GovernmentExecutive.com

Sharon Pinnock is organized labor's version of a fairy godmother stripped of her powers. Throughout her 15-year career as director of membership and organization for the American Federation of Government Employees, Pinnock has been able to promise potential recruits that the union would engage in collective bargaining on their behalf. But now, because personnel reforms at several agencies - most notably the Homeland Security and Defense departments - severely restrict collective bargaining, she can no longer make that promise.

Still, Pinnock is managing to attract new followers. Instead of focusing on bargaining, she trumpets the ability of unions to protect employees against workplace inequities such as discrimination and wrongful termination. And she promises workers that she will fight to regain their place at the bargaining table. The new message is having some success. For example, Pinnock says she gets two-dozen to three-dozen membership applications every week from Transportation Security Administration employees. About 700 of the agency's 54,000 employees are dues-paying members. TSA employees were prohibited from collective bargaining under an order issued in 2002.

While the future of federal employee organizations may look bleak under the new personnel rules, bargaining restrictions are fueling labor leaders' efforts to organize employees. Workers who fear losing their jobs as a result of public-private job competitions and personnel reforms see employee groups as their lifeboat.

Even though federal employment has actually increased by 1 percent to 2.7 million jobs during President Bush's first term - after a 3 percent decline in President Clinton's second term - labor leaders say the perception of job instability is higher now. Partly as a result, union membership is increasing much more rapidly than the growth in the overall workforce. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of dues-paying members at AFGE - the largest federal union - increased by nearly 3 percent to 204,300. Membership at the National Treasury Employees Union jumped by 4.5 percent, to 77,600, according to union reports filed with the Labor Department.

"Federal employees who see what it is they're up against, especially with this administration, are becoming members when in past years they may not have been," says NTEU president Colleen M. Kelley. She says that despite the personnel system changes, members will recognize that unions still play a valuable role in negotiating for employee rights, and that there will not be a sudden decline in membership.

Those willing to make long-term predictions say prospects for federal labor groups don't look good. If the Bush administration continues to limit their power, membership likely will drop off, says Tom Juravich, professor and director of the Labor Relations and Research Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Also, shrinking membership in the private sector acts as a "drag" on public sector unions, he adds. Fewer than one in 10 workers in the private sector belong to a union, while four in 10 government workers are members, Labor statistics show.

Michael Gravinese, legislative coordinator for AFGE Local 3509, which represents Social Security Administration workers in Georgia, Tennessee and the Carolinas, worries that predictions of shrinking membership will come true. Job insecurity has helped drive up his local's membership to 800 from 645 in 2002, but Gravinese fears it will be harder to attract new members under the revised personnel policies.

Pinnock is confident her strategy will win out. She expects an initial fall in membership if more agencies restrict collective bargaining rights. But there will be a slow rebuilding, she predicts. AFGE is turning to recruitment strategies used by many private sector unions, such as visiting employees' homes and using the Internet. But without Pinnock's old powers, her job won't be easy.

COMMENTS

• I have been lied to by the union. I have been decieved by the union and when the AFGE stood behind union representatives that wanted tighter security but not for them because they worked for the govt. and said that the company that I was stationed at could NOT implement tighter security after 9-11 and after a company employee was shot and killed at the exit road from the plant. I havent any thing good to say about the union. I doubt that I will ever be a member again and I will do my best to discourage other future members fo joining the union. my safety is just as important as the next person but the union does not believe that to be the case. GovExec.com reader Posted March 18, 2005 1:43 PM
• Well said, Richard, DOD. However I do believe this new P system will not work well for several reasons. The main reson is what many organizations/elements/ series do day in and day out is not resonably quantifiable w/numbers. Another reason is teamwork is absolutely essential in many work groups and offices. With the new system, my co-worker's failure is my gain and vice versa. Will all members be that way? No of course not , but many will. another reason is your day to day plodder, that comes in everyday, performes consistantly and basicly holds the place together. Generally theseindividual are not as noticiable as the flaming super stars, who often are only good for a few years and then flame out where as the consistant plodder is always the backbone of any org in my expearience. The systems appears to be unintentionally designed to encourage self serving to the extreme. In my office, temwork is absolutely essental and we will fail w/o it. EDDIE CHAMBLISS Posted March 17, 2005 8:50 AM
• The workforce has reached the end of the free ride. Now someone is after them big-time and their only friends, the unions, have scant resources to protect them. Money talks everything else walks. GovExec.com reader Posted March 16, 2005 8:49 AM