I feel that retiring from a position and coming back to fill a position as a contract employee doing the same work is wrong. I see that people are doing this because they are greedy. How can this be good Americanism? It just seems wrong and should be unethical. Being as how we have a code of ethics it would not be acceptable.

Here's the real truth about what the government wants, hold on to your boot staps cuz it ain't pretty:

Washington Post - Federal Diary"A Government Document Without the Governmentese: OPM Plan Sets Clear Goals", by Steven Barr

Friday, March 10, 2006; Page D04 The Office of Personnel Management announced a "to do" list. It is a 35-page booklet. It lists 170 objectives -- what the agency's director, Linda M. Springer , called "to do items". The description of each objective begins with a verb -- issue, develop, set up, complete -- "an actual action we are taking," Springer said.

. The plan calls on federal agencies to:

· Identify "career patterns" for the future, on the assumption that the era of the 30-year government career is fading and that agencies will need to be able to accommodate people who come and go from government; who prefer to work irregular schedules, share jobs or telecommute; who sign up for brief periods as project managers; or who come out of retirement to provide institutional knowledge. By June 1.

I'm not sure how anyone else would interpret Ms. Lacey's statements, but I for one read it like this:

The government is no longer interested in the loyal, consistent, honorable, dependable and ethical employee. You can still be a family man but be prepared to leave your family for long periods of time (kinda like a soldier). Be prepared to not have any retirement security for your family. Only to give your all to Uncle SAM then be replaced by someone younger or someone more willing to go to war or die if necessary. If the 30 year government career is fading (by Ms. Lacey's own admission), unions will not be needed. Unions can't change OPM policies. Think about it...one of the main reasons we needed unions was to protect our jobs/employment rights so that we could get to retirement. That's why workers at McDonalds aren't unionized...no body ever really retires from McDonalds. If the government takes away retirement options then why do we need our employment rights protected. Ms. Lacey doesn't plan on having us around long enough to retire anyway.

So there it is for everyone to absorb. After all the DHS/NSPS bull, we finally got to the real truth.

Un-Civil Servant

This is a small portion of how the majority of us feel about NSPS.

NSPS has nothing to do with our security. All of us in the Federal Government are aware of our duties and at anytime something happens the majority of us will do what we have to and need to, if not, you need to go elsewhere. Instead of changing a whole system all they had to do was add it to everyone's job description and follow the guidelines in order to remove someone, but they don't. Instead, they have given favoritism a whole new life and will end up degrading others. Everything that most of us worked for years will be taken away, time and grade and given to the ones that are favorites. No matter how hard you work, others are still given every opportunity to learn where as others have not and that is also how the Team Concept works. We will be screwed forever. The bottom line: It’s B.S. and why it’s gotten this far we don’t understand, but the elected officials will the next time they run.

I would like to know why the Union did not push regardless of status or where you work (Senate, Congress, Rumsfield, etc.,) would fall under NSPS. Bet we would not be having this discussion if they were included.

Rebecca

I would like to know why the public does not know how much money has been wasted on NSPS and can we take them to court for improper use of funds? I think that  they should be made to pay it pack into the system. They wasted millions of dollar, at tax payers expense. If you can sue the tobacco company for harm,why not Rumsfeld, for wasted money?

Is anybody watching what is going on in the FLRA? Are we spending too much time screaming that "they" don't do enough to realize that soon "they" won't be doing anything, because "they" won't exist?

The FLRA has been under siege for at least the last 4 years. Some examples-no General Counsel and then the appointment of a General Counsel from outside the Agency with pitiful credentials. Study after study after survey after survey to determine the cost effectiveness of staff. Plan after plan to close regional offices-in part justified by reduced work load-well DUH-no General Counsel means no opportunity for effective action on a violation. I doubt there is exactly a huge rush to go to the Federal Services Impasses Panel-unless a Union just wants to be carrying its own head around on a platter.

We should be in the Congress supporting the FLRA, not sitting at home crying that "they" aren't doing enough.

