GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: House members ask Obama to bring back labor-management partnerships

• 81245
  

  If someone would come in here and get rid of the good ol' boy system, they would clean up a lot of the mess. When the big wheels come in and ask management what the problem is, management tell them what they want to hear and not the true facts. If anyone is seeking a job all they have to do is ask daddy or uncle big wheel and they get hired instead of going through they proper channels and getting they job the legal way. Now everyone here is related and they cover eachothers back. This is why the suicide rate has gone up here. We have already had two this year and they had a lot to do with work environment. The union has not power here. If a rep wins their case, they get hired by the other side at a higher grade. Why even pay your dues every week? You can't solve a problem unless you get at the real truth of the problem.

  Bernadette Kemp Posted June 25, 2009 9:53 AM
• 81083
  

  The Clinton era partnerships were co-management and ineffective. Large numbers of employees were assigned to the groups and a lot of money spent for time and travel with little or no results. Most of the time, management still had to proceed with formal negotiations after a lengthy partnership process. Management needs more emphasis on "coaching" employees to success vs. the only-style dictator approach. We don't need Clinton era type partnerships.

  Sharon Posted June 24, 2009 7:10 AM
• 81069
  

  In retrospec to the Bush Era abolished Partnerships. They worked well at DSCP during the Clinton Presidency. During the Bush Presidency, our managment took on a cocky attitude and began to systematicaly break labor law. It seemed the lower level supervisors took their Que from the crass and disrespectfull treatment of the Union during a managment offsite, at which the Union was villafied and asked to leave prematurly. The Union took its lumps, and continued to win case after case at the expense of managment. After all, We still had an Master Labor Agreement, and we were very good at enforcing it. Amen

  Frank H Posted June 23, 2009 7:48 PM
• 81000
  

  The problem as I see it, and from reading the article, is that word "management". Another is "nonadverserial". "Management" has devolved to an "us versus them" culture, whereby the lowly employee is reprised against (and no one can say it doesn't happen) should he speak out against the "company line". This is the case in a lot of areas of the DoD. The problems lie not in partnership, but in LEADERSHIP. Sadly, the area in which I work has very few true leaders and very many "good ol' boys". If we had more LEADERS and less politicians, the partnership would take care of itself. Unfortunately one will also find that same problem in many Locals.

  FedEmployee Posted June 23, 2009 9:48 AM
• 80957
  

  ECHO of " A Bad penny Returns"

  This is just another attempt at Union payback by the Obama administration. This will go just as the last one went. You would need three things that don't exist to make this work. First you need a union capable of negotiating and bargaining. Second you would need a real partnership rather than a smoke and mirror "feel good" relationship between the two. Third you would need a severe penality to assure management made a sincere effort to work within the guide lines.

  SATOS Posted June 22, 2009 1:20 PM
• 80953
  

  The Clinton-Gore partnerships were a fiasco. The unions didn't have any interest in improving ways increase efficiency when the budgets were shrinking. Bargaining Unit employees were put on task forces on areas in which they had no knowledge or any kind of expertise. They were appointed simply as a reward for paying union dues. My chapter president told me he would never recommend an employee who wasn't a union member regardless of his or her qualifications. Union reps were paid to attend management meetings in which they didn't contribute anything or, as far as I could see, even make an attempt to represent their constituencies except to say over and over again that the status quo was acceptable to them.

  I was an analyst at the time but not management so I was in a position to see both sides of a task force.

  If partnerships are revived, I would not want to see the same things happening again.

  James Posted June 22, 2009 1:13 PM
• 80742
  

  Can we just bring back labor?/ You know where folks come in and do 8 hours of work a day, now that is change we can all believe in

  dan m ketter Posted June 18, 2009 10:01 PM
• 80732
  

  No way. I was involved in this in the FAA. Union membership went down, the union gave away stuff to management, management gave nothing to the union, and management wanted non dues paying members to be on committees reserved for the union. Nice in theory, but a big mistake. 5 USC 71 exists for a purpose, and management will never giveup up on 7106 discretionary rights. And if you go down that road again, along will come another republican and everyone gets bent out of shape. Stick to LR, it works.

  Simon Wheaton-Smith Posted June 18, 2009 6:55 PM
• 80711
  

  You can't legislate a relationship. A pox on both the Clinton-Gore mandatory partnerships and the Bush prohibition on the same.

  Parties should get the relationship they deserve. Those with good relationships and a demonstrated bilateral commitment to interest based dispute resolution and making government more effective and efficient should have the ability to be more collaborative and deal with more complex issues, such as permissive subjects of bargaining. However, those who see the relationship as one of win-lose, where one side is always good and the other always evil,should not have the same latitude.

  Unfortunately, this latter situation characterizes too many collective bargaining relationships in the federal sector. No Executive Order can make such a relationship productive. If they can't agree on where to put a water cooler, how can they be expected to deal with staffing patterns or methods and means of performaing work.

  While the unions always put the blame on management for a poor relationship, the unions have a lot of accountability for the state of the relationship. Have you read some internal union newsletters and their characterization of management and agency leaders? If so, is it surprising that management is not enthusiastic about treating them as partners?

  I saw many situations where partnership was a valuable asset, and I saw many where it just gave the parties more and bigger things to fight over There can't be a one size fits all prescription

  Another Retired Federal LR Manager Posted June 18, 2009 3:23 PM
• 80708
  

  Don't like the wages/pension, benefits in the Government - leave - there are plenty of unemployed individuals who would love to have your job.

  red58 Posted June 18, 2009 3:14 PM
• 80686
  

  Partnership is nothing new as it has existed throughout all of our known history. Accountability and responsibility as well. Within the Federal sector we all are held to standards that reflect our behavior and our professionalism. It is there that each of us need to understand how we must relate to one another for the common good of all. These are not new words or thoughts they are part of the fabric of ethical code. I am proud to say that where I work I enjoy a very successful relationship with the management, the Navy and my bargaining unit. A partnership deserves as much professionalism and nurturing as any other relationship to be wholesome and productive. Like any other endeavor in life, "You get out of it what you put into it."

