Related posts:

1. Fitness Survey
2. Survey Results

Highlights:

Credit Hours

More flexibility to work hours

Extra telework day

Unlimited ad-hoc telework

Related posts:

1. CBA Negotiation Update

Related posts:

1. Obama administration pushing telework as bill is set for House
2. OPM Director Introduces Plan to Increase Telework among Federal Employees
3. Confusion at RMA

In a statement released shortly after introducing the bill, Burr claimed that federal retirement benefits are excessive, and must be brought in line with those in the private sector. Unfortunately for Senator Burr, the facts tell a much different tale. When examined closely, it becomes clear that this bill has little to do with parity, and much more to do with unfairly targeting federal employees.

Claims that federal pension benefits are inflated are at best, wrong, and at worst, outright lies. In fact, federal workers’ pensions represent only a modest portion of the larger federal retirement picture. For example, a career federal employee who retires with a final salary of $50,000 dollars per year and 30 years of service will receive a pension of merely $15,000 per year – hardly an exorbitant figure by any measure.

The reason that federal pension benefits are so modest is because they were effectively cut in half in 1983, when the government moved from the old Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to FERS. From then onward, new employees received the smaller pension benefit, in addition to the 401(k) style TSP account and Social Security. Often referred to as the “three-legged stool” of federal retirement, these three small pieces coalesce to create the modest retirement plan currently available to government employees.

The result of this legislation would be to destroy federal retirement security and severely hamstring the government’s efforts to recruit the next generation of federal workers. With a retirement wave expected to hit the workforce in the coming years, slashing retirement benefits will make it much more difficult to recruit doctors, intelligence analysts, scientists, and other highly-sought-after workers into the federal service.

“These Senators think they can pit young federal employees against the old,” said Randy Erwin, NFFE Legislative Director. “They want to drive a wedge in the federal workforce so that we will not rise up collectively and make them answer for their shameless attacks on federal employees. But we will not stand for that. An attack on one is an attack on all. We are going to make sure that this divisive peace of legislation goes down in flames.”

Related posts:

1. With Defense Bill Passed, FERS Employees to Receive Retirement Credit for Unused Sick Leave
2. NSPS Officially Repealed as President Obama Signs Defense Bill
3. Federal Employees Health Benefits Threatened

It was all over in half an hour. But the events of that day were permanently burned into the collective memory of the city and the nation. New Yorkers were shocked and grief-stricken. Some 100,000 people filed by the makeshift coffins gathered on the 26th Street Pier, which became known as “Misery Lane.” A few days later, 350,000 people turned out for a march through through Lower Manhattan, many to vent their anger and express their determination that tragedies such as this should never be allowed to happen again.

After all, the tragedy was not a natural disaster but a man-made one, too, frighteningly typical of this age of laissez-faire capitalism. The technology to prevent or confine such fires — sprinkler systems, fire walls, secure and ample fire escapes — all had been available for years. Moreover, fires had broken out at Triangle before, as they had in many other industrial workplaces. But no local, state or federal law required that these safety devices be installed or that safety protocols be followed. And manufacturers like the owners of the Triangle Co. didn’t want to spend the money.

Children died that day because laws or public agencies back then did not exist to prohibit such child labor. Nor were there laws to police other labor abuses regarding hours, wages and conditions of work, abuses that were common throughout American industry at that time.
One reason so many perished is that the owners had locked one of the exit doors. They had done that to prevent pilfering of shirtwaists and materials by their workers, whose average income, according to public authorities, was pathetically inadequate — between $800 and $900 a year — not enough for a family of three or four people to survive decently. There was no law establishing a minimum wage.

Most important of all, the owners of the Triangle Co. were adamantly opposed to the unionizing efforts of their employees. In “Triangle: The Fire That Changed America”–widely considered a definitive account of those times–historian David Von Drehle described the Triangle owners resorting to spies, thugs and a company union to intimidate and blacklist workers who sought to organize and had actually gone on strike a little more than a year before the fire. While the strike had compelled the owners to improve wages and hours a bit, they would not budge when it came to recognizing the garment workers union.

