From Bob Gilson writing for FedSmith:
I admit to fascination at the statements made by many union representatives in response to recent Executive Orders addressing their use of government time, space, equipment, and services.
When the Civil Service Reform Act went into effect in 1979, no one on either side of the aisle in either house on the Hill or down the street on PA Avenue would have seen as remotely possible the complete payment of all employee/union representatives, some getting 100% of their work time doing union work. Also incredible in 1979 would have been the current practice in many Agencies of paying for all union communications, computing, office space, meeting space and other costs. ...
Gilson goes on to detail the facts that some union money has been used to pay for a lobbyist (a pittance by D.C standards) and that union dues have paid for only a fraction of the union's true operating costs. It's directed specifically at the union local that represents most Social Security employees. It's a harshly anti-union piece but there's certainly an argument to be made in favor of Trump's order on federal employee unions.
I don't know anything about SSA or their union, but I am a member of a union at a state university. We have a contract with the university that specifies office space for the union and time off for some employees to conduct union business. This contract was approved by the university and union, and cannot be changed unilaterally. I think this is perfectly ordinary. The author might not like it, but if it's in a contract, then the question is whether you think that when the administration changes, the new one should be able to unilaterally change contracts that have been made.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem that the union negotiated a good deal for the union (but we don't know what they gave up in exchange). One problem for unions is that in many places, they are required to represent all employees in the bargaining unit, but those employees are not required to join or pay dues to the union (that appears to be the case here). This effectively makes the union operate as a charity, since employees can get the benefit of the union without paying the cost. Perhaps this caused the union to make a priority in negotiations getting most of its costs covered by the gov't rather that dues. There is nothing wrong with this, and presumably the gov't agreed.