GovernmentExecutive.com

The National Treasury Employees Union decried the rejection of an amendment Wednesday in the House Homeland Security Committee that would have provided several protections for Homeland Security Department workers.

Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., brought the amendment forward during the markup session for the Homeland Security authorization bill. Lawmakers rejected the amendment by a vote of 16-11, according to a spokesman from Meek's office.

When Congress established the agency in 2002, officials were given the power to develop their own personnel system. Agency officials have said that they plan to limit the scope of union bargaining, make it easier for managers to discipline poor performers and dismantle the General Schedule pay system. The Meek amendment would have restored collective bargaining avenues and appeals rights for employees and would have guaranteed that salaries for employees switching to the new pay system would not fall below the levels they had under the General Schedule system.

More than 100,000 employees will be covered by the new personnel system.

"The existing rules create a system that is neither fair, credible or transparent - all critical elements if this department is to succeed in its mission," NTEU President Colleen Kelley said Thursday. "The failure of the committee to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the Meek amendment is disappointing, to say the least."

Kelley said the amendment "would have maintained the flexibility requested by DHS but clarified the employee rights." The amendment also included provisions to substantially increase the budget of the DHS inspector general and guarantee a five-year term for the head of the DHS privacy office.

Meek intends to pursue these issue further, but has no specific plans at this point, according to his office.

"The congressman is going to look at other avenues to make sure that DHS employees have the same rights as other federal employees," said spokesman Drew Hammill. "We have to see what other options are available."

COMMENTS

• I must agree with the voting part. I have always considered myself to be a Conservative Republican, however, I have to say I've been quite disappointed over the last few years. Not just with this loss of workers' rights, but GW's immigration and border policy. The United States has no secure border and this personnel system will just lower an already low morale. GovExec.com reader Posted May 11, 2005 4:52 PM
• Right on Keep on Voting. I have never seen so many people in federal service vote against their own interests, and against the interests of this country because GW would be someone they would like to have over for dinner.......They deserve whatever they get. Bush 04 !!!! GovExec.com reader Posted May 2, 2005 9:17 AM
• Dear Professional Government Employee at the Pay Cap, What can the Union do for you? Let's see-- how about AWS, Transit subsidies, credit hours, day care subsidies, student loans, telework, etc.. etc.. Tell me you aren't under the delusion that the government gave you any of these benefits in the goodness of its heart and its generosity. :-) I remember years ago fighting as a Union official for an AWS schedule and once the union bled and got it- it was immediately taken as a benefit by the very managers who opposed it for over a year. You will see very soon what will happen as the Unions are hamstrung by this administration. I expect years of major take-backs and RIFs are imminent. To the comment that there is no place for professional unions in the federal government-- tell that to every industrialized nation on the planet. Tell that to all State and local governments. Even in those places where Unions are banned, professional associations exist to deal with work conditions. I would rather deal with an exclusive representative speaking with one voice for an entire bargaining unit than 50 voices in 50 associations doing the same thing. HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted May 2, 2005 8:04 AM