Like other manufacturers, the Triangle owners exercised a kind of industrial autocracy. There were no laws then that guaranteed the elementary right of workers to unionize and engage in collective bargaining, nor any government agency to prevent employers from engaging in what later came to be known as “unfair labor practices” (like keeping such blacklists or firing someone for his or her union sympathies).

The workers had virtually no voice in determining the most vital circumstances that would determine their fates in the workplace. Had they had such a voice, there is no question that matters of safety, especially given the company’s history of fires, would have been a top priority.

One reason the Triangle fire has lodged so deeply in the public memory is that it marked a watershed in the nation’s public life. Before the fire the situation was this: No one with the power to do anything about it was watching. No union, no government agencies, no laws and regulations prevented employers from doing what they willed. The workplace was a black box insulated against public inspection by the inviolate sanctity of private property. After the fire, all that changed.

A factory inspection committee established by the New York state Legislature exposed occupational dangers to health and safety in the garment and other industries and promulgated a series of laws and regulations that would drastically reduce the incidences of death and injury.

Similar steps were taken in other industrial states. Workers’ compensation laws were passed and disability insurance became customary. Government bureaus were established specifically to monitor the labor of women and children.

Eventually, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal saw the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established a national minimum wage, maximum hours and outlawed child labor. The New Deal’s Wagner Act inscribed in law the right of workers to organize a union and engage in collective bargaining. These reforms and others democratized and civilized what had been a savage version of free-market capitalism.

Which brings us back to Madison, Wisconsin. True, no one is yet proposing to repeal the Fair Labor Standards Act or abolish occupational health and safety regulations. Still, to chip away at one of the great achievements of 20th-century American democracy by curtailing the right to collective bargaining is to take a dangerous step backward in time.

Those 146 men and women died in part because they had been denied a voice in determining the basic conditions of their working lives. Their deaths were redeemed by an aroused citizenry that had come to realize that such a right was a matter of life and death and of human dignity.

It would be a second tragedy and an insult to the memory of those who died there, were we to return, even in part, to those dark ages.

Related posts:

1. Boehner, GOP seize on private-public pay gap as a midterm election issue

No related posts.

On Monday, January 31st it was clear to all that the Kansas City Metro area faced a potentially severe and critical weather situation. Around noon on that day, the Union offered, in a spirit of cooperation, to work with management on finding a solution for this situation. The Union suggested that all employees be notified that if they had concerns about driving in inclement weather, they should be given the opportunity to work from home, and that this emergency “telework” would not count towards the negotiated limit of telework days in a pay period. The Union provided not only employee’s safety, but also the agency’s coverage as rationale for this proposal. It was evident on that day that the impending inclement weather would paralyze operations across the metro area for a number of days, and the Union held that it would be in everybody’s interest to relax the limits on the number of telework days in a pay period. Senior Management rejected the Union’s proposal, referring to the negotiated agreement as a basis for their decision. In a demagogical move, management invented a term “liberal leave/Telework” [sic] and applied it to the ability (already granted by the contract) to switch telework days with management’s approval. Shortly thereafter, employees began to receive mystifying emails from their immediate supervisors, all bearing on their individual interpretations of “liberal Telework” [sic] that would be in place the following day.

On Tuesday, February 1st those employees that did come to the office spent most of their time trying to assess road and weather conditions, and determine how RMA would be affected by them, when RMA Intranet first announced around 10 AM that the building was closed, and then — lo and behold! — not more than two hours later, the mysterious term “unscheduled leave/telework” flashed on employee’s screens. The Union was again barraged with questions; employees that drove to work were obviously not under the impression that they were teleworking, how could they now be on liberal or unscheduled telework? When attempting to clarify this, the Union was informed that “unscheduled telework” meant that employees who were in the office could leave, but were expected to continue working once they arrived at home (if they ever made to their doorstep). That afternoon, when the Federal Executive Board (FEB) made the recommendation that all federal offices in the Kansas City metro area be closed on Wednesday, February 2nd, the Union was contacted by RMA Senior Management, who proposed that, contrary to the provisions of the negotiated telework agreement, bargaining unit employees not be granted administrative leave during the period for which the building would not be in operation, but be required to work at home.

