TOPICS
TOPICS
Under stress, unions hook new members
Carl Goldman didn't bother to sugarcoat his message. He told 30 federal employees at a recent meeting that he wasn't going to be able to do a good job representing them if more of them didn't join the union. Only four were members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which had earned the right to represent them.
Fourteen of those assembled joined on the spot. Goldman, the executive director of AFSCME Council 26, said anxiety over job security under the Bush administration helped reel them in. "Federal employees that we deal with are not really sure what will come next," he said.
Goldman's experience mirrors national growth in union membership, despite--or perhaps because of--looming obstacles ahead. In the coming months, the Defense and Homeland Security departments are expected to announce personnel reforms that may limit collective bargaining and replace traditional pay schedules with performance-based compensation. At the same time, President Bush is pushing agencies to hold more job competitions between federal workers and the private sector.
Under these looming threats to their power, union leaders have signed up new members at meetings and through e-mail solicitation and personal appeals. Between 2001 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available, the number of dues-paying American Federation of Government Employees members increased by almost 3 percent, and National Treasury Employees Union membership went up by 4.5 percent, according to Labor Department records. That's about twice the rate of the growth of the civilian federal workforce.
Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said workers who would not have considered becoming union members in the past are now joining up because they "see what it is they're up against."
"People see the handwriting on the wall," said Michael Gravinese, legislative coordinator for AFGE Local 3509, which represents Social Security Administration employees in Georgia, Tennessee and the Carolinas. Fear of job loss, he said, has helped drive his local's membership up to 800 from 645 at the end of 2002.
Gravinese called the Bush administration the most anti-union in history. Even though more federal jobs were lost under the Clinton administration, it somehow felt less malicious, he said. During Clinton's second term, the number of federal employees dropped by about 3 percent, while the Bush administration has seen a two-thirds percent increase in civilian federal employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.
In an interview with Government Executive, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said it was "ironic" that the Bush administration has witnessed an increase in federal employment. "This administration is hostile to the right of employees to organize," he said, adding that he'd like more federal employees to join unions.
Membership rolls do not appear to be affected by Sen. John Kerry's loss in the November presidential election. NTEU and AFGE officially endorsed Kerry, although about 40 percent of all union members voted for George Bush, according to exit pills.
COMMENTS
- Dear Federal Gov't consultant, Well said-- and I must say that it is so very refreshing to meet another HR accountant. You are absolutely right if all that is important is meeting the mission of the agency yesterday. So we eliminate CWS/AWS schedules-- but why stop there. At any time there might be folks out sick or on vacation. How about in the interest of efficiency we eliminate these categories as well since it does permit senior employees at least 5 weeks plus of vacation and 2 and a half weeks of being sick a year. Oh, let's not forget the 1/2 hour on paper which is usually an hour of lunch-- here we can save about 15% of the day by cancelling this useless time as well. Being an HR accountant can only take you so far-- this is the problem when HR takes a back seat to number crunchers. I for one didn't sign up to be a federal civil servant to have every hour of productivity squeezed out of me. And I doubt very much you as a Federal consultant can claim every hour as productive work on your time sheet. There are such soft concepts as strengthening teamwork and creating decent work enviroments, of course most HR accountants wouldn't see this as productive time. :-) HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted January 10, 2005 8:19 AM
- HR Specialist, Curious that you used CWS as an example of how valuable that the unions are. What AWS/CWS usually demonstrates is that the workforce is about 10-20% overstaffed. While everyone works additional or modified working hours, there are usually that many people NOT there which simply shows that they aren't needed. To whit: AWS hours vary from 6 am to 8 am starting time with equivolent varied ending time. The first 2 and last 2 hours of every workday are at less than full staffing requiring any cooperative work can only be performed for approximately 60% of the workday (not taking into account varied lunch hours as well). In a CWS system, generally extra time is put in after normal hours for 8 of 9 days then a 3 day weekend is earned, right? If there are 4 people in your work group, then every Monday and Friday there is one of you missing. That means that 40% of the time the work can be accomplished with less workforce. How much work is actually accomplished in these extra hours? Very little customer-driven work in my observations. Usually it seems to either be devoted to conversation or "Catch-up" work. I've laid this out for the AFGE reps and they usually have been concerned because the management does pay attention. This is one of the places that the expected 30% reduction in staffing rule of thumb came from for A-76 studies. As to asking for/demanding extra time off? Be careful what you ask for, you may get it! Fed'l Gov't Consultant Posted January 7, 2005 12:54 PM
- Why don't you turn off Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes and actually look at the facts. Americans are more satisfied with the work of federal employees then they have been at any recent time. In many cases it is higher then it is for the private sector (See GovExec.com's DAILY BRIEFING from December 14, 2004). That is hardly what I would call "average work by average workers." As a union leader I feel it is our duty to set the highest standard of public service possible. More often then not it is the union member that let's his or her fellow employee know that average or less then average is not acceptable, not the manager. There was a time when "good enough for government work" meant that the work met the highest possible standards. I'd like to think in our work place it still does. As to employees being better off without unions - well if you would rather do without health care, safety standards, over time pay, and the multitude of other benefits fought for by unions, I'm sure you can find gainful employment at some overseas sweatshop. Unions benefit all workers members or not. The mere threat of workers organizing has caused management in many work places to start providing at least minimal benefits to its employees. So, I guess what I'm trying to say Steve is, "You're Welcome." Mike H. Posted January 6, 2005 6:36 PM
