| Comment Number: | OL-10502813 |
| Received: | 3/3/2005 3:56:50 AM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
If management would adhere to their own guidelines and follow the law there wouldn't be a need for unions. But, most managers spend their time looking for ways not to comply with laws and regulations. Most of us union presidents know that we spend more time on management interpretation of laws, rules and instructions than we do with grievances. If management can't read the material that has been in effect for 40 years how do they plant to now? The bargaining unit employee will be at the mercy of an untrained manager. We must stop Bush and his agenda to get rid of unions and the rights of federal workers. We have to stand together. There are plenty of hard working federal employees that have earned the right to not have there jobs, benefits, or rights jeopardized. How much can the federal government take from hard working Americans? The federal government would not have been able to support contacts that have been issued to secure funding from outside companies without the knowledge of federal workers. I'm opposed to the NSPS Proposals. I have a concern about the bargaining process as described in proposal number 7 -- Bargaining Processes -- At the Level of Recognition. According to bullet number 2, the consultation process in all cases will last no more than 60 calendar days. If no agreement is reached after good faith efforts, management may implement the proposed changes. My concern is this: What if "management" digs their heels in and refuses to bargain in good faith? Who determines if management has made an effort to bargain in good faith? Will this clause negate our right to bargain? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DoD's proposal seems like a lot of vague double talk to me. But, to be more constructive, I will state the following: 1. I do not trust the idea of a Defense Labor Relations Board because there is no such thing as operating independently and autonomously within a department. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. 2. Exactly how many members of the DLRB will be nominated by the union? 3. Where will the union end and the DLRB begin? Why would an employee need that many layers for a decision to me made? Does this make the union obsolete? This is unclear to me???? 4. The paragraph in proposal number 2, titled Employee Rights, reads "The NSPS Labor Relations System ensures that employees may organize, bargain collectively as provided for in NSPS, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions that affect them, subject to the provisions of NSPS." This paragraph seems to say that collective bargaining is allowed but only on the terms of the NSPS. If this is not true, please clarify. 5. What does "fee-for-service arrangement" mean? 6. Under proposal number 3, titled Bargaining Units, it's unclear what happens if less that 50% of membership participates in an election. 7. In section 11, concerning employee individual complaints, exactly what does "employee complaints... are consolidated into a new NSPS appeals system" mean? I am glad this is only a draft because there are so many things that need to be clarified in this document. I hope the next draft is clearer. It is my understanding that I authorized dues to be deducted from my pay check and in turn I have "the union at my side to represent me over employment related concerns" at all times of need. Please advise me if this understanding is incorrect and advise me of my alternatives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion, this is a general draft that has no meat to it. It hasn't changed anything. Sounds like all the bargaining will be done at the top. Proposal/problem is sent from our union to the national and they negotiate it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basically, they are diluting the union's rights to bargain over any changes to working conditions - except what management deems "significant." Of course I would be adamantly opposed to this. I am for a fee for services arrangement. I am also concerned about erosions in other areas, including notification of meetings, official time, and consultations vs. negotiation. This is an administration ploy to undermine and set unions back many decades. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This proposal scraps the Federal Civil Service altogether and lets the good ole' boys do as they will!!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To whom it may concern: These are my thoughts and concerns about the Draft of NSPS, proposed labor relations system changes. 1. Labor Relations Is this even legal? The statute says "independent", how independent is a board appointed by DOD? 2. Employee Rights NO comment at this time 3. Bargaining Units The bullet concerning an outside third party could participate. Why would they involve a third party? The removal of people from the bargaining unit is a concern. Why work leaders, employees on time-limited appointment of 2 years or less, certification, and security work (this could have a huge impact on people that work as local security managers), and lowly clerks in Human Resources? 4. Union Dues Management has made several errors on the withholding of Union dues, which could end up costing the Union hundreds of dollars if the Union had to reimburse employees for wrongfully withheld dues. 5. Duty to bargain "Significant" is to be defined by the body that owes its allegiance to the appointers? What does it mean that we will be informed of non-significant changes to conditions? Union initiated changes ... what does this mean? 6. Scope of Bargaining Agency Regulations What level is meant by Component? What is an "other similar issuances"? Management Rights The "emergency" clause causes us much concern. Our agency is famous for mismanagement that is covered up by declaring this or that is an emergency or suddenly becomes mission essential. There is no grievance procedure to ensure workers rights are not being violated. 7. Bargaining Processes - at the level of recognition Consultation is not negotiation. The consultation process lasts not more than 60 calendar days. There is no status quo ante remedies. What is this? 8. Bargaining Processes-Above the level of Recognition We have real concerns that National Bargaining could actually hurt at the local level. 9. Union Rights and obligations Formal discussion The matter of employee complaints not being a formal discussion seems to be direct negotiations with the employee. Investigations The ability of management to decide which steward is to represent by geographic location, security, health, safety, and integrity of the interview process. This causes us some grave concerns. Union cannot be at an investigation seems to go against a Supreme Court ruling. Who decides the conflict of interest? What is the standard? Union access to information maintained by the agency FOIA can get expensive. What does this do to "particularized need"? 10. Official Time What about representation Administration time, check e-mail, telephone answering machines, and answer routine questions by members? Training for Union officials? 11. All inclusive Complaints Review Employee individual complaints This is of great concern, if we do not know or understand the system, how will we be able to represent our bargaining unit members. Local Union and Management Complaints What or who is a Component designee. Only a 30-day process. Decisions at this level are final and binding. Bargaining Unit Employee against the Union Shouldn't this be an internal Union affair? The Agency would just love to pit one Union member against another in an open forum. National Level Management and Union Complaints 15-calendar days? No other recourse? 12. Miscellaneous Issues Term collective bargaining Agreements No local contracts, all business will be conducted by Management Policy, regulation or other issuances? Again consultation not collective bargaining. Status of 5 USC Chapter 71 Why throw out Chapter 71, if something needs to be tweaked, rather than throw out the whole thing. Prohibition on Striking You might know the only thing kept from the old Labor Relations. We were of the understanding that Federal Unions gave up the right to strike in order to organize. Now they even want to deprive us of that. A larger overall question I have is does this come even close to meeting the requirements as set forth in the law as passed by Congress? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Section 3, Bargaining Units, a question arose: Are the "Professional Employees" designated as Engineers? Also, "employees requiring certification" that means ALL Quality Assurance, Industrial Specialists, and Program Integrators (including Earned Value Management personnel) will not be covered by the Union unless they are voted in, right? Most of the people working here fall under those two categories. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed changes are pretty scary. What is the NAGE approach on how to fight this plan? I recommend a two-prong approach. One political, and the other a written proposal. On the political front we could go to Sen. Kerry, Gov. Dean, Sen. Edwards, Gen. Clark and other key congressional representatives and make the case that the Bush Administration is "union busting". They could put the heat on Bush out on the campaign trail. Also we could go to the Veterans Groups (VFW, American Legion, Disabled Vets, AMVETS and others and explain that Bush and co. is gutting veterans preference for Vets. in a government reduction of force (RIF), a preference they have had for over 100 years. Further, I recommend that we go to the "swing Republicans" (ie. Sen. Collins, Sen. Snowe, Sen. Chaffee, Sen. Voinovich, and others and ask they pressure the Administration to "lay-off" the union busting tactics or we "will remember in November". SEIU could help get the message out to them. I believe if we don't organize and take action fast (and this is a perfect time with the election only months away) we will become irrelevant, causing thousands of DoD employees to loose representation and NAGE to loose membership wholesale. Local R1-134 is willing to help in any organized effort.