AFGE's UnionBlog

Like Dracula…The National Security Personnel System Refuses to Die

Mark Gibson — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:56:00 EST

The National Security Personnel System is getting another look see to determine if the smoke is being properly deflected by the mirrors. And to make sure that the fresh air of truth does not enter into the review, the Defense Business Board will be limiting the voice of workers subjected to NSPS.

NSPS was introduced under then Pentagon Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 – it’s anti union but also anti civil service - ….Congress has restricted it and George Bush signed that bill into law to restrict it and it’s been killed in more than a few court challenges. The folks under it don’t like it in fact a Government Accounting Office report finds declining support among NSPS employees. Yet here we go again.

So on Thursday, June 25th, the DBB will hear from two unions that represent DOD employees, and a yet undisclosed of “others who have testified before Congress” on NSPS. Gee Whiz Beav, I wonder how many pro NSPS folks have been asked to speak?

On Friday, June 26th, the DBB will select people based on their essays submitted.

Oh yeah, and the review meetings will be held in the shadow of the Pentagon.

I can’t help but wonder about the hundreds of bloggers that contribute to the stories that appear on-line that overwhelmingly are opposed to NSPS. What about those spread across the country and in Europe where there is no reasonable expectation that they would be able to exert their right to speak in favor of, or against NSPS.

And what about the scores of Congressional staff and elected Members of Congress whom have for over six years, been convinced that NSPS is not the personnel system of the future.

Back in September, I figured NSPS was sitting in a nice pine box already to be put in the ground. All we needed to do was put a few nails in the lid. I’m not so comfortable now.

So, if you can be at the hearing, next best thing is to call your elected Representatives in Congress and let them know that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Repeal NSPS NOW.

Labor Management Partnerships are Key to Employee Retention and Growth in the Federal Government

Brian DeWyngaert — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:43:00 EST

I am proud that our union successfully resisted the attacks of the last eight (8) years that were anti-employee, anti-civil service and anti-union. There were many important people in Congress and in the agencies who worked to preserve a merit based civil service, but were it not for AFGE, I don’t believe there would be anything left that resembled a civil service or employee rights including the right to collective bargaining in the federal government. I am very proud that our union led the effort to preserve the merit based civil service, which I believe is essential to our republic.

We are now leaving eight (8) years of policies that were anti-employee, anti-civil service, and anti-union. While most of the political managers implementing those polices have gone, there are still many career managers and agency labor relations staffers who support and believe in those policies. Fortunately there are many who do not. But the reality may be that those who embraced those policies got promoted to the highest levels.

So the transition to a better system with different values and policies will not be easy, will not be smooth and obviously will be met with resistance by many.

In 1978, the Congress adopted Chapter 71 which states in part:

(1) The right of employees to organize, bargain collectively and particularly through labor organizations of their choosing in decisions that affect them:

Safeguards the public interest;
Contribute to the effective conduct of public business; and
Facilitates and encourages the available settlement of disputes;
The public interest demands the highest standards of performance development, of progressive work practices to improve performance and the efficient operations of Government. Therefore collective bargaining is in the public interest.

This is the law and the policy set by Congress. In short, the best way to accomplish high operational performance is to achieve a high level of engagement with the employees "through" their representatives.

If you believe you can ignore, by-pass or use legal mechanisms to shred that policy, as a manager or labor relations representative, you are failing to abide by the spirit of the law and the established policy for the government. But equally important, you are more than likely going to fail in your goal to produce optimum results etc., a high performance organization.

In 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore talked about their desire to improve the operations of government and its deliverables. We went to Vice President Gore and President Clinton and said you cannot get there without fully involving the unionized workforce by the managers. Vice President Gore understood that premise. So we said let’s refocus the field of play from trench warfare and litigation to operational performance through engagement. So in 1993 President Clinton issued an Executive Order that says in part:

"Only by changing the nature of Federal-Labor Management relations so that managers, employee and employees elected union representatives serves as partners, will it be possible to design and implement changes necessary to reform Government."

We choose the words partners to reflect that both the managerial workforce and the non-managerial workforce share the same agency mission and cannot succeed without the other.

The Executive Order was met by varied reactions:

On the union side - the vast majority of union leaders understood and were able to shift, although clearly there were some that preferred trench workforce and some were compelled to continue due to management actions.

On the management and labor relations side I would categorizes the reactions as follows:

Some opposed outright because they don’t believe in collective bargaining or employee engagement and believed that unions bypassed career management!
Many opposed but who passively resisted with happy talk,
Many embraced the idea of more consultation but wanted total management control over employees and wanted union to be their cheerleader.
A few truly embraced full engagement in pre-decisional and negotiation because they understood that was the path to success.

In addition LMR, I see 3 basic types:

Many see themselves as the hired gun to defeat the union. No understanding of operational management or employee engagement.
Honest brokers who try to get management to see the responsibilities and benefits of Chapter 71. But too often they don’t get listened to by management and are unable to alter the environment. Limited view of operational management because they are not included.
A handful that see their role of facilitation of the joint process between operational managers and union representatives. (Excellent view of operational management). They sometimes have influence but often not.

There have been recent studies on employee engagement. The MSPB studies indicate employee engagement is critical to motivation and success.