  John Carter Posted June 18, 2009 1:25 PM
• 80683
  

  Bush was a great chief executive of our government, wasn't he. Katrina, Brownie and the FAA debacle to include a controller staffing mess and the blind eye managers at the Dallas FSDO were allowed to turn towards SWA and AAL air worthiness inspection deadlines, to name but a few.

  Federal mangagers like bad peso loath unions and loath collabortion. Why ?

  Simple, they'd have even less to do, then they do now, if the unions started adding input. And God forbid we put out a better service through partnership. They'd have to actually talk to the rank and file as opposed to talking at them.

  Mark Athas Posted June 18, 2009 1:17 PM
• 80644
  

  The Clinton era partnerships led by Al Gore was a fraud on the public and the unions. Agency were encouraged by not coerced into bargaining over the permissive subjects. There was no enforcement procedure. When complaining to the Gore people, they simply referred the complaint about the Agency to the Agency itself. There was no force of law given to it.

  What the administration should do and the unions should demand are the rights given to all other state and municipal employees- the right to negotiate wages, pensions and healthcare. State and municipal police are allowed unions that do these things.

  Why is the common federal employee a 2ND class citizen?

  Shame on federal management on their attitude - a great many of them would NEVER gain management status for long in the private sector or even state/municipal level.

  Where is Gage (AFGE) and Brady (NTEU) in getting us these rights by LAW?

  George Sincavage Posted June 18, 2009 11:32 AM
• 80631
  

  Successful organizations understand the importance of their number one resource, employees. Being directly involved in partnership during the Clinton Administration confirmed my belief in the importance of collaboration. Was partnership perfect, no, however, what is the alternative? If government was suddenly thrust into a competitive business environment, I am sure one of our competitors would certainly engage their workforce in collaboration to improve service. Unfortunately, the stumbling block to partnership are managers and union officials who refuse to concede power and enter into a relationship focused on the customers, both internal and external to the organization. The American people deserve better from their government. Federal agencies, as well as federal union, need to focus on the needs of the people they serve and not massaging their egos. Partnership is one of many ways to improve service at a time when government service is so vital to the American people.

  Scott Posted June 18, 2009 10:42 AM
• 80630
  

  I'm not sure how any form of partnership, collaboration or whatever you want to call it can be successful when the parties (certainley the management side) are forced into it. It will never work unless both sides figure out a method that they both can live with. It can be done but it is very difficult and I'm not sure that most of the various unions and agencies are up to the task. Short term political appointees will do whatever makes the President happy knowing full well that in a few years they will be gone and will not have to live with their decisions leaving the career people to live with the mess. FAA is not a good example at all. The unions got most of what they wanted in '95 because management gave away the farm without evaluating the long term effects of the terms agreed to. When management finally woke up and tried to reign things in, the unions got all torqued up. Granted, sending impasses to do nothing Congress is a very poor model and the proposed third party impasse procedure makes sense but, of course the unions want to turn the clock back and not live with the results of the old system. Get a grip.

  Retired Labor manager Posted June 18, 2009 10:41 AM
• 80628
  

  John Cage stated, "I trust management. I trust them to be management." "And I trust the union to be the union." Mr. Cage's archaic and myopic view of "what" these institutions are is representative of fear of change which leads to resistance. The "Partnership" order was a step in the right direction for a paradigm shift of labor-management relationships not seen since the inception of the Wagner Act. Eliminating the driving force of this change, (i.e., training and use of the interest-based process) leads to the Conflict Management adage by Mark Twain; "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got." Maybe Mr. Cage would be enlightend by reading "Getting to Yes" which was the result of study from a prestigeous institution of higher education. I'm sure the many reputable mediation proponents would take issue with Mr.Cage's "opinion!"

  Anthony Miele Posted June 18, 2009 10:34 AM
• 80624
  

  Unions who want a seat at the partnership table need to come to the table with the intent and authority to comit the Union to the decisions that are made there. After acting as co-manager, it is not acceptable that the Union then insists that the partnership process is informal, that Union participants had no authority to commit the Union to an agreement and insist on long protracted negotiations. If Managment has to deal with the Union twice on each issue, what is the benefit to the Agnency.

  Harley Mills Posted June 18, 2009 10:09 AM
• 80545
  

  The Clinton era's so-called partnerships were nothing more than a sop or payoff to the Federal labor unions for their support in 1992. Agency managers, when free to speak candidly, rightly saw them as attempts to give unions increased power without accompanying responsibility or accountability. The Clinton executive order's mandate requiring agencies to negotiate on the permissive topics cited in 5 USC 7106(b) triggered a massive revolt among agency managers who refused to do any such thing - a point reinforced when the frustrated unions sought to sic FLRA on rhe recalcitrants, only to be told by FLRA that it was up to the president to call agencies to heel on this point, and that iw was not their job to enforce executive orders. The Bush decision to scrap the poorly conceived Clinton executive order was correct, and this definitely is not an idea whose time has come (again).

  A bad penny returns Posted June 17, 2009 6:06 PM
• 80540
  

  If you want to see what happens to an agency that would rather step on the throats of their employees than be in partnership just take a look at the FAA. It is on the verge of totally collapsing. The controllers will soon have a new contract but the damage has been done. They will be working 6 days work weeks for many years to come. The veterans have left and the majority of new hires cannot do the job.

  Retired Air Traficc controller Posted June 17, 2009 4:47 PM