform. It is to here all sides, not just your side.
Re: HR'S Station Stop Called Disapproval
former Army LR Chief
Wed Jul 1, 2009 3:20 PM
Keep writing Frank. I enjoy reading your views. I even get pleasure out of Bob Gilson's article. Better yet, I usually have a belly laught or two from comments on his articles.
Re: HR'S Station Stop Called Disapproval
Independent Agency
Thu Jul 2, 2009 7:34 AM
It's called freedom of speech and it is in the constitution. Moreover, whether you disagree with Ferris or not, he has the right to share his views. Closing platforms for people with different views somehow does not seem to be the answer to having a continuing dialogue.
As I often with the viewpoint taken by Mr. Gilson, he has the right to express those views and to have them published.
Huh?
Navy
Wed Jul 1, 2009 12:02 PM
I fell asleep a quarter of the way into the article. Just what was the point?
Re: Huh?
Fed
Thu Jul 2, 2009 10:14 AM
How I Used to Approved Contracts/Mid-Term Agreemen
former Army LR Chief
Wed Jul 1, 2009 3:16 PM
I don't know how others approvee or disapprove during the "agency review." All I know is how I did it 10 years ago. If several provisions had to be disapproved, I made it clear that the remainder of the agreement was approved ofr implementation in accordance with the parties implementation procedures (whatever they agreed to.) Whether this was right or wrong - I didn't give a hoot. So much for how I did it. Just thought I'd share this with whoever might care.
Modest Proposal
DA
Thu Jul 2, 2009 2:51 AM
Hows about we swap agency head review for ratification? Seen activities do as suggested by Grower in agreeing to stuff that wouldn't pass review to get concessions from a union but then I've also seen unions misuse their ratification process in a similar way. Really screws up the dynamics of the negotiation process to sever out the disapproved portions and try to rebargain them. They say you get the union you deserve. Looks like that must apply to DOI guy. This is a good counterpoint to Gilson's rants. DA LR chief, if that's you, it's me. Hope you are well.
Mr. Ferris knows more than he is saying Part I
Department of Defense
Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:41 AM
HR'S Station Stop Called "Disapproval"
July 1, 2009
By Frank Ferris
Mr Ferris fails to note some key points that he surely knows:
(1) Unions get to ratify agreements, up or down in their entirety, based simply on whether they like the agreement or not. In other words, they aren’t held to the higher threshold agencies have to follow…whether the agreement complies with law, rule or regulation. Agencies can’t disapprove based on whether we like the agreement or not.
(2) he fact that an entire agreement can be held up based on disapproving one provision is not the fault of agency heads…this is driven by FLRA case law and its interpretation of the labor relations statute. An easy way to avoid it…and many smart negotiators do avoid it…is make sure you have a severability provision in your ground rules agreement. As Mr. Ferris knows, ground rules govern how the parties negotiate the agreement (i.e. number of negotiators, official time, location, use of experts, note takersetc).
He's Kidding, Right?
FedSmith
Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:41 AM
This article, claiming the FLRA is around as a safety net if an Agency gives too much, is by the same writer who wanted to abolish the Authority just last year. Agency Head review is limited to provisions which, upon review, are determined to violate the law. Not be unpleasant, not be costly, not be stupid or even not be merely mistaken, but violate the law. I think the author, a frequent visitor to the FLRA over the years, has picked another silly point to press. In the incredibly complex world in which managers operate and which, by the way, the author's employer helped create through endless litigation to explore the meaning of the statute, it would literally be crazy to let an NTEU agreement, 100s of pages in length, go into effect without some review. You answer the question, did the Congress intend that Federal unions run the place or bargain working conditions? I think the author has lost sight of his organization's place in the process. But that's not a new thing.
Mr. Ferris Knows More Than He Says Part II
Department of Defense
Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:44 AM
Mr Ferris fails to discuss key points that he surely knows:
(1) Severability provisions essentially say…once the agreement goes to agency head review and the agency head identifies any specific provision as non-negotiable, the rest of the agreement becomes effective (minus the non-negotiable provision). If they have this…they are okay…the entire agreement is not held up. If they don’t have it, then yes, the entire agreement can be held up but this is driven by the law. Frank conveniently fails to discuss this as an easy solution. We encourage management negotiators all the time to use severability provisions to avoid delays in implementing the negotiable parts of their new agreement.
Mr. Ferris Knows More Than He Says Part III
Department of Defense
Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:45 AM
Mr. Ferris failed to state that disapproval is not necessary because illegal provisions are void and unenforceable is only partially correct. The FLRA looks at disapproved provisions with a different legal standard than provisions deemed unenforceable, particularly provisions dealing with management rights. It is far more difficult to get a non-negotiable provision thrown out for being unenforceable after a contract becomes effective than getting it thrown out because it was disapproved before the contract became effective.