All employees do not have equal legal rights. Union representatives have far more rights than most. In fact, they have far more rights than the average manager. So, if you hear anyone asking the question, “What Can the Union Do for Me?” here is just a short list of the powers a union rep can put to work for employees the minute a union is certified in an election. Continue reading
Someday in the future fairness, reason, civil rights, and professional neutrality will once again be the values driving White House (WH) decisions as opposed to vengeance, greed, racism, and bullying. And when that day comes, federal sector unions had better be prepared to not only push for labor law changes, but push in the right direction. Sadly, if history is any guide, even a Trumpless WH will try to co-opt labor by dangling some shiny new labor-management scheme that it promises will deliver employees and their unions to the bountiful gardens of LMR nirvana, e.g., partnership, forums, pre-decisional involvement, etc. Some 22-year old campaign worker recently elevated to shaping White House labor policy—but who never belonged to a union or represented employees– will probably coin an expression like “Futurating Our Workplace” as part of its marketing plan. We have seen unions fall for this mindless WH drivel repeatedly in the last 30 years, and we are watching labor pay a horrible price for it now. If unions are to have any chance of resisting a useless WH offering, they need to begin working now on a plan that has them all committed to demanding nothing less than bolstering traditional collective bargaining. They cannot afford to settle again for a hollow LR tweak, getting invited to lame White House parties, and having the personal cell phone numbers of people who work there. While those things might be important to a union’s legislative staff, they are just cheap, shameful bribes that keep the union’s collective bargaining program weak and vulnerable. So, we thought we would get the discussion going now by listing the changes labor must insist be adopted one way or the other. Today’s post addresses three of about a dozen changes needed that we will focus on in the coming weeks. Continue reading
Although union reps are much more likely to encounter agency actions violating provisions of a labor agreement or federal regulations, there are situations where one of these 14 statutory prohibitions arises. So, it helps to have at least a passing understanding of them. The 14 individual PPPs are listed below followed by a factual situation. See if you can figure out if the PPP has been violated in the noted situation or not. The answer follows each situation. Continue reading
The bloggers at “Benefits Law Advisor” just posted some information from IRS entitled, “IRS Provides Guidance On Employer Leave-Based Donation Programs That Aid Victims Of The COVID-19 Pandemic.” Check it out. It is short and helpful
When first we read AFGE and DHS, CBP, 70 FLRA 501 (2018) we were left wondering why Abbott and Kiko were trying so hard to justify another exception to a union’s right to bargain over midterm changes. You may remember that case held unions only had the right to bargain before the change was implemented if it changed CoE, but not if it only changed WC. This was so important that the two Trumpettes opened themselves to bar charges by deceitfully manipulating a quote to make it seem as if the High Court agreed with their view—when in reality the Court held precisely the opposite according to a unanimous decision of three federal appellate judges. That is a lot to risk when what Abbott and Kiko were trying to do looked like it could already be accomplished by an agency claiming the change was de minimis. There is 16 years of case law holding that is a legitimate exception to the right to bargain and providing practitioners solid examples and criteria for applying the exception. But then it came to us what all this deceit and obfuscation was really about? Continue reading
There is a lot of passion right now on changing the names of those military installations named after confederate leaders. But we have yet to hear from the unions that represent employees at these installations. Their voices are particularly important for a few reasons. First, they would represent the local residents rather than far away media, politicians and social activists. Second, military protocol prevents the uniformed employees from speaking out as a group on the issue, leaving the civilian work force as the next best surrogate spokespersons. Third, if unions truly believe they are in business to promote the dignity of people then there is no better example of an institution that debased people. Fourth, there is a great alternative source of names for these installations that would actually boost the dignity of the bases. Here is a list of those installations where unions should be moving aggressively for name changes:
But here is the soul crushing reason why unions must stand up and fight for these name changes—or admit they are pretenders in the fight for human dignity. Continue reading
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just pantsed the two Trumpian toadies by not just overturning their decision in AFGE v. FLRA, Civ. No. 19-1069 (6/9/20), but also engaging in what amounts to a public disrobing by a federal judicial panel. The three judges unanimously stripped the Abbott & Kiko decision for all to see that the two Trumpettes not only lacked elementary legal writing skills, but also even minimal legal integrity. This is the FLRA decision that held–over Dubester’s strong and wise objection– that while unions were entitled to negotiate over changes in “conditions of employment,” they could not bargain changes in “working conditions.” Given the distinction between the two terms was and is vague, you would have thought Donald’s dupes would have explained to agencies how to practically distinguish between the two. But as the court pointed out “…the Authority fails to explain the differences between the terms or how the alleged differences matter….” What Abbott & Kiko did is like a grammar school student tasked with homework to explain the difference between a coat and a jacket and simply turning in a paper declaring that they are different because the letters in the two words are mostly different. But the Abbott-Kiko blunders did not stop there as the court went on to write that – Continue reading