From the Washington Post (I've avoided parts of the article that are obviously slanted against the employee unions):
Federal agencies on Monday begin implementing executive orders from President Trump on how to confront employee unions, following strict guidelines likely to escalate tensions that have been building since the president took office. ...
The administration wants agencies to reopen collective bargaining agreements to reduce the on-duty time union representatives spend representing employees. Managers are directed to “monitor and carefully report” on the time and make the information publicly available. And agencies are directed to move swiftly to fire poor performers, renegotiating any contracts that allow for progressive discipline.
The conflict appears headed for a showdown, either in federal court, where the unions have filed numerous lawsuits challenging the orders, or in Congress. The administration and the unions have courted Capitol Hill allies, with Republicans supporting Trump’s tactics and Democrats backing the unions, a key constituency. ...See below for the grievance that has been filed by the union representing most Social Security employees in response to this. Click on each page to view full size.
I'm a neutral non-combatant in this battle. However, the Trump order is clearly a declaration of war. The Supreme Court's obvious hostility to employee unions may help Trump but he may also need continued GOP control of both houses of Congress to win this war.
The Washington Post piece is not worthy of a great newspaper. It's filled with pejorative references to federal employees and their unions. I don't think that even Rupert Murdock's Wall Street Journal would have written a piece like that. Joe Davidson, who normally covers federal employee matters for the Post, wrote a much more even-handed piece.
The thing is Federal employee unions are basically powerless to deal with wages or benefits. Little is on their plate other than insuring that discipline and firing is consistent as is work place conditions.
ReplyDeleteThe grand question is the battle just part of the general big business destroy unions quest or part of a campaign to try to undermine the concept of civil service and make more positions available as reward for support of the winning candidate?
I don't have any comments on the legality of the EOs. However, they seem to be somewhat common sensical. The main thrust is to limit the amount of "duty time" that SSA employees spend doing union business.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to make sense, why should taxpayers foot the bill for a business (the union) to negotiate with the government. I am all for unions representing employees, but that should be done at union expense. Trump's EO is a surprising/sudden correction, but on this ONE issue, I agree with what he is doing.
I'm sure in the private sector you have never spent a single minute of "duty time" to negotiate benefits with your HR department or your superiors. You've always done that at home on your private time, right?
ReplyDeleteIf you follow this line of thinking, then why should taxpayers foot the bill for all the of work done by federal employees to pay attorneys?
ReplyDeleteNo unions for fed employees. Don't like it work private sector for a union shop if you feel that strongly.
ReplyDelete