What it Takes to Score (In the EEO Game)

I am a BIG believer in Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights. We should NEVER forget that as Federal Employees no one really gave a crap about our rights until the Civil Rights Legislation made it through Congress in 1964. Our employment-rights wagon is definitely hitched to equal employment rights and civil rights for minorities in America.

EVERYONE is now a minority of one sort or another. All one must do to get to play in the EEO court is demonstrate that someone outside of your particular minority got something good or didn't get hurt as you did. That is a pretty low standard. Winning, on the other hand is very difficult, since most of the US Supreme Court rulings have said that the victim must prove that there was INTENT to discriminate and what happened wasn't a result of management incompetence, stupidity, poor judgment, personality disputes, etc.

I can't emphasize the importance of Union institutional memory and employee persistence in repeated EEO filings. My experience is that SSA makes it up as a they go along. If there is always a new rep and the person only files one complaint; SSA gets away with it. If the Union has some continuity in its reps who remember the previous lies, I mean, legitimate, business reasons, AND if the employee files again, SSA is going to get caught because they are going to keep changing their lies, I mean, legitimate, business reasons, which is usually enough to convince a trier of fact that the reason wasn't legit and there was discrimination that needs to be remedied!

I have experience with that: In the first three EEO complaints I won: Mngt in the Lodi TSC promoted a guy. Three women filed EEO complaints. One woman had no sick leave. The other hand never worked in any office other than Lodi. The third had never been asked to give training. Mngt said they didn't discriminate against the first women because the guy had a better leave balance. Mngt said they didn't discriminate against the second women because they wanted some one who had worked in other offices for more exposure in SSA. Mngt said they didn't discriminate against the third women because the guy gave training.

I replied to all three as a group: The TSC DM had approved all the leave of the first woman because she had double bunion surgery. She had given training and had worked in other offices. Furthermore, every time the selectee accumulated 8 hours of sick leave, he was sick on a MONDAY or FRIDAY!! The second woman, though she hadn't worked in any other office had been a trainer and mentor and had several hundred hours of accrued sick leave and use or lose annual leave. The third woman also had a great leave record, had worked in other offices and had volunteered to give training by the TSC DM refused to let her train because he only allowed TSC OS's to train.

SSA never admitted to anything. The TSC DM was transferred. When he didn't get the hint and retired, he was transferred AGAIN an office that took him over an hour to reach and at which he had to pay for parking. One woman got the promotion. The other got two cash awards after her retirement. The third got a transfer closer to home and a suspension removed from her record. Just like hitting the TRIFECTA!!

Opportunities For Hispanics Under Review By Stephen Barr
Thursday, May 22, 2008

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Social Security Administration are launching a study group to better understand the problems that Hispanics face in getting hired and promoted in the government.

Naomi C. Earp, chairman of the EEOC, and Michael J. Astrue, the Social Security commissioner, announced the formation of the working group yesterday. It will be led by Veronica Villalobos, an adviser to Earp.

Federal employment reports have consistently described Hispanics as underrepresented in the government compared with the nation's labor force. Of the 2.6 million people in the government, 7.74 percent are Hispanic, the EEOC estimates.

But Hispanics make up less than 4 percent of federal executives, and some data reviewed by the EEOC suggest that the careers of many Hispanics get stuck at the General Schedule grade 11, which makes it difficult for them to qualify for programs that groom federal leaders.
Although concerns about Hispanic employment in the government have been expressed for at least three decades, EEOC officials say it is time to review issues and obstacles confronting Hispanics because of the nation's shifting demographics and the substantial turnover projected at many agencies because of the baby-boom retirement wave.

The study group hopes to pull together preliminary recommendations by August for presentation at a national EEOC conference. Officials hope to draw on Social Security's successful efforts in recruiting Hispanics and turn them into models for other agencies.

Members of the study group include Milton Belardo of the Commerce Department, Nancy Bosque of Social Security, Delia L. Johnson of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Nicolas Juarez of the U.S. Postal Service, Isabel Kaufman of the Justice Department, Eugenio Ochoa Sexton of the Department of Homeland Security, Beatrice Pacheco of the Transportation Department, Jesse D. Solis of the Air Force and Ram¿n Sur¿s Fern¿ndez of the Labor Department. All have expertise in civil rights, equal opportunity and diversity issues.

.... Stephen Barr's e-mail address isbarrs@washpost.com.

SSA Manager Should Pot Her Own Plants and Let the EVP Do Her Job

Good Afternoon, Katie!

This is the response to written PACS Discussion you gave to Carol Lewis, EVP, AFGE Local 2505; please place this in her SF-7B Extension File along with your write up.

We take particular issue with your remark that Carol needs to work on her cooperation with you!

Cooperation is part of Level 5 in Interpersonal Skills. (PPM S430_1 , 5.6.1.2). Interpersonal Skills is the ONLY element in which McAlester management rated Carol a 5. So, management is documenting her file to lower her only 5 to a 3 ??!!

Please allow me to REMIND you of the ways in which Carol has been cooperative:

(1) YOU asked her to pick up your daughter from school when she went out on break. She did so.

(2) YOU asked her to pot the bulbs you purchased from another McAlester CR. She purchased the pots and potting soil with her own money and potted the bulbs you gave her to pot.

Short memory?

It is clear that all this is reprisal and retaliation for Carol telling me what is going on in McAlester and management's response to the Union's bargaining requests and grievances. I suggest that management does NOT try to convert our LMR disputes into Carol Lewis performance issues.

I will NOT stand by while management takes pot shots at any Local 2505 officer. YOU may have a short memory. I do NOT.

My offer to sit down with management to discuss everything that is happening in McAlester and nip these problems in the bud (if you'll pardon the pun) still stands, though our issue list is getting longer instead of shorter.

Ralph de Juliis, President AFGE Local 2505

Reacting Vituperously to Absurdity of SSI Policy

From: Dejuliis, Ralph
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:42 AM
To: Flannery, Ken; Kelly-Zaby, Mary RO Dallas
Subject: RE: Gift Card as Income and Resources in Title XVI
Importance: High

Good Morning, Ken!
Good Morning, Mary!

I wish to vituperously complain about today's transmittal training which advised SSI CRs of a new requirement to query SSI Recipients about the value of gift cards they may receive and to count the value as income in the month received and resource the following month (if unspent, with the usual income exclusions).

What is next? Counting the value of Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter dinners the SSI recipients may receive from family members if the value can't be written off as infrequent/etc?

How about we add to the list of RZ questions: Do you have a boyfriend/girlfriend who takes you out on dates? What is the value of the meals the provide? (Don't forget the value of popcorn, candy and pop at movies and the value of any Valentine's Day candy they provide). -- Again, we might be able to reduce their SSI payments if the value can't be written off as infrequent, etc.

Whoever in policy wrote that, I must ask: ARE THEY NUTS??

How much more difficult can they make administration of the SSI program?

Does anyone have any idea how much time is going to be spent in verification? How much time is going to be wasted in processing overpayments and waivers?

Our Claims Representatives are up to the armpits in RZs, CDRs, overpayments, Limited Issues, and Medicare issues. How much time is this new income and resource wrinkle is going to require and where are we supposed to get the staff to do this new workload?

How much more hostile can such rules make the public towards us?

Obviously, this rule was written by people who do NOT have to interview the public, who do not have a breakdown and who don't have lists to work!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please forward my concerns on up the line in SSI Programs!

Thank you!

Ralph de Juliis
President
AFGE Local 2505