Well - in the toy market - there is "Toys R Us". In this context - AFGE is - "Employee Engagement R Us."

Does any manager really think that you can engage employees by ignoring their chosen representatives, by insulting their concerns with labor relations games or by allowing some managers to be anti-union or anti-employee? Unfortunately far too many at the moment.

So I ask you to think about your end goal - high performance organizations? If you have a union workforce, there is only one path to success.

If you are willing to do it - stay. If not you should probably resign.

Senior Management must make the policy clear and hold managers and Labor Relations Professional accountable - including reward and removal.

Federal Government Pays

Charlie Watchel — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:33:00 EST

Never before has working for the federal government been more attractive to recent college grads than now. With no employment guarantees from private companies struggling to stay afloat, it is reassuring for many students to know that the government is always a formidable option. Students flocking from all over the country, if hired, can take advantage of Washington's progressive pay as they climb the career ladder.

Working as an unpaid intern for a private company (slave labor) is no longer an option for many students whose empty pockets will keep them in tuition debt for years to come. Is it smarter for an independent filmmaker to accumulate income over the course of two or three years working for the federal government before shipping off to Los Angeles to work at a production company for free? Arguably, yes. For qualified candidates with backgrounds in public service, the federal government offers a kickstart to your future. And while the federal government notoriously pays less money than many private companies, the economic crisis proved that no company is safe and no job is safe. Even several law firms that were forced to make layoffs and paycuts encouraged their employees to search for a fellowship position if they wanted to keep their jobs. That means lawyers are now working two jobs for less money.

The government's General Schedule (GS) pay and classification system is non-discriminatory and guaranteed unlike many private companies which favor a "pay-for-performance" system. And while both systems have their positives and negatives depending on what socioeconomic position a person may be in, labor unions such as AFGE want to ensure that workers are not starving on the streets and begging for change. AFGE continues to fight on behalf of the GS system which allows federal employees to be financially in control of their lives and take care of their families. Because realistically, if all Americans were paid based on performance, no job would be secure.

So if you're worried about advancing your career or adding something sweet to your resume, look no further than the opportunities that await you in the federal government. If you're qualified and are offered the job, working for the federal government will that financial stimulus which so many people are in desperate need of. Working for the government also never looked bad on a resume.

Celebrate Working Mothers and Support Workers' Rights

Essie Hogue — Mon, 18 May 2009 10:10:00 EST

Letters to the editor

Celebrate working mothers, and support workers' rights

This Sunday we celebrate mothers and the contributions they've made to our lives. As the pillars of our families, mothers are always looking out for everyone else. They make sure we keep our doctors appointments, that the kids get their homework done and that our homes are full of love and support. But as our nation faces the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, who is looking out for our mothers?

The latest data available shows that over 5.9 million mothers who care for young, school-aged children are without health insurance. Low-income mothers are even more at risk for being uninsured even though the vast majority of them are working. Something is wrong with this picture. Our system is out of whack when moms have to work two and three jobs and still don't have health coverage.

That's why we need reform.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a bill currently in Congress that would allow workers the freedom to form unions. This legislation would put the choice in the hands of the workers and not corporations. In North Carolina, women who are in unions earn nearly 8 percent more than women who aren't members of unions. And when moms have it better, so do the rest of us.

Since I've joined a union, I've become stronger, more outspoken, and a better worker at the VA hospital, because I have a voice on the job and fair representation. I teach my kids to always expect dignity and respect in their jobs, and to support worker's rights to bargain for a better life.

So on Mother's Day let's do something for the women who do so much for us. Let's call on Congress to stand up for working moms and pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

— Essie Hogue

NVP Andrea E. Brooks Will be Missed

National President John Gage — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:40:00 EST

We are deeply saddened to inform you of the loss of a great friend to the labor movement and the AFGE family, AFGE National Vice-President, Andrea E. Brooks. NVP Brooks passed away Sunday, April 26, at the age of 65.

NVP Andrea E. Brooks was an ardent fighter for civil, women’s and human rights in the workplace and we recognize her extraordinary contribution to working people across America.

NVP Brooks began her government career at Ft. Benjamin Harrison in Indianapolis, IN, rising through the ranks of AFGE while working at the Department of Veterans Affairs. NVP Brooks was soon chief steward, then vice president, secretary-treasurer, executive vice president and then president for ten years of AFGE Local 490 at the Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California. She also was a national representative, a national vice president for the 12th District and a member of the Human Rights Committee.

NVP Brooks' labor activism has always included collaboration with the AFL-CIO, where she served on the Executive Council. She was voted vice president of the California State AFL-CIO and helped to formulate the first federal sector subcommittee at the Los Angeles Central Labor Council.

As the national vice president for Women and Fair Practices, Brooks held a vision for AFGE to move into the forefront of civil rights activism. "I want AFGE to be known as the civil rights union," Brooks emphasized.

Ms. Brooks believed that too often minorities have let others define what a "minority right" is. She looked to mobilize "a Civil Rights Movement" of all races and cultures. NVP Brooks is survived by three adult children–two sons and one daughter–and six grandchildren. She was from Indianapolis, IN. Funeral arrangements will be forthcoming.