TOPICS
TOPICS
DHS defends new personnel rules against unions' assault
The Homeland Security Department responded Friday to an attempt by a group of labor unions to halt the introduction of new personnel regulations, arguing the effort is unwarranted and contrary to public interest.
The department filed a motion opposing an injunction that several unions requested on June 22. The National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Government Employees and three other unions filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking a judge to stall the slated Aug. 1 implementation of the rules.
If the unions are successful, DHS employees would continue to operate under current regulations until the legality of the new regulations are decided. A hearing on the motion is scheduled before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on Thursday.
Union officials criticized a number of elements in the new personnel system, including the introduction of a pay-for-performance system, a reduction of independent oversight for DHS disciplinary procedures and an alleged failure to meet employee collective bargaining rights.
DHS said its system will merge numerous federal agencies into one and "enable the department to respond quickly and effectively to evolving threats to the nation's security."
DHS said an injunction would only prolong "inflexible procedures" and "ultimately frustrate and undermine the central objective...which is to enhance (not impair) the department's ability to deal flexibly and effectively with the scourge of terrorism."
In a memorandum explaining their motion, the unions said, "The implementation of the regulations on Aug. 1 will result in multiple irreparable injuries to the unions and the employees they represent."
By law, the unions must prove "irreparable harm" in order to get the temporary halt. DHS argued in its response that the unions' alleged irreparable injuries are "largely speculative and theoretical and therefore wholly insufficient to establish either standing or irreparable harm."
NTEU argued in the motion that employees at the Customs and Border Protection bureau "will be subject to reassignment from, for example, a seaport on the East Coast to one on the West Coast without being given any choice, or voice, in the matter."
DHS maintained that the unions could not prove this will occur. It cited Robert Smith, a human resources manager at CBP, as saying that CBP has never required such a reassignment, despite the fact that it has the power to do so even now.
COMMENTS
- "the unions' alleged irreparable injuries are "largely speculative and theoretical and therefore wholly insufficient to establish either standing or irreparable harm" <-- This has to be government lawyer speak because it doesn't make sense to me. The change in the personnel system is totally speculative and theoretical so how could the Union's agrument be anything else? The irreparable damage will be the political nature of the civil service after the proposed changes-not the lack of due process! Political appointees will reward those that are yes men and hold back those that have substance. I am fast learning to just say yes to everything and hope I will be retired before the problems really surface-much like the military managers that PCS out of management jobs in time periods of less than two years. They never have to live with their problems but the civil servants do! taxpayer Posted July 13, 2005 7:18 AM
- Bravo-- clap, clap-- well done. The DHS and OPM legal defense against this motion for injunction is that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plantiff's underlying claims. A nice legal argument. Case closed-- we can all go home with assurance from these government lawyers that national defense requires the creation of draconian HR policies. My advice to the Unions-- you made your pitch, you are going to lose this battle. Just let the experiment fail and let the government pay a high price for your cooperation in the future. Losing this battle doesn't mean the war is over. My future job when this administration is finished is to protect management rights once that pendulum swings hard back toward partnership as I have no doubt it will, especially when MaxHR and NSPS negatively interferes with the mission of these Departments. In the meantime just offer career services to your constitients in DHS and DoD to help them find jobs in more pleasant federal sector work environments-- that is unless this administration gets its way and we all work under NSPS systems. Good luck! GovExec.com reader Posted July 12, 2005 8:55 AM
- "By law, the unions must prove "irreparable harm" in order to get the temporary halt. DHS argued in its response that the unions' alleged irreparable injuries are "largely speculative and theoretical and therefore wholly insufficient to establish either standing or irreparable harm."" So what's DHS' point? If the union's allegations are "largely speculative", then DHS should go ahead and let them file. The case will be thrown out and the new system will be implemented. Or are they worried the unions have something that will stop them? GovExec.com reader Posted July 12, 2005 9:15 AM
GovExec Live!
At 12 p.m. EST on Wed., July 13, Government Executive's Shane Harris and Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, will spend an hour responding to your questions and comments about the changes proposed for GSA. Feel free to submit your questions and comments early or during the hour-long discussion.
