Federal/Public Employees

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27961
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Federal/Public Employees

#1

Post by Addie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:24 am

[link]ThinkProgress,http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/0 ... ike-wages/[/link]





Pentagon Workers Strike Over Poverty Wages Paid By Federal Contracts





Food service and janitorial staff at the Pentagon are going on strike Wednesday morning, opening a new front in the ongoing fight to get President Obama to end the federal government’s practice of paying poverty wages to contract employees at federal facilities.





The Pentagon employees’ walk-out follows similar strikes by service workers at federally owned, privately operated facilities in Washington, D.C., such as the Ronald Reagan Building, Union Station, and the Smithsonian museum food courts. It also comes after wage theft charges against employers at the Reagan Building and the train station. The expansion of the campaign to the Pentagon comes almost exactly eight months after the first strikes led to retaliatory firings by employers, indicating that efforts to intimidate workers did not succeed.





The workers in question are on the payroll of companies like Dunkin Donuts and Taco Bell, but in a sense their real employer is the federal government. The government hires fast food, retail, security, and janitorial companies to service contracts for federal properties. Those contracts give the government a chance to set wage and hour terms for the on-the-ground workers who will actually cook the food and haul the trash. Federal contracts of this sort actually prop up more low-wage jobs than notoriously low-paying companies McDonald’s and Walmart combined. At present, three in four of these workers make less than $10 per hour, and four in 10 rely upon public assistance despite working a full-time job. The same contracts funnel a total of $24 billion per year to the CEOs of the companies that pay their workers so poorly to staff public facilities.





Unlike millions of other low-wage employees, the ones fulfilling federal service contracts can get a raise without an act of Congress. The workers, backed by a group of about 17 House progressives, want President Obama to exercise his executive authority to improve their pay and get taxpayers out of the business of paying poverty wages. The administration has kept quiet on the topic for months as the congressional progressives who favor the move have gotten louder and begun criticizing the president’s inaction, and both workers and lawmakers hope Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address will include an announcement about raising federal contract worker wages with the stroke of a pen.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27961
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Federal Workers

#2

Post by Addie » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:57 am

WaPo
Trump tries to weaken federal unions, but their membership grows in reaction to GOP actions

President Trump and Capitol Hill Republicans have been good for federal unions, even as they attempt to undermine the labor organizations and the public servants they represent.

With the GOP running the White House and Congress, membership in federal unions is on the rise, fed by an administration and legislature that leaves the workforce anxious about budget cuts, layoffs and an erosion of civil service protections.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the biggest federal employee union, had a net increase of 1,022 members last month alone, part of almost 5,000 new members since January. Three of the four other major unions also reported growth — the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) did not provide membership information — with the National Federation of Federal Employees on pace to achieve 7 percent growth this year.

While membership has grown previously, important factors currently are White House and congressional proposals that would cut government contributions to federal employee benefits, significantly devaluing the 1.9 percent pay raise that staffers are slated to get in January. The union growth occurred even before Thursday’s House approval of a budget proposal that would reduce subsidies to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The budget plan calls for $32 billion in cuts targeted at feds over 10 years. While unspecified in the House budget resolution, those hits could include damaging retirement proposals previously offered by Trump.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14696
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Federal Workers

#3

Post by ZekeB » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:03 am

If workers knew what would serve their interests, they would be unionizing everywhere. Unfortunately the nutjobs are selling a false bill of goods to these workers.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 2122
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Federal Workers

#4

Post by AndyinPA » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:53 am

I think it's no secret that the republicans have been going after unions in general, but, lately, federal unions as they are the last strongholds of unions in this country. That includes the Post Office, which they have nearly driven into the ground in hopes of privatizing it.

And I know people who are/have been in unions, state and federal, who have no appreciation at all of what their unions have done for them or done for everyone.

I think there was an attempt in the last administration to enable the post offices to do banking that would replace the payday loan business. You can guess how far that went. I don't remember the details, just mostly allowing people to cash checks, avoiding the payday loans.

My father was a steelworker, so I grew up in union family. I can remember the support the union gave to their members when there was a strike, particularly the food, some of which I hated and some of which I thought was really awesome. (I was really young at the time.) But my dad never had to worry about putting food on the table when he was striking. In the end, though, he lost everything the union had provided, including his job, his retirement, and his life insurance. When he died ten years ago, a neighbor across the street from him who had also been a member of the union stopped over at the house to warn me that if I found a union life insurance policy in his papers, it was worthless. He was right.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7241
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Federal Workers

#5

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:51 am

The Conservative Constitutionalists who want to dismantle the Post Office need to be reminded that it is mandated in the Constitution.

