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
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
What I REALLY Think About SSA's "Extreme Makeover Career Edition"
From: Dejuliis, Ralph
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:39 PM
To: ^Human Resources Internal Communications
Subject: RE: "Extreme Makeover Career Edition" - INFORMATION
Do you think you could add in a part about grieving her mediocre appraisal which precludes Kim from being considered for a SQI or ROC?
Do you address what Kim should do if her mentor and her supervisor are in SSA's Leadership Development Program?
LDP employees are really committed to furthering their OWN career and often view those they mentor or supervise as stepping stones, at best, or obstacles, at worst, to their own career advancement. Being short-timers in every job, they don't fight for the employees under their wing. That always hurts in terms of training, career development, appraisals and awards.
Does Kim have to deal with supervisors who are hostile to women in the workplace, because of cultural conditioning or because it means more work for someone when Kim has to take off to have children and take care of children? What is Kim supposed to do when she is asked to sign for leave because she was late for an IVT broadcast but there was and is no one to bring the kids to day care and the day care just doesn't open earlier enough for her to drop the kids off AND be in the office by 8 am for the start of IVT training? THAT is certainly a roadblock on one's career: not sacrificing one's family for SSA. I hope you explain that SSA is a family-friendly workplace in name only, NOT in practice.
Do you think you should mention that if Kim is an employee of the Dallas Region, she has a special handicap? i.e., the Dallas Region would NOT rate any employee an OUTSTANDING (All 5s) as did the other Regions. That results in Kim having a significantly lower appraisal than applicants from other Regions.
Thank you for your consideration!
Ralph de Juliis, President
AFGE Local 2505
From: ^Human Resources Internal Communications
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 1:46 PM
Subject: "Extreme Makeover Career Edition" - INFORMATION
The Office of Personnel, Center for Employee Services has produced the new DVD Extreme Makeover Career Edition. In six chapters, each 10 minutes or less, watch a SSA employee, Kim, find her way at SSA. From learning about the Agency, to finding a mentor, to writing her KSAs, SSA 45 and Individual Development Plan, to preparing for an interview, the entire process is portrayed in a quick, fun and entertaining manner. Resources are given for more information on these topics. Five key SSA Executives are featured throughout, providing their own career advice. They include:
· William E. Gray, Deputy Commissioner for Systems
· Felicita Sola-Carter, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources
· Carolyn L. Simmons, Associate Commissioner for Central Operations
· Linda S. McMahon, Deputy Commissioner for Operations
· Reginald F. Wells, Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources
In an effort to reach all employees, this DVD is now available on the Office of Training's Video on Demand (VOD) website. You can choose to watch the full video (38 minutes) or watch a chapter at a time. For direct access, use the link below. http://training.ba.ssa.gov/vod/VODstartEXT.asp?VOD=00000008040203231984&Title=ReviewDate&Mode=1&Region=0
If you do not have access to VOD, please visit the CES Career Development website to request a copy of the DVD. You may also download “Discussion Questions” for use after watching this VOD with coworkers and staff members.
For further information, you may send an email to DCHR.OPE.CareerQuestions@ssa.gov.
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:39 PM
To: ^Human Resources Internal Communications
Subject: RE: "Extreme Makeover Career Edition" - INFORMATION
Do you think you could add in a part about grieving her mediocre appraisal which precludes Kim from being considered for a SQI or ROC?
Do you address what Kim should do if her mentor and her supervisor are in SSA's Leadership Development Program?
LDP employees are really committed to furthering their OWN career and often view those they mentor or supervise as stepping stones, at best, or obstacles, at worst, to their own career advancement. Being short-timers in every job, they don't fight for the employees under their wing. That always hurts in terms of training, career development, appraisals and awards.
Does Kim have to deal with supervisors who are hostile to women in the workplace, because of cultural conditioning or because it means more work for someone when Kim has to take off to have children and take care of children? What is Kim supposed to do when she is asked to sign for leave because she was late for an IVT broadcast but there was and is no one to bring the kids to day care and the day care just doesn't open earlier enough for her to drop the kids off AND be in the office by 8 am for the start of IVT training? THAT is certainly a roadblock on one's career: not sacrificing one's family for SSA. I hope you explain that SSA is a family-friendly workplace in name only, NOT in practice.
Do you think you should mention that if Kim is an employee of the Dallas Region, she has a special handicap? i.e., the Dallas Region would NOT rate any employee an OUTSTANDING (All 5s) as did the other Regions. That results in Kim having a significantly lower appraisal than applicants from other Regions.
Thank you for your consideration!