NSPS and Whistle blowing

Its easy to understand why DOD wants a new personnel system. It’s a simple matter of trying to increase their power. Power will (or should) give them more flexibility in accomplishing their missions. There is really nothing wrong with this in concept because the end result is our increased security as a nation and our freedom to live in a democracy. However, the problem with more power is that it generates a need and desire for even more power. After looking out for so long, we tend to lose sight of the problems from within. DOD generally believes that any failure in mission is the direct result of the employees not doing their jobs to the best of their ability. In most cases, they don't realize the failure of management when things start to fall apart. However, don't mis-understand, managers are not always the fault of failure either. Other causes are also at fault to include unrealistic goals and objectives, unforeseen circumstances, and also individual employees who fail to do their job properly. Sure it would be nice to get rid of the 'dead wood', however the current system already has provisions for doing that. The problem with the current system is that the managers don't use it. There is no real guarantee that they would use a new system. The only real weakness in the current system is that an employee can get topped out (step 10) in his current pay scale. Unless he is willing to go the promotion route, the only pay increases the employee will see is (budgets permitting), cost of living adjustments, which don't really keep pace with the cost of living. As an example, this years cost of living went up about 3 percent and some FEHB premiums went up 8 percent or more. Performance awards help, but they are only on an annual basis and contingent upon the budget and other employee performances. If you have a good performance record, you should get rewarded regardless of what others do. This is where the NSPS or at least some type of pay banding system could help. However, the most overlooked danger of the NSPS, as DOD wants to implement it, are problems presented by the loss of protections for the employee. Fortunately, the courts have just overturned this. Those protections can help to safeguard the employee who reports mis-management, fraud, waste, and abuse. Sure there are whistle blowing protections, but those are primarily intended as an immediate safety net for the employee. If a manager or agency wants to retaliate against an employee for reporting irregularities, it would be quite easy to do it over a period of time without the protections of the current system. Once the 'cat is out of the bag', how many employees will be inclined to report mis-management, fraud, waste, and abuse if they know the long term protections are gone and whistle blowing protection may be short lived?

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) today is decrying a decision by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to silence Voice of America (VOA) global radio broadcasts in English and other languages.

The FEMA headquarters union of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) today called for Congress to re-establish FEMA as a separate agency. FEMA currently is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The agency was placed under DHS in 2001 following 9/11.

WASHINGTON—The American Federation of Government Employees won a decision affirming union representation for import inspectors of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The decision was handed down recently by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the agency responsible for deciding labor-management disputes in the federal government. AFGE, which has represented USDA food and import inspectors since 1968, challenged a USDA declaration that import inspectors are no longer eligible for union representation due to alleged national security needs. AFGE challenged the move to strip the inspectors of eligibility to be represented by a union.

Black History Month is more than just an opportunity to reflect on the accomplishments of African-Americans and the contributions they have made to the fabric of American society. For those of us in the labor movement, it also is a time to express gratitude for the brave African-Americans who had the foresight to know that labor rights and civil rights could not be mutually exclusive.

Kudos to the members of Local 1739 lead by President Eddie Burnett, NVAC President Alma Lee and 4th District VA Council President Bob Fetzer for their participation in helping Ty Pennington and his crew from Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. The members of this VA community that worked to help build the magnificent new house for Carol Crawford-Smith and her sons demonstrated the commitment of federal employees to our communities and nation when called upon in a time of need.

Working through the "extreme" weather conditions and time constraints that they did, demonstrates the "can and will do" spirit of AFGE government employees everywhere. I know that they did not do it alone but they helped lead the way no doubt.

My hat is off to all who participated.

AFGE National President John Gage will host the town hall meetings across southern Texas to hear Customs and Border Protection officers concerns about a lack of law enforcement status and border security. Also in attendance will be AFGE National Vice President, Roy Flores.

Oral arguments in the American Federation of Government Employees' case against the Department of Homeland Security proposed personnel regulations (MaxHR) will be heard before a panel of three judges in the D.C. Circuit Court on April 6. AFGE and four other unions filed a lawsuit in early 2005 to block MaxHR, which they say is unconstitutional.

The Women's and Fair Practices Departments of AFGE today announced that they are proud to sponsor the 2006 Gospel Heritage Foundation conference. The conference will be held at Reid Temple A.M.E Church in Glenn Dale, Md., on February 15 - 17, 2006. The theme of this year's conference is "Raising a New Standard."

D.C. Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services employees, represented by the American Federation of Government Employees Local 383, in a symbolic gesture yesterday voted "No Confidence" in the director of their agency, Vincent Schiraldi. Workers say Schiraldi is failing as director of the agency, with violent and tragic consequences for District residents, and should be replaced. Johnnie Walker, president of Local 383, has called for a public forum with D.C. elected officials to address the issue.

The unions better wise-up and notice what the President is doing. The Government always seems to be one step ahead. Now that the unions have locked-up DHS and NSPS in court (job well done), the Government is about to deploy a plan that circumvents the legal potholes caused by the unions' efforts.

A few days ago I wrote a BLOG about Government workers getting pay raises based on the importance of their job. Now in today's, 7 Feb 06, Federal Insider Steven Barr goes into more detail on how then plan to ensure that only certain people will get the BIG pay raise while all the rest of us sit on the sidelines (working our butts off). Here's an excerpt:

"" Under the budget plan, agencies with hard-to-fill jobs could turn to the White House and OPM to obtain extra money to finance higher pay rates. That would reduce the amount of money available for the workforce in general, officials acknowledged.

"The idea is to direct some of the 2.2 percent pay increase money to specific occupations, grades and locations where we know we are having specific problems," one official said. ""

The unions will get bogged down in court for the rest of time while the President passes new pay directives on all future pay raises (which are beyond the union's scope of influence).

It's really very simple...The Government can't get around the Judges who find the new personnel systems illegal so the President will simply change the way the Governemnt distributes all future pay raises in order to give the money to the people they like. President Bush realizes he can't fight the Congress on the issue of "good pay raises" and he can't beat the unions in court...all he has to do is give the pay raise Congress wants (2.2%, 3.2% or whatever) and allow managers to give the majority of the money to those chosen few. It's brilliant...The Prez (and his managers) retain control on who gets the majority of the pay raises and the Congress is happy with the overall pay increase. The unions can't stop any of this "slight of hand" and the court case drags on for years as we get scr-wed!

The last two paragraphs are my own personel opinion, but the Government's plan is out there for everyone to see.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601602.html?referrer=email

Gil in Tex

American Federation of Government Employees National President John Gage issued the following statement in reaction to the release of the president's budget proposals for 2007.

Is there a Political Action Commitee (PAC) established to take contributions and Loby for the rights of Federal Labor? It does not seem to fit under the Hatch Act as a prohibited act as no one individual would be politically engaged?

Since "Trade" (that loose collection of private industry groups) appears to be the primary motivator of government, if it was in the best interest of the U.S.and it's Federal Employees (slated to be represented by the new "Super Union" that DHS will negotiate with) would it be inappropriate for that new entity to suggest that one retirement fund, these industries, or these service providers are more apt to support it's members goals? It seems that if such accords can be brokered via the fund manager(s), operators and providers by the above mentioned PAC or other agents shear numbers should count for some benefit?

I currently work at Carl T. Hayden Medical Center Phoenix, Arizona.  I am a Wage Grade 02 with Enviromental Management Services Department as of lately my department is hiring individuals with little or no previous hospital experience as Wage Grade 03 positions, this has caused some discontent among our current WG-03's who have worked for years in order to gain experience to attain said positions, which include our Intensive Care units as well as our Operating Suites.  Employees are discussing this with AFGE Representative, are there any other options available? 

                                                                                   Joel Kelly

                                                                          

Well here we are again. I am misreading official qoutes from credible sources and I am tired of being assaulted by unsupported allegations. Today I read an article By Stephen Barr Friday, February 3, 2006; Page B02 "President Bush's budget blueprint goes to Congress ". This article, about our future pay raises, restates what I have said many times;

"In the report, Chao, Bolten and Springer tell the president that it "would be unwise" to try and close the pay gap in 2007. They call for "fundamental reforms of the white-collar federal pay system" and recommend consideration of alternative systems that more closely link pay raises to an employee's occupation and job performance."

There it is again for those who won't beleive. The administration wants to tie pay raises to your occupation, in other words, if you have an important job you'll bigger raises than the "hard working stiff" in the less important occupation. Now if that's what high raking officials are saying to the President who are we to say that it isn't true?? I know, I misread the article and the Gov officials were misqouted (oh yea...and PIGS FLY!!).

I have quoted Gov officials on this same subject at this blog site. I was attacked both times. I really don't care if certain folks don't want to stop and smell the coffee but please don't deny the obvious. Instead of attacking me why doesn't anyone attack the news agency that wrote the article, are you afraid of a lawsuit??? Of course it's aways easier to attack a concerned Government employee than it is to attack a news organization. I am but a messenger...Chao, Bolten and Springer are the ones who made the statement to the Prez!

I think the UNION Blog Editor should "not print" unsubstantiated attacks on other bloggers. If my blog is incorrect or inaccurate then don't print it either! Steven Barr's article is there for anyone to read, verify and question.

Gil in Tex