Return to Article: Pentagon official optimistic about overturning labor ruling
-
19264
Just where did this Chu guy come from, anyway?
-
19189
What is this plan costing? How much money, man hours, TDY's, office equipment, overhead, etc. been expended to promote this demeaning and crushing system. I want to know that number, don't you? This system is not about pay-for-performance, it is about absolute control and cutting salaries. Don't think for a moment it's not.
-
19132
Chu does not know when to do the right thing! The courts have ruled you have an illegal system, the workers say the NSPS is bad and should not go forward, and the unions have fought this thing all the way. Chu is a perfect example of why you never want government to decide how people should live, what they should buy and the price they should pay! Chu is anti-American because he is saying what he thinks is right and even though the government system says he is wrong and the people say he is wrong - he will continue because he knows better than anyone!
The Defense Department and guys like Chu are wasting my tax money and punishing the people who work for the government because they think they know best -- and that includes Rummy.
Drop this ridiculous system and leave the process alone. It works fine and is the best anti-political system we have. NSPS will not improve government but may improve politics because the political appointees will be able to pay their friends and supporters just as the HUD chief awards contracts only to those who support the president -- screw the people!
-
19103
As stated before, we have a performance-based system; security can be enforced (if they only will); mobilization, reductions-in-force, and involuntary transfers can all occur now, under the current system, as demonstrated by BRAC. All the administration is required to do is plan, develop, notify, and implement. The only foreseeable security benefit of NSPS over the status quo is a shorter implementation time span. They don't have to plan, just command "Do it!" and if you don't, you're fired.
So why all the "security" fuss?
As always, in my humble opinion, they don't care if NSPS gets dumped. It's a nice-to-have. Yes, admittedly it would only speed up their time table and give the secretary absolute and total free reign -- not just the token version he exhibits today. But, as in most power plays, there is a bottom line. We know they are willing to sacrifice the representational issue because the DHS let the court ruling challenge period clock run out. They didn't bother to file an appeal.
So with all the checks and balances, all the lost court cases, why is Chu so nonchalant? They're already implementing performance-pay. They're doing wonderful marvelous things on the security issue. Just watch that left hand; don't worry about the right.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" cried the Wizard. Personally, I'm looking. See you in November.
Tip off.
-
19091
Mr. Chu's motto must be, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try and continue to try [again] until you win" The courts have decided that the policies on labor management with NSPS violate collective bargaining. Unions were created so that management could not have ultimate power over the people who worked for them. Unions were the guiding force that changed many of the labor laws and working conditions that we now enjoy in this country, and protect us and provide the workforce with good standard of living. This administration wishes to return this country back to the mid-30s, when management treated the workforce as nothing better than slaves. The first step is to emasculate the federal civilian workforce, and then from there, Bush's corporate cronies can begin the enslavement of the remaining workforce. Just ask workers in China and India and many other third world countries how they are treated, without unions protecting them and voicing their concerns. We have all seen what a wonderful job Rummy has done in Iraq. Just imagine what wonders he can do as the ultimate decider in workers' rights throughout the Defense Department.
-
19083
OK Rummy et al, go reach into your wallet and buy off the decision you want. If it goes through, then that's how it will be decided. With all the other scandals going on in government right now, I wouldn't be surprised. It's time to end this abuse come this November and in 2008 when we can oust these people and their corrupt agenda - vote them out!
Mr. Chu, your arguments for the security aspects of NSPS are so weak it's pathetic -- drug testing? Your ulterior motive reaches much farther than that! NSPS means one thing: anti-civil service laws meant to promote privatization. I want my union to bargain on my behalf for protecting fairness in the workplace, a living wage for the long hours of work I put in, the required travel away from my family, and allow me the provisions for a retirement that I can live off of. I especially don't want government becoming a CEO style company wherein the big guys can fire me because I didn't kiss up to them, and the way it will promote co-worker back stabbing. Sure, let's see how productive the workplace becomes under these conditions. NSPS and those who support it are ultimately a disservice to the men in uniform. It will too easily remove the talents of those dedicated individuals who do the hard work but are unfairly treated by a particular supervisor who doesn't appreciate/like them.
-
19077
Of course Congress will not make a decision on the National Security Personnel System or the immigration bill on illegal aliens before the November elections. Our elected officials need to remember why they are on Capitol Hill; to represent the legal American citizen. This political ballgame of who's got the ball in their court has done more damage to our country than Hurricane Katrina.