Just as much as is the 2nd Amendment.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27961
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Federal Workers

#6

Post by Addie » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:04 pm

Government Executive
Employees At a Small Agency Trump Wants to Abolish Move Toward Unionization

Employees at the Chemical Safety Board are voting this month on whether to unionize and join the American Federation of Government Employees in an effort to protect themselves from alleged efforts to cut telework, changes to some people’s job classifications and the Trump administration’s repeated proposals to shutter the agency.

CSB employees successfully filed a petition to organize with the Federal Labor Relations Authority earlier this year. Ballots were mailed to workers earlier this week, and the election will run until May 1. ...

The Chemical Safety Board is made up of 40 government positions, including management and political appointees. If employees approve the formation of a union, the agency’s collective bargaining unit would consist of 22 employees. ...

If successful, AFGE would bring CSB employees into Local 2211, which includes a number of small agencies, including the National Transportation Safety Board. Winch said that although there have been some complaints regarding how management has responded to the unionization effort, he could not say whether it crossed the line into retaliation.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18604
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Federal Workers

#7

Post by Volkonski » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:07 pm

The Chemical Safety Board is very important. Doing away with it would be mind-bogglingly stupid.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6108
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Federal Workers

#8

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:35 pm

Volkonski wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:07 pm
The Chemical Safety Board is very important. Doing away with it would be mind-bogglingly stupid.
So you think Trump's thugs are absolutely guaranteed to abolish it? :sarcasm: :( :(



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18604
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Federal Workers

#9

Post by Volkonski » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:36 am

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:35 pm
Volkonski wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:07 pm
The Chemical Safety Board is very important. Doing away with it would be mind-bogglingly stupid.
So you think Trump's thugs are absolutely guaranteed to abolish it? :sarcasm: :( :(
I fear they may try. And then what? Abolish the NTSB and OSHA? :madguy:


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
HilltownGrrl
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:21 pm
Location: WMass
Occupation: Researcher (for a non-fiction author); local child-wrangler; thread killer; piler of things on other things

Re: Federal Workers

#10

Post by HilltownGrrl » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:29 pm

Volkonski wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:36 am
Sam the Centipede wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:35 pm
Volkonski wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:07 pm
The Chemical Safety Board is very important. Doing away with it would be mind-bogglingly stupid.
So you think Trump's thugs are absolutely guaranteed to abolish it? :sarcasm: :( :(
I fear they may try. And then what? Abolish the NTSB and OSHA? :madguy:
And why wouldn't they. Trump doesn't think regulations are important (except ones pertaining to lawyer-client privilege) & the rest of them just want to destroy everything government does. Plus none of them know or care how government & the constitution works.

I spent part of the first year of this administration thinking "no, they wouldn't" because that's the way a normal administration would work but I've gotten over that. They will do whatever the hell they want &, without a congressional check to balance them, there are very few ways we can stop them (mostly involving trying & convicting as many of them as possible). That said, I fully support civil servants doing anything & everything they can to put spanners in the works.

PS It's a very grey day here after our one sunny warm spring day so far this season & there may be a wintry mix headed our the way. And so I am feeling extra gloomy & doomy about pretty much everything. :madguy:


Image

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17591
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Federal Workers

#11

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:51 pm

Volkonski wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:07 pm
The Chemical Safety Board is very important. Doing away with it would be mind-bogglingly stupid.
Can one build a fertilizer plant anywhere near Mar-a-Lago ?
http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... +explosion



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27961
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Federal Workers

#12

Post by Addie » Fri May 25, 2018 9:14 pm

Bloomberg
Trump Signs Orders Cracking Down on Federal Employees' Unions

President Donald Trump signed executive orders restricting the activities of unions that represent many of the U.S. government’s 2.1 million employees, the White House said.

One of the three orders signed on Friday limits the amount of official time federal employees can spend on union duties to no more than 25 percent. It also requires the federal government to start charging union members rent for using space in federal buildings, to stop paying employees for the cost of lobbying the federal government, and to more aggressively negotiate union contracts.

