GovernmentExecutive.com

During his confirmation hearing to become chief of the Homeland Security Department, Michael Chertoff said DHS will not succeed unless the people with whom he serves feel that their service is appreciated. Then he made an offer.

"What I would like to do early on is sit with the union representatives... and see if I can address their concerns," Chertoff said. "We obviously have stages of implementation to go, and I think we ought to be informed in how we make these decisions by how the people who serve at DHS feel about it. That's important. Their morale is really indispensable to making the job of the department work."

Chertoff ultimately was confirmed and took over the reins of the sprawling department this week. Union officials representing tens of thousands of rank and file employees now hope Chertoff makes good on his word, and are ready to meet with him to unload a wide range of concerns covering everything from controversial new personnel regulations to insufficient border guards and strife among air marshals.

"I was very pleased to hear Judge Chertoff's statement that he is interested in meeting with the unions," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. "I would welcome that opportunity and would hope to do it very shortly after he moves into his new position."

Kelley and John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the new DHS personnel regulations are at the top of their list of issues to discuss with Chertoff. The two unions fiercely oppose the regulations and have joined forces to sue the department over the issue.

Other union officials, such as T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, and Charles Showalter, president of AFGE's National Homeland Security Council 117, said the personnel regulations would be at the top of their list as well for a meeting with Chertoff. Beyond the regulations, however, are concerns about staffing, training, and immigration law reform.

Bonner said he would appeal to Chertoff to give border patrol agents the flexibility to move around on the borders, rather than having to remain in static positions.

"He absolutely needs to understand that technology is no substitute for dedicated people," Bonner said. "It's great to have eyes and ears out there but if you don't have hands you're not going to catch a single soul."

Bonner would also tell Chertoff that the nation needs a fundamental revamping of immigration law.

"Like it or not, immigration is one of the biggest challenges he's going to face," Bonner said. "The bottom line is we're just absolutely overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem at the border right now."

Showalter said other issues he would raise to Chertoff include the underutilization of senior inspectors from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the need to hire more full-time border officers and inspectors.

"We've got to get past the attitude of only facilitating trade and commerce, and get back to making sure that the process at the borders is done as completely as possible. We need to make sure that our Number One job is public safety and is fully taken care of," Showalter said. "We need to make sure that we have enough officers out there to do the job on a daily basis without having to work 12 hours a day."

Special agents also have mounting concerns within the department, said John Adler, national first vice president for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. Although FLEOA is technically not a union, it advocates on behalf of special agents within the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau.

Adler said the association has had preliminary dialogue with Chertoff and believes it will have a good working relationship with the new secretary.

Adler said the top issue he would raise is ongoing strife within the Federal Air Marshal Service, especially over the dress code for agents.

Adler said the association also wants a clearer mission statement for homeland security special agents that better defines their authorities, scope of investigations and role in domestic security.

Adler added that the association would be looking to Chertoff to help resolve financial problems within ICE.

"The American public can't afford to have special agents with low morale when the consequences of what they do impacts on national security," Adler said.

Several union officials said they are skeptical of whether meeting with Chertoff actually would produce tangible results. They said former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge was willing to meet with them, but the department's management team still did what it chose.

Chertoff has reiterated his commitment to rank-and-file employees since being confirmed. During his first day on the job this week, Chertoff praised department employees and said he wants to hear their ideas on how to make the department better.

NTEU's Kelley said she would tell Chertoff he was correct in that regard.

"I would tell him that the department has a group of talented, hardworking, dedicated and committed employees who want to excel at their jobs, and they want to know that their ideas and their suggestions for how to do their jobs better is welcomed, and they want to know that they will be respected in their position by management," Kelley said.

"At the end of the day, we all want the same thing. We want DHS to be successful."

COMMENTS

• I say let the unions go the way of the dinosaur, they have out lived their usefulness. From what I've seen they are the protector of the lame and the lazy. As it stands now management can't move a coffee pot from here to there without going through the union. Let's try and keep our priorities focused on what's going on in the world now folks. Enough is enough let's move on. Rick Rick Raper Posted March 17, 2005 3:45 PM
• Prohibited personnel practices, § 2302(b) of title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). (7) engage in nepotism (i.e., hire, promote, or advocate the hiring or promotion of relatives); Because of the fear of reprisal and/or lose of job it has become the union's responsibility to ensure this agency does not continue to violate this law. It has become humorous when managment will lie to the other bargaining unit employees and make the following statement, "the union has approved of this, so we can detail this bargaining unit employee to work under their immediate relative, who will now become their immediate supervisor." How lame can management get, they continue to push the subject and all it does it creates a hostile work environment. Candy Posted February 26, 2005 1:31 PM
• Mr. Professional Government Employee, if you wish to be deployed why not apply for a position with Halliburton, or join the military? I didn’t become a federal employee fifteen years ago to be deployed to another state, country, or war! What recourse does a stellar employee have when he becomes the “go to person” for answers to work problems, constantly chosen for special projects, assigned other co-worker’s work because the co-worker can’t keep up, is assigned the duties of a supervisor when the supervisor goes on vacation knowing the team leader is capable of doing these duties, but does not want to be burdened with the additional responsibility in the supervisor’s absence. When he speaks up and questions why, and voices his dislike of the additional assignments, he gets counseled for being disgruntled and not being a “team player”. The supervisor will not council the employee that can’t keep up with the work requirement or invest their time in training or produce the required paperwork and put them on a PIP. This responsibility would require a great deal of paperwork for the supervisor; it has become easier to pick on the weak. The supervisor never acknowledges his contribution to the organization through the monetary or non-monetary award system, not even an annotation on his performance evaluation. With the federal union intact, the issue is resolved at the lowest level and it becomes the union’s responsibility to ensure management upholds their responsibilities of their positions and the union protects the rights of the federal employee. The little guy Posted February 26, 2005 1:04 PM