TOPICS
TOPICS
Officials forgo Supreme Court appeal in DHS labor case
Government officials on Monday night passed up their last chance to seek reversal of a court decision blocking proposed labor relations reforms at the Homeland Security Department.
The solicitor general's office, which brings cases to the Supreme Court on behalf of government agencies, let a midnight deadline pass without filing an appeal at the high court.
"We're OK with that because it allows the department to move forward in implementing our labor relations flexibilities rather than spending additional time in the litigation process," said Larry Orluskie, a DHS spokesman.
In June, an appeals panel unanimously upheld, and even broadened, an earlier ruling that the proposed system would illegally curtail collective bargaining rights for employees by giving management the ability to cancel negotiated agreements. DHS and Justice Department officials in August decided against challenging that decision before the full appellate court, but left open the option for a Supreme Court appeal.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on why the solicitor general chose not to pursue the Supreme Court appeal.
Orluskie said DHS officials will begin talks soon on how to rework the system so it meets legal standards.
"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," Orluskie said.
Representatives of the federal employee unions that brought the case were pleased at the government's decision.
"DHS has made the right decision," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. "It is now time for DHS to put this adversarial proceeding behind it and to join with NTEU in focusing solely on the agency's critical mission of protecting the American people."
"This is the smartest thing DHS has done in quite some time," said Mark Roth, a lawyer for the American Federation of Government Employees. "DHS management was in a battle they knew they couldn't win."
If DHS wants to rework its collective bargaining scheme, it must re-enter the meet-and-confer process with the unions representing its employees and resubmit the regulations to the Federal Register. The department is free, however, to move ahead with personnel changes that don't involve labor relations.
"We are working full-on with performance management," Orluskie said. He noted that DHS has trained 11,000 managers and supervisors on the new system, which focuses on job performance and will eventually link pay raises to performance ratings.
"It is my expectation that DHS will now engage in meaningful discussions with unions and management associations [on labor relations plans]," said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, ranking member of a Senate federal workforce oversight subcommittee, in a statement Tuesday.
The law that created DHS, and allowed officials to rewrite personnel rules, gave the department five years for labor relations changes. As a result, department's authorization to modify the bargaining system ends in January 2009.
COMMENTS
- 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
- 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
- "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
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco









