GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Officials forgo Supreme Court appeal in DHS labor case

• 18979
  

  "But why let facts get in the way of some good rhetoric, right?"

  That statement, and all comments regarding "fairness," should be reserved to lecture the pieces of garbage who are in favor of these personnel systems, not those here who are rightfully speaking out against them. Although I agree that some people are obviously mixing up two different personnel systems at two different departments, it doesn't really matter. Both systems have the same goals in mind, will be equally damaging, and will bring about the same negative results. To speak out against one is to speak out against the other. Any "rhetoric" that is being spun is clearly being done by the useless imbeciles who are pushing these personnel changes.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 29, 2006 1:46 AM
• 18972
  

  For those without imagination, simply substitute DHS where ever you read NSPS (Un-Civil Servant's comments) and the "rhetoric" stays exactly the same. DHS and NSPS according to all sources are in the same "legal" struggle. In fact, another article was written today by Karen Rutzick pointing out the same legal battle NSPS will have if the government continues using the courts to try and solve their problem. Congressmen are already suggesting that the Pentagon should sit and have talks with the unions.

  Since NSPS followed the same courses of action as DHS, it would seem safe to believe the Pentagon would also seek to get a presidential order or congressional permission to circumvent Congress' original NSPS requirements. Please don't attack me, I'm just making an observation. Read the GovExec.com article, "DHS collective bargaining loss likely to affect Pentagon's similar plan."

  If Un-Civil Servant is correct, time will tell. But remember that a leopard can't change its spots, and neither can this administration when it comes to changing civil service regulations. Lucky for us they can't control the courts, yet. Look at it this way. If the government won't accept a court's decision, what makes you think they have a problem asking for a presidential order for DHS or NSPS?

  Civilian

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 28, 2006 6:32 PM
• 18967
  

  Dear "It is interesting ..." Yeah, we know Bush is God and left wingers are bad with a capital "B"! Like the rest of your ilk, you gloss right over the point and parse words. You know darn well Un-Civil Servant's point is the so-called "personnel system reform" that is nothing more than a union busting power grab designed to force employees into complete submission to the whims of ignorant and arrogant "managers" -- not leaders, managers!

  Cracked & Wired Posted September 28, 2006 12:37 PM
• 18952
  

  It is interesting how some of the comments on this story have turned this article into a story about the National Security Personnel System at the Defense Department, instead of what it is actually about: MaxHR at the Homeland Security Department. These are two different systems, and two different lawsuits at two different agencies. The Un-Civil Servant tries to characterize quotes about DHS to be quotes about NSPS. People, get your facts straight before you start making statements as if they were true. Another comment acts like NSPS is being implemented at both Defense and DHS. While Defense should have done things differently, it isn't fair to suddenly make stories about DHS to be about Defense when they truly are separate. But why let facts get in the way of some good rhetoric, right?

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 28, 2006 5:15 AM
• 18946
  

  If anyone thinks the NSPS people are going to sit with the unions and actually discuss, bargain and agree on anything you are sadly mistaken. Stephen Barr, in the Washington Post's Federal Diary, wrote today about the administration's plans to circumvent the court rulings.

  "Administration officials declined to discuss their next steps but did not rule out more talking, making changes through a presidential order or returning to Congress for a change in law."

  Just like they changed the locality pay/bonus rules, they can change any part of how we are treated. Congress never stopped NSPS even when the courts slapped down the regulations. The president has already proven that he has no problem with ordering anything from (borderline) torture to phone tapping. Do you actually think he would hesitate to write a presidential order circumventing Congress' intent? It would be child's play to write such a simple order. Years later Congress might even determine the order was illegal (where have we seen that before, maybe even recently?). After 3 or 4 years of using the system it would be too late go back and undo everything.

  When did our politicians learn to stoop so low that they simply forgo the wishes of our elected representatives (Congress) and use presidential mandates to run the country?

  Un-Civil Servant

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 27, 2006 1:17 PM
• 18936
  

  It is very simple. DHS and DoD are trying to implement the NSPS system for personnel evaluation and pay. The system is illegal and provides no alternative for employees who disagree with management's decisions concerning their life! Both DoD and DHS have faced court blockages because the people introducing the systems want to screw the employees any way they want to without regard to the impact on the employee or their family.

  DHS has chosen to forego the appeal process because it can implement this bad system (as DoD already is doing) and not be restricted on any employee outside of a collective bargaining agreement! This involves most non-trade type employees. The lack of recourse for employees means they will do anything management wants done (even illegal things) because that is what they will be paid to do!

  This system should encourage the big group ready to retire to go ahead and retire and will prevent new people from joining the government unless they have no alternative.

  Congress should stop this system now because the courts have demonstrated that the systems are illegal and poorly designed. Likewise, in DoD the military does not fall under the system and most managers in the services are military! Think they care about a system that lets them do what they are told to do?

  Taxpayer Posted September 27, 2006 9:56 AM
• 18929
  

  "What we're going to do moving forward is sit down with our component agencies, sit down with the unions, and discuss how we move forward and where we go from here," a DHS spokesman said.

  Translation: "We arrogantly ignored congressional mandates to preserve employee rights, blew off the unions, and got thumped hard by appellate courts. But hey, give us credit for not being foolish enough to try to flaunt the law before the highest court in the land. Our actions would not have stood up to the public scrutiny a Supreme Court slap down would have engendered."

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 27, 2006 3:14 AM
• 18926
  

  Too bad this decision only applies to collective bargaining and related personnel issues, while the pay-banding proposals of MaxHR are still going forward. Pay-banding was almost universally opposed by the thousands of employees who submitted their comments during the required public comment period for MaxHR. But their wishes and ideas for pay reform, many of which were reasonable and worthwhile, were totally ignored by the arrogant management at DHS. DHS managers will never admit making a mistake, especially the biggest mistake of all, the creation of DHS itself.

  DHS is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 that has done little to make this country safer, other than spending billions of taxpayer dollars, and demoralizing the federal employees unlucky enough to be snared in the DHS net. Many the managers who flocked to DHS from the private sector to pad their resumes, and then returned to the private sector at greatly increased salaries based upon a few months of DHS "experience," profited from this abortion of an agency. However, the rank and file career employees have been marginalized, ignored, abused, and now told that dissention within the ranks will not be tolerated! I guess the First Amendment is dead, at least at DHS.

  How disgusting, and how sad it all is.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 26, 2006 6:07 PM