Trump’s move to curtail the activities of federal unions follows a wave of laws signed by Republican governors over the past decade restricting public-sector collective bargaining and weakening government unions -- moves that conservatives see as helpful in shrinking government and undermining political foes.

The nation’s largest federal employee union, the American Federation of Government Employees, endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president in the 2016 contest with Trump.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27961
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Federal Workers

#13

Post by Addie » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:20 pm

WaPo
Trump’s fight with federal employee unions gets real on Monday

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 describes Trump’s new rules, issued in May, as an effort to streamline a bloated bureaucracy and improve accountability within the federal workforce of 2.1 million. The unions counter that the orders are only the latest in Trump’s aggressive actions intended to weaken their bargaining power and make it easier to fire government workers.

Jeff Pon, chief of the Office of Personnel Management, gave agencies details late last week for implementing the presidential orders.

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.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 5332
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Federal Workers

#14

Post by pipistrelle » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:30 am

The man who tells a lie a second is an advocate for transparency. Huh.



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18604
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Federal Workers

#15

Post by Volkonski » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:24 pm


Andrew Feinberg

Verified account

@AndrewFeinberg
Follow Follow @AndrewFeinberg
More
BREAKING: @realDonaldTrump @WhiteHouse releases Executive Order to end competitive selection process for Administrative Law Judges, making them political appointees who can be fired at will.

2:12 PM - 10 Jul 2018
Can Trump do that? What about the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946?


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27961
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Federal Workers

#16

Post by Addie » Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:42 pm

What's "red for feds" supposed to mean? :confused:

Govexec.com
Claiming Trump Has ‘Declared War,’ Feds Rally to Fight Back Against Executive Orders

Hundreds of government employees gathered outside a courthouse in downtown Washington on Wednesday to protest President Trump's executive orders that changed the rules governing the federal workforce, calling the measures an assault on the civil service and a threat to democracy.

Workers, union representatives and lawmakers rallied behind the cry of Red for Feds, with protesters draped in the color to show their collective support. A federal judge on Wednesday was set to hold the first hearing in a consolidated lawsuit brought by more than a dozen labor groups representing federal employees, challenging the constitutionality of three executive orders Trump signed in May. The orders seek to streamline the firing process, exempt adverse personnel actions from grievance procedures, speed up collective bargaining negotiations and severely limit union employees’ ability to conduct representational activities while on the clock in their federal jobs.

Speakers at the rally said the pending fight against the Trump administration was an existential one for the federal civil service and their unions, but expressed optimism their side would prevail.

“Right there in that courthouse it will be decided if we will be going on,” American Federation of Government Employees president J. David Cox said at the rally, held in the shadow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Wednesday’s hearing was being held. “I don’t know about you, but I plan on kicking ass and taking names.”

Employees from agencies across government gathered at the event, holding signs that read “EO hell NO” and “These executive orders are illegal!” The crowd chanted “red for feds,” “we fight for workers rights,” “vote them out” and even “lock them up.” An array of Democratic lawmakers spoke at the rally, including leadership in both the House and Senate.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24853
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Federal Workers

#17

Post by bob » Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:54 pm

Addie wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:42 pm
What's "red for feds" supposed to mean?
The AFGE urges the wearing of red articles of clothing to show opposition to the executive orders that make it easier to fire federal workers.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Federal Workers

#18

Post by much ado » Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:15 pm

bob wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:54 pm
Addie wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:42 pm
What's "red for feds" supposed to mean?
The AFGE urges the wearing of red articles of clothing to show opposition to the executive orders that make it easier to fire federal workers.
Not sure, but that might be a poor choice of color.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Federal Workers

#19

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:24 pm

much ado wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:15 pm
bob wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:54 pm
Addie wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:42 pm
What's "red for feds" supposed to mean?
The AFGE urges the wearing of red articles of clothing to show opposition to the executive orders that make it easier to fire federal workers.
Not sure, but that might be a poor choice of color.
Orange would have been better.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17591
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Federal Workers

#20

Post by RTH10260 » Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:15 am

Janus joins private sector after Supreme Court win

ILLINOIS (WCIA) -- The state worker who fought relentlessly and won a Supreme Court case banning mandatory union fees nationwide, is now leaving the public sector.

Mark Janus has opted for a job with the Illinois Policy Institute; a conservative think tank which helped fund the monumental case.

AFSCME union leaders say they're not shocked at all by the announcement. They believe the move only proves what they've said all along: It was never about Janus; it's about the powerful elites backing him.

