Tuesday - February 28, 2006

Collective Bargaining

Question: How many underpaid, overworked government employees does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: Both of them.

In all seriousness, there has never been a more pampered, benefit-laden job in history. It takes an Act Of Congress to fire a government employee. Their retirement and medical benefits package is something ordinary Americans can only dream of. They don’t need collective bargaining. What they need is a swift kick in the ass like Ronald Reagan did to the air traffic controllers union.

What’s wrong with pay-per-performance or merit-based promotion? In the civilian world that is the rule, not the exception. Why should the “servants of the people” be any different? Who, in their almighty wisdom, decided they should be protected from their own lazy work habits and promoted annually for just showing up every day and keeping a chair warm?

I’m sorry but this is a sore subject with me. I have done an awful lot of government contracting for the Department Of Defense over the years and our work was delayed and pushed into cost overruns on nearly every project by some “Silly Service” creep jerking everybody around, either on requirements or design. Nepotism is rampant and the infighting between various government employees on any project was a sight most mortals should not have to endure.

Collective bargaining is nothing more than an excuse to keep them organized to protect their utterly useless jobs. What they really need is a collective smack up side of their pointy little heads. Grrrrr ....

Court Blocks DOD’s New Rules for Workers
Collective Bargaining Hurt, Judge Says
Tuesday, February 28, 2006

(WASHINGTON POST)

A federal judge blocked the Defense Department from implementing much of its new personnel system yesterday, handing the Bush administration a major setback in its efforts to streamline work rules and install pay-for-performance systems in federal workplaces. In a 77-page decision, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the Pentagon’s National Security Personnel System (NSPS) fails to ensure collective bargaining rights, does not provide an independent third-party review of labor relations decisions and would leave employees without a fair process for appealing disciplinary actions.

“Taken as a whole, the design of these regulations appears to rest on the mistaken premise that Congress intended flexibility to trump collective bargaining rights,” wrote Sullivan, who noted that the new regulations “entirely eviscerate collective bargaining.” The ruling marked the second time in six months that a federal judge has stiff-armed the Bush administration in its ambitious plans to rewrite federal personnel rules to curtail the power of labor unions, more strongly tie pay raises to job performance, and make it easier to hire, promote and discipline federal employees.

The two court decisions mean the new systems at Defense and the Department of Homeland Security—each more than two years in the making, and affecting nearly 800,000 civilian employees—appear destined either for lengthy court appeals or time-consuming revisions. Also in limbo are the administration’s plans to overhaul federal pay at agencies government-wide.

The American Federation of Government Employees and 12 other unions representing more than 350,000 defense employees sued in November challenging the new system. The unions argued it would gut collective bargaining and that Pentagon officials did not meet their obligation, spelled out in the 2003 law that paved the way for the changes, to consult with employees’ representatives in crafting a new labor management system.

“This is a big win,” said AFGE President John Gage. “I think the judge very clearly showed in his decision that this was not collective bargaining by anybody’s definition.” AFGE Assistant General Counsel Joseph Goldberg said the ruling “eviscerates the core of NSPS, leaving but a hollow shell of provisions that simply cannot stand on their own.” It was unclear yesterday whether the Pentagon would appeal, or how the decision would affect the department’s long-term plans to change its pay system, which was not addressed in the lawsuit or the ruling.

“Our attorneys are reviewing Judge Sullivan’s decision at this stage to determine what our next steps will be,” said Joyce Frank, a Pentagon spokeswoman. In August, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled against a similar system at the Homeland Security Department, faulting it for undermining employees’ rights to collective bargaining. Collyer blocked implementation of new rules on labor relations and employee appeals, which led DHS officials to delay a new pay system as well. Sullivan cited Collyer’s ruling throughout his decision. DHS has appealed.

Meanwhile, the administration has urged Congress to consider legislation to replace the 15-grade General Schedule pay system government-wide with one that sets broader pay ranges and relies on more stringent annual job evaluations in handing out raises. Bush officials say such changes are necessary to make agencies more effective, and that new personnel systems at Defense and Homeland Security are essential to making both more nimble in the struggle against terrorism. Unions have contended that the changes are about gutting the power of unions, not improving national security.

- More on this story here ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/28/2006 at 09:54 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Unions-Labor •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner