|
Post by lawyeredbylaws on Oct 3, 2019 7:11:21 GMT -5
With respect to the NTEU contract, there is a deal on all articles excluding telework. That issue is being decided by the impasse panel as to how that will end up shaking out. In general, the current contract is more or less the same contract that NTEU already operates under with some minor changes. Stay tuned for the next day or two bc there should be some more official information being provided to those affected by the new contract - TA If this is the union spin then it’s bad spin. Leaving out telework is a major change. The impasse panel has rubber stamped management in every impasse during the current Adminstration. In fact the impasse panel has given management more than they have asked for on at least one occasion that I know of. Every agency who has adopted the impasse language on telework days has done it to force all employees into office at least 4 days in order to get at most 1 day of telework. But hey it’s cool employees no longer are guaranteed any sort of schedule and have to fear being brought back into the office at managements whim cause unions got some perks and office space so they can fight the grievances of poor performing employees.
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Oct 3, 2019 7:47:16 GMT -5
In my lengthy federal career, my impression has consistently been that the various unions' primary concern has been maximizing official time. Not much else, other than occasionally defending the worst performers in all job categories. I pay my dues, but I'm riding a pretty worthless nag. And the current crop is no better or worse than their predecessors.
|
|
|
Post by odarwinian on Oct 3, 2019 11:19:10 GMT -5
While the opinions on the Union and their objectives during negotiations are what they are, if you look at what the Agency was proposing for the telework article, I am glad they did not agree to any semblance of what was proposed. Additionally, they are arguing that due to the EOs going back into effect today, they wanted to nail down as much of the contract as they could. It's not ideal, but at least the majority of the contract is as it was - I share everyone's concerns about the state of telework though.
|
|
|
Post by theadjudicator on Oct 3, 2019 13:24:35 GMT -5
With respect to the NTEU contract, there is a deal on all articles excluding telework. That issue is being decided by the impasse panel as to how that will end up shaking out. In general, the current contract is more or less the same contract that NTEU already operates under with some minor changes. Stay tuned for the next day or two bc there should be some more official information being provided to those affected by the new contract - TA If this is the union spin then it’s bad spin. Leaving out telework is a major change. The impasse panel has rubber stamped management in every impasse during the current Adminstration. In fact the impasse panel has given management more than they have asked for on at least one occasion that I know of. Every agency who has adopted the impasse language on telework days has done it to force all employees into office at least 4 days in order to get at most 1 day of telework. But hey it’s cool employees no longer are guaranteed any sort of schedule and have to fear being brought back into the office at managements whim cause unions got some perks and office space so they can fight the grievances of poor performing employees. I was just sharing the information. Take a look at management's "last best offer" and NTEU's "last best offer." After I did so, I agree with everything odarwinian is saying.... it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by lawyeredbylaws on Oct 3, 2019 14:02:36 GMT -5
I agree, the majority of the contract stays the same. But telework is a pretty big deal for a lot of employees. Reducing telework is essentially a paycut for employees. I just don't see how the unions can agree to a contract that places the availability of telework into the hands of the Deputy Commissioner. Hopefully, I'm just being pessimistic about what the Deputy Commissioner will do.
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Oct 3, 2019 14:35:35 GMT -5
I guess I’m confused as to the criticism. If the union can’t agree to the agency’s proposal on telework, and the agency can’t agree to the union’s telework proposal, then it goes to the impasse panel for a binding decision.
The fact that the current panel seems to have an agenda is unfortunate, but it seems like a smart move to take the remainder of the contract out of their hands.
Do the critics have any specific thing they could have offered the agency to trade for a more generous telework policy? Or are they just critical?
Let me make clear, I am not a member of the union and I don’t work for SSA, so I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Oct 3, 2019 14:56:20 GMT -5
Not currently an SSA employee or union member but I have been involved in plenty of negotiations and what recoveringalj says is really relevant. If you draw a judge who generally ends up siding on important issues with your opponent that has to be weighed in the reality of what you are likely to obtain at trial. Every trial is a roll of the dice with no certainty on the outcome, but when a settlement actually is reached you know exactly what the deal is. Sometimes its worth taking that risk, other times not, especially when you think the decider of fact may not come down in your favor. Likewise a good opposing counsel is going to know that and know that they can strike a harder bargain with terms more favorable to them if the perceive that they have an edge on the outcome. That's how deals are negotiated and done. Am I happy to hear it that telework is being scaled back? Nope. But I can see how it happened.
|
|
|
Post by lawyeredbylaws on Oct 3, 2019 15:52:42 GMT -5
The union had bargaining chips of: 1. Length of contract. Having the contract last 6 years and past an entire Presidential term is a pretty big thing as in the agreement now prevents a Dem President from even attempting to get workers better benefits in SSA. 2. Pending lawsuits. For example, AFGE was challenging the validity of FSIP ruling because FSIP isn't currently filled completely. The union took these bargaining chips and got official time and 100 square feet of office space in each Region. They got no changes from SSA that were favorable to all workers.
In the alternative, the union could have done nothing. SSA unilaterally implements new contract with essentially same terms minus the union perks. In this scenario, members would actually have the hope that the union could strike a much better deal with a new administration in 15 months.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 3, 2019 16:27:30 GMT -5
The union had bargaining chips of: 1. Length of contract. Having the contract last 6 years and past an entire Presidential term is a pretty big thing as in the agreement now prevents a Dem President from even attempting to get workers better benefits in SSA. 2. Pending lawsuits. For example, AFGE was challenging the validity of FSIP ruling because FSIP isn't currently filled completely. The union took these bargaining chips and got official time and 100 square feet of office space in each Region. They got no changes from SSA that were favorable to all workers. In the alternative, the union could have done nothing. SSA unilaterally implements new contract with essentially same terms minus the union perks. In this scenario, members would actually have the hope that the union could strike a much better deal with a new administration in 15 months. AALJ are you listening?
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 3, 2019 16:35:25 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what would stop a Democratic President from approaching the union and offering to renegotiate whatever terms she or he wants?
|
|
|
Post by cookie on Oct 3, 2019 16:39:08 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what would stop a Democratic President from approaching the union and offering to renegotiate whatever terms she or he wants? This is a total WAG—but why would anyone approach a union and offer better terms when they don’t have to? It’s a done deal—not to be thought about for another 6 years.
|
|
|
Post by theadjudicator on Oct 3, 2019 16:57:40 GMT -5
NTEU took the telework issue to FSIP for one reason only, the terms can't get any worse than what management wants. Why just agree to their demands?
There is no sense in doing that. Let the FSIP decide it and if they side with management (as others have said is what happens) try to appeal it, if NTEU is able to do so. It keeps what the status quo, the status quo, as long as the issue is in limbo.
They pretty much had to reach an agreement on the other articles bc the EOs, which never addressed telework, kicked in yesterday afternoon. - TA
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Oct 3, 2019 18:42:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by toast4u on Oct 3, 2019 19:42:26 GMT -5
This morning I began the process to withdraw from the union. Not only did the union acquiesce on all bargaining chips, I think it's poor optics for union reps to take numerous out of town trips while staying at fancy hotels, when line employees are losing their benefits. I say the I began "the process" because I started by emailing the union rep in my office, who kindly forwarded a link to Article 6 of the current CBA. I then had to locate Form SF-1188 via the OPM website. Subsequently, I scoured the SSA intranet to locate a general payroll email box to inquire about where and how to submit SF-1188. I received a message later in the day stating that I will be contacted by someone from Labor Relations in payroll. I haven't heard anything yet. I was reminded that I needed to supply my anniversary date of joining the union, and that if I didn't submit SF-1188 at least 30 days prior to my anniversary date, I will continue to have union dues deducted for another year. Since I don't recall my anniversary date, I emailed my union rep (again), per Article 6, to request a copy of my SF-1187. The union has 14 days to supply a copy of this form. I did this on my breaks (of course). However, I don't usually take breaks or a lunch because of the constant drumbeat of DWPI. I know I agreed to this when I joined the union, but I find it ironic that when I joined, my union rep practically snatched my SF-1187 out of my hands, and magically my dues were deducted shortly thereafter. However, when I want to withdraw, it becomes a process. I know I can join the union whenever I want, but for now, I'm making my voice heard in my own small way.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Oct 4, 2019 7:52:02 GMT -5
The blame game is exactly what this administration and management want. Members blame the unions, the unions lose members and effectiveness. Of course the union is going to prioritize official time, because without that, there is no union.
It is true that the unions are in bad shape and this isn’t a great time to be a Fed. But the union isn’t just for what you need now, it’s for what you and your peers need tomorrow and in the next contract.
We must hang together, or surely, we will all hang separately.
/soapbox
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Oct 4, 2019 22:30:52 GMT -5
When solicited for union membership, I said I would happily join if I could pay my dues by credit card instead of payroll deduction.
I never heard back from them.
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Oct 4, 2019 23:30:23 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what would stop a Democratic President from approaching the union and offering to renegotiate whatever terms she or he wants? Bingo! My guess is the union agreed so official time, telework, performance grievances, etc. exist for another 14-15 months. If there is a mew president, all contracts will be reopened. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Oct 5, 2019 22:03:39 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 8:13:39 GMT -5
The blame game is exactly what this administration and management want. Members blame the unions, the unions lose members and effectiveness. Of course the union is going to prioritize official time, because without that, there is no union. It is true that the unions are in bad shape and this isn’t a great time to be a Fed. But the union isn’t just for what you need now, it’s for what you and your peers need tomorrow and in the next contract. We must hang together, or surely, we will all hang separately. /soapbox www.politico.com/news/2019/10/04/federal-employees-white-house-memo-028954 Interesting article. And sad to say it is working as designed
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Oct 17, 2019 14:46:08 GMT -5
|
|