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
Newly hired probationary employees sometimes decide not to join the union because they think it cannot do a thing for them if they are fired. They could not be more wrong about that. Test your own knowledge of all the appeal routes available to probationers to challenge a dismissal. Read through the list below and mark whether probationers can appeal to a neutral outside the agency in that situation or not. The answer are at the end of the test situations. Continue reading
We like to let our subscribers know when something pops up on the web that should be useful to them. This piece, posted by the folks at California Dental Association, offers some practical advice about how at-risk employees can be COVID-19 accommodated during this period. With the more and more Feds being recalled to their job sites every day, this issue is bound to come up in most bargaining units. You might want to send members an e-mail telling them that if they are in the at-risk group, they should contact the union for help. Here is where you can find the post.
Malcolm Pritzker, an experienced DC arbitrator, recently ruled that an agency (SSA) violated the law by withholding information from the union (AALJ) during bargaining. The agency withheld the information, sped the dispute to the FSIP, and got one of the Panel’s politically-patented anti-union decisions imposing working conditions that employees must now live with. The union requested that Pritzker void the conditions imposed on them and return the parties to the bargaining table to negotiate in good faith this time. Pritzker, however, refused to do that. He wrote, “I do not have the right to interfere with the procedures of the impasses panel or to intervene in the collective bargaining process, and I will not order the reopening of the negotiations between the parties.” He could not be more wrong for the following seven reasons. Continue reading