The Union was frankly thunderstruck upon hearing that senior Management’s position had undergone such a rapid and radical transformation from a position of extreme and sclerotic inflexibility with an almost dogmatic adherence to the negotiated limits on telework to their sudden willingness to disregard the provision in the negotiated agreement that states that “…if an emergency affects either worksite for a major portion of the workday then the teleworking employee shall be granted an excused absence under the same terms and conditions as employees in the official duty station.” The Union, which represents the interests of bargaining unit employees did not believe that this compromise would in any way, shape, or form benefit bargaining unit employees.

Every relationship involves two partners and a “give and take,” and Senior Management, as usual, wanted only to take, but not give.

It is disheartening to again be met with the complete indifference of Senior Management on the subject of the safety and interests of bargaining unit employees, despite their grand (but oh so hollow-sounding!) annual declarations of appreciation for them.

This message should hopefully bring a halt to any of the specious messages coming from Senior Management and quell any doubts and questions concerning the Union’s role on this matter.

No related posts.

The Obama administration is such a strong supporter of allowing federal employees to work from home that it even allowed a government official to be sworn in via telephone.

Because of the snowstorms earlier this year, Martha Johnson had no choice.

“I was sworn in from my kitchen, because we couldn’t get out of the snow and get to Washington to do it that way,” Johnson, head of the General Services Administration, said Thursday.

She and her husband had been shoveling snow in the driveway of their Annapolis home when she got the call, Johnson said Thursday at the Telework Exchange Town Hall Meeting in Washington.

“My husband looked like he was in his pajamas wearing his red snow suit,” Johnson said. “What you do when you’re sworn in is you have to hold your hand up and you have to speak and you have to put your hand on the Bible. Where do you put the cellphone? So my husband was holding the phone to my mouth, and I got sworn in. And that’s another example of work from home or another unusual place.”

The massive snowstorms even inspired President Obama to issue stern orders to John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management.

“The president made it clear to me that he doesn’t want snow, nature, or any other cause to be able to stop our government,” Berry told the conference. “Since OPM doesn’t control the weather or the plows, telework is the only way to achieve the goal that the president very clearly set,” Berry said.

The wider use and acceptance of telework is very much on the verge of reality. The Senate unanimously passed telework legislation last month and the House could do so during the lame-duck session. The bill would require federal agencies to appoint telework managers and incorporate the option into contingency operations.

Once it’s passed, Berry, Johnson and others plan to make the option automatic for all federal employees who could do their jobs away from the office. (Zookeepers, park rangers, law enforcement officers, doctors, and officials with access to sensitive data couldn’t telework.)

“It will boost morale, I would argue, it decreases distractions and it reduces time and the environmental impact of commuting,” Berry said. “In example after example, it leads to happier, more productive employees. Newer workers want to take a laptop or iPad home or to a cafe.”

Younger workers also want almost constant feedback from supervisors, “and they’re happy to get that online,” Berry said.

GSA is already working to determine which workers are eligible and ready to telework as renovations to its F Street NW headquarters will force most employees to move to D.C.’s NoMa district.

“We’re dramatically shifting geography and for some people it’s really a question of whether they want to battle all the way from Virginia all the way across the District or if teleworking is a good option for them,” Johnson said in an interview.

As for the critics, Johnson said the option is an environmentally-friendly, cost-conscious option.

“The amount of money that we can save on this is a strong argument to the taxpayers that there is a larger business case here than is understood,” Johnson said.

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Related posts:

1. OPM Director Introduces Plan to Increase Telework among Federal Employees
2. Can I Still Telework if I am a Part-Time Employee

No related posts.

No related posts.