Mr. Chu should keep telling himself the National Security Personnel System is different and will pass when the DHS personnel system did not, that may make his job more secure. Both systems are about performance with security thrown in for scare tactics.
Who do they think they are fooling? I really don't think it's about security because if there is a breech in security today a person can be fired for it. The ability for management to override collective bargaining agreements for national security purposes, a decreased scope of bargaining, and a new internal review board to decide labor management disputes are communistic. All of these are taking the rights away from the civilian worker and giving power to management. This will create a dictatorship. And we defeated the Soviet Union for what? I and others know a review board would favor management, be a farce and an absolute waste of time.
-
19076
"There is always the Supreme Court option," Chu said. "But there are a series of options you could consider, including, yes, going back to Congress and saying 'OK, now what do we do?'"
Boy, that's brilliant, Chu, just brilliant. Your arrogance got us into this mess, so in the end you want to go crawling back to Congress to beg them to get you out of it? My, oh my, here is government leadership at its greatest, ladies and gentlemen. I do believe that emperor Chu has no clothes!!
-
19072
According to Chu the unions are the culprit when it comes to national security. Read the GovExec.com excerpt below:
"What's at stake here is, 'What does collective bargaining mean in the federal government?' " Chu said. "What the statute invited us to do, at least as we interpret it, is to give the secretary the last word in terms of collective bargaining processes. The unions obviously are opposed to that system. We think it's essential for national security."
What Chu is saying is that it is essential for national security that the secretary have the last word in terms of the collective bargaining process! In other words, the union (and its constituents) cannot be trusted with the nation's security. Don't we protect the nation's security 24/7/365 worldwide? With or without my management I come to work every day and do what I have to do. Mr. Chu is sadly mistaken if he thinks we cannot be trusted with our nation's security!!!!
PS- I may be un-civil but I'm patriotic! Don't insult my patriotism!
Un-Civil Servant
-
19067
What does Mr. Chu not understand? Collective bargaining does not equal dictatorship. How can you put up a facade that you are for collective bargaining when all agreements can be voided by fiat from the Defense secretary?
-
19066
Dr. Chu claims that the proposed personnel system is needed in the interest of national security. Preserving basic rights of American workers seems more in line with safeguarding the security of our nation and our American values. Totalitarianism is not a fundamental part of the American way of life, but that is what our government wants with respect to dealing with its employees (maybe our citizens as well?). The Defense Department will lose its case in the appeals court. Whether or not the Congress can still be swayed by the catch phases like "national security" and convinced to alter the laws once more to benefit the Defense Department remains to be seen. I think Congress is getting wise to the administration's agenda and will not be so easily blinded or intimidated to give its blessing to the Defense Department's requests in the future.
Dr. Chu needs to realize that whatever the problems are within Defense, removing employees' rights to collective bargaining is not the fix. But, I will concede that suppressing employees' rights will make it easier for bad decisions to be carried out.
-
19064
I would urge all the federal employees to write their respective congressional representatives now. Since the Defense Department and DHS have no vision, we have to take action before the federal workplace is exactly as signed here.
-
19063
Mr. Chu uses national security to scare people into accepting these changes. This country and its federal employees have responded exceptionally well to protect its borders, airplanes, etc. What part of national security is not being accomplished? Mr. Chu says he doesn't want to negotiate with 1,500 union locals. Well how about at the national level, where the number is probably under a dozen. Think of all the money being spent by the Pentagon when all they have to do is approach the unions at the national level and open an honest dialogue to get this done. It sounds more like the Pentagon is afraid of the unions or doesn't have the skills or talent to pull this off. The Pentagon could even force the FLRA to consider consolidating some of the smaller unions into one larger union and thereby reducing the number of national unions.
-
19059
Chu sounds like a spoiled brat.
-
19056
Give me a break. The Defense Department gets the law it wanted and spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress for, violates that law in designing NSPS, and now has the gall to cry if it doesn't prevail in court and ask Congress for help.
But what amazes me more, is that Congress listens to this tripe and some members of Congress even entertain this as an option. What ever happened to sixth grade civics class where we learned that the legislative branch makes the laws and the executive branch executes the administration of the government under those laws?
When will Congress stand up to the administration's storm troopers and hold them accountable?
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.