Janus will join IPI as a senior fellow. The group released a statement Janus will be touring the country to make sure workers understand their rights and share the importance of his Supreme Court case: Janus v. AFSCME.

Union members say they believe the group and wealthy backers are continuing a war on unions, but believe members won't be swayed.


https://www.wcia.com/news/capitol-news/ ... 1318294014



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27961
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Federal Workers

#21

Post by Addie » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:07 pm

The Guardian: US government failing millions by paying below $15 an hour, study finds

Study shows government employs more workers making less than $15 an hour than any other employer in the US


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27961
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Federal/Public Employees

#22

Post by Addie » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:39 am

WaPo
Metro must pay $82 million in wage increases to thousands of workers, arbitration panel says

An arbitration board has said Metro must provide $82 million in wage increases to thousands of workers by summer 2020 — an amount that is less than what leaders of the agency’s largest union had sought, but still a financial hit for the cash-strapped agency.

Members of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 have been working without a contract since July 2016, when their previous collective bargaining agreement expired. The two sides were unable to reach an agreement after lengthy and rancorous negotiations, so the issue was sent to a three-member arbitration board.

The panel’s decision, announced Wednesday by Metro, requires that the transit agency provide an average annual wage increase of 1.6 percent for workers over a four-year period ending in July 2020. The award is effective retroactively to July 1, 2016.

The transit agency will probably ask the jurisdictions that fund it for larger subsidies to cover the cost of the raises. ...

The union, however, said the contract award has not eliminated many of the issues that continue to cause conflict with management. Last month, its members voted to authorize a strike over a range of issues from disciplinary policies, to the elimination of jobs and open positions, to Metro’s push to privatize some services.

On Wednesday, the union — which represents about 8,000 of Metro’s 12,500 employees, including train and bus operators, inspectors, and maintenance and track workers — reaffirmed that it’s not backing away from the strike threat.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 9524
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Federal/Public Employees

#23

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:55 pm

Addie wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:39 am
WaPo
Metro must pay $82 million in wage increases to thousands of workers, arbitration panel says

An arbitration board has said Metro must provide $82 million in wage increases to thousands of workers by summer 2020 — an amount that is less than what leaders of the agency’s largest union had sought, but still a financial hit for the cash-strapped agency.

Members of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 have been working without a contract since July 2016, when their previous collective bargaining agreement expired. The two sides were unable to reach an agreement after lengthy and rancorous negotiations, so the issue was sent to a three-member arbitration board.

The panel’s decision, announced Wednesday by Metro, requires that the transit agency provide an average annual wage increase of 1.6 percent for workers over a four-year period ending in July 2020. The award is effective retroactively to July 1, 2016.

The transit agency will probably ask the jurisdictions that fund it for larger subsidies to cover the cost of the raises. ...

The union, however, said the contract award has not eliminated many of the issues that continue to cause conflict with management. Last month, its members voted to authorize a strike over a range of issues from disciplinary policies, to the elimination of jobs and open positions, to Metro’s push to privatize some services.

On Wednesday, the union — which represents about 8,000 of Metro’s 12,500 employees, including train and bus operators, inspectors, and maintenance and track workers — reaffirmed that it’s not backing away from the strike threat.
Metro what? Where?
WaPo has a paywall or I'd go look.



User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Federal/Public Employees

#24

Post by much ado » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:00 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:55 pm
:snippity:
Metro what? Where?
WaPo has a paywall or I'd go look.
Seems to be Metro of Washington, DC.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7241
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Federal/Public Employees

#25

Post by RoadScholar » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:02 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... 8f57e3097e


An arbitration board has said Metro must provide $82 million in wage increases to thousands of workers by summer 2020 — an amount that is less than what leaders of the agency’s largest union had sought, but still a financial hit for the cash-strapped agency.

Members of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 have been working without a contract since July 2016, when their previous collective bargaining agreement expired. The two sides were unable to reach an agreement after lengthy and rancorous negotiations, so the issue was sent to a three-member arbitration board.

The panel’s decision, announced Wednesday by Metro, requires that the transit agency provide an average annual wage increase of 1.6 percent for workers over a four-year period ending in July 2020. The award is effective retroactively to July 1, 2016.


I'm guessing it's just DC, but the article doesn't say.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

Post Reply

Return to “Unions & Labor Issues”