A number of important Congressional leaders, all Democrats, including the ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and the Chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and House Oversight and Reform Committee, have written Andrew Saul, the new Commissioner of Social Security, to urge that he reject anti-employee union actions which took place before he was sworn in and to return to the bargaining table.
I don't know exactly what's going to happen but if Saul doesn't change the course of the labor-management relationship at Social Security he's going to face massive conflict with Congressional Democrats and they are in a position to make his life difficult. There should be a House Social Security Subcommittee hearing with Saul in the near future. It will go a lot easier for Saul if the main employee union at Social Security, AFGE, believes that Saul wants to work with them instead of trying to destroy them.
15 comments:
Not destroy them, make them do the work of the people on taxpayer time and the work of the union on union time and the union dime.
11:57 - What "union time" are you referring to? I hope that you realize that the union does not pay its officials to perform union business. On the other hand, Congress passed a law authorizing some union representatives to perform certain, specified duties while working for the government. So if you want federal employees to work on union time, then that is the same thing as destroying the union, because there is no "union time and union dime", as you put it.
Moreover, union representation involves speaking with management and other employees on a daily basis. If you were to limit these activities to "union time," when an individual is not working in the federal office, then once again, the union would not be able to function.
So I understand if you're anti-union, but please let's not pretend these recent management actions are anything but a blatant attempt to destroy federal unions.
@5:18...why can't the union hire people to do this? Why do we pay SSA employees to do the work of the union? The union is a private organization that requires members to pay dues...yet screams foul when it can't do its work on "company" time.
Third-party observer, just interested in why it works this way.
When SSA management or negotiators deal with the union, they certainly get paid by the taxpayer, and I don't think they are representing the interests of the taxpayer any more than the union is (probably less). So as a taxpayer, I'm fine with my taxes being used to help represent the workers in addition to management.
Why should I, the tax payer, via my taxes, support a person getting paid a federal salary and not doing the job they were hired to perform for that salary?
@8:29
I think 7:16 makes a decent point that even if union time were paid by the union, as opposed to SSA, then the SSA management/negotiators would still be being paid by the tax payer for a purpose they were not hired to perform.
7:16 suggests that arrangement is unfair, which I agree with, but also I believe having both parties paid by SSA would incentive compromise, which in turn would likely be more efficient then if the two parties are funded by different sources.
I imagine this change, if anything, will lead to more waste, maybe not in terms of strictly tax dollars, but certainly in terms of workhours.
Why do federal employees with generous pay, leave and benefits need a union?
Why do judges, need a union? Are Nonagency judges unionized (agency to expand beyond SSA.. I know, right, there is more than SSA in the world)? If other judges not in a government agency are not unionized why should federal agency judges be unionized?
I am trying to figure out what is so damn important that a union that collects dues from it members also has to take money and time away from a government agency funded by the taxpayer?
@1:53
Because that generous pay, leave and benefits are the result of the union and the Administration has indicated they intend to reduce those benefits. That's literally what is underlying this dispute.
As to why article III("non-agency" as you refer to them) judges may or may not be unionized, Article I judges like ALJs are provided far less protections than article III judges, so I imagine there is not much incentive to unionize by "non-agency" judges. Not much of a point in unionizing when you can only be removed in rare circumstances.
Which benefits are they reducing? Are they going to be paying higher medical insurance premiums like the public do? Are they losing holidays with pay like the public? Are they restricting payment into retirement like happened to the public over the last few decades? Are they reducing pay from a previous high to a new lower level or just lowing it for new hires like the public has been dealing with?
What are they "reducing."
"Are they going to pay higher medical insurance premiums like the public do?"
This isn't something governed by any Agency or union K--this is OPM and Congress/statutory stuff. And, yes, by the way, we Feds have been seeing our premiums climbing at a decent rate the last few years like others. And the laws many in Congress want to pass would have us paying a higher share of the premiums.
"Are they losing holidays with pay like the public?" no and we never should. You should be mad about your company cheaping out over and over again, not mad that the Feds seem to be the only employers left who don't want to completely abuse and mistreat its employees. And don't say there isn't enough money/profits there--there's plenty of profits. Our major corps are sitting on more cash that they have nothing to do with (I thought The Market, as wise and perfect as it is, always made efficient economic outcomes...) than ever before and yet none of them even entertain the idea of giving raises, more benefits, or even substantial one-time bonuses. Only shareholders and execs reap any real benefits from more profits.
"Are they restricting payment into retirement..." yes. A few years back there was a law that made new Feds pay much more than the previous 0.8% of their gross salaries into the FERS pension. It went up again much higher a couple years after that, such that new Feds are paying a FICA-sized portion of pay into FERS. And this is bad and shouldn't have happened.
"Are they reducing pay from a previous high..." not so much, but they've skipped COLA raises a number of years for us. And many in Congress def want to lower pay on the higher end of the Fed scale as well as change our retirement pay calculation from average high-three to average high-five.
Anyhow, I reiterate what I said in the third graf. Don't be mad that Feds still get some decent employment benefits, be mad that unbridled, crony capitalism (read: just capitalism) has ravaged your places of employ and reduced you to an abused and very replaceable (in employers' eyes, not real life!) cog in their machine. It's not that what we get is so good, it's that what so many of you are getting is so bad. Don't drag us down to your gutter, work with us to get private employment back out of the dark ages.
What is it that you people are not understanding? Do unions represent any individuals that have been asked to do things beyond the requirements of their jobs, sometimes illegal, and should be represented by somebody, other than themselves, that believe in something better than what the agency is requiring? Do you believe the agencies think that everything they do is above reproach? Do you believe that those people who stand up against the agencies and any of their illegal requirements should have to deal with it on their own? Give me a break! Do the taxpayers of America believe that everything the agencies do is always right? Sometimes those people who are the most vocal about Injustice are those people who actually work in the government and see the daily abuses that occur. Grow up!
"It's not that what we get is so good, it's that what so many of you are getting is so bad. Don't drag us down to your gutter, work with us to get private employment back out of the dark ages."
What an amazingly entitled statement.
Thanks
The Gutter
Gutter? Seriously, if we are not fed employees we are in the "dark ages" and "in the gutter."
So if working people are "in the gutter" makes you wonder what they think of the Claimants that are not working, doesn't it.
@5:55
Well said.
Post a Comment