Ralph de Juliis, President
AFGE Local 2505
From: ^Human Resources Internal Communications
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 1:46 PM
Subject: "Extreme Makeover Career Edition" - INFORMATION
The Office of Personnel, Center for Employee Services has produced the new DVD Extreme Makeover Career Edition. In six chapters, each 10 minutes or less, watch a SSA employee, Kim, find her way at SSA. From learning about the Agency, to finding a mentor, to writing her KSAs, SSA 45 and Individual Development Plan, to preparing for an interview, the entire process is portrayed in a quick, fun and entertaining manner. Resources are given for more information on these topics. Five key SSA Executives are featured throughout, providing their own career advice. They include:
· William E. Gray, Deputy Commissioner for Systems
· Felicita Sola-Carter, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources
· Carolyn L. Simmons, Associate Commissioner for Central Operations
· Linda S. McMahon, Deputy Commissioner for Operations
· Reginald F. Wells, Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources
In an effort to reach all employees, this DVD is now available on the Office of Training's Video on Demand (VOD) website. You can choose to watch the full video (38 minutes) or watch a chapter at a time. For direct access, use the link below. http://training.ba.ssa.gov/vod/VODstartEXT.asp?VOD=00000008040203231984&Title=ReviewDate&Mode=1&Region=0
If you do not have access to VOD, please visit the CES Career Development website to request a copy of the DVD. You may also download “Discussion Questions” for use after watching this VOD with coworkers and staff members.
For further information, you may send an email to DCHR.OPE.CareerQuestions@ssa.gov.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
I Know Where the Meat Heads are, but Where's the Meat?
I am very frustrated by Council 220. They can paper the walls with stupid bargaining requests; but, seem unable to follow through unless they are using the talents and skills of NON Council 220 reps (which means reps that are stealing official time from their own Locals and Regions that was intended for local and regional representation).
I am NOT minimizing the importance of BIG PICTURE activities such as lobbying, doing training and accumulating frequent flier miles which can be used personally -- okay, I'm being mean -- training is important because it is campaigning and if the Council 220 Officers want to be re-elected on their sorry record then they really must visit the Locals, glad-hand, smooze and be seen because the personal touch, as history in our Council has proven, is far more important at election time than good administrative skills, competence, effective husbanding of official time, effective use of our vanishing treasury, and a track record of effective representation -- ...
Picking up my prior train of thought, I'm not minimizing the importance of big picture activities, I'm bemoaning the lack of effective representational activity by individuals who get Council 220 official time and stipends.
Perhaps the new motto of Council 220 should be, "The light's on; but, nobody's home."
I am NOT minimizing the importance of BIG PICTURE activities such as lobbying, doing training and accumulating frequent flier miles which can be used personally -- okay, I'm being mean -- training is important because it is campaigning and if the Council 220 Officers want to be re-elected on their sorry record then they really must visit the Locals, glad-hand, smooze and be seen because the personal touch, as history in our Council has proven, is far more important at election time than good administrative skills, competence, effective husbanding of official time, effective use of our vanishing treasury, and a track record of effective representation -- ...
Picking up my prior train of thought, I'm not minimizing the importance of big picture activities, I'm bemoaning the lack of effective representational activity by individuals who get Council 220 official time and stipends.
Perhaps the new motto of Council 220 should be, "The light's on; but, nobody's home."
Thursday, April 17, 2008
National Labor Relations Partnership Act of 2007
I really didn't think much of the partnership councils when we had them. We didn't do a lot of representation before and did less during partnership because how can you fight with your partners? We just agreed to disagree and not force issues … to the detriment of the employees we represented, especially ones in trouble.
Seems to me that before we try to help SSA run the administration and its programs, we should give ourselves a good grounding in Union fundamentals: grievances, arbitrations, negotiations. Heck! The AFGE General Committee has NEVER put out a newsletter, never distributes minutes of its meetings or conference calls. Can you recall the last significant mid-term MOU it negotiated that had an impact on our working lives and working conditions? Can you recall the last arbitration it won that gave us rights SSA was denying or put money in our pockets? Do you remember the last time some one from the General Committee asked YOU for input for a meeting it was about to attend?
Why would I want a secretive (at best) or inept-can't do (at worst) organization to meet with the top levels of the Agency where it could waive our rights and we'd never find out until it was too late. Why would I want an organization who doesn't value MY OPINION to have such power?
(It is okay to tell me that it will all work out in the wash since I value my own opinions so highly and am not the least bit shy about sharing them)!
Anyway, FYI.
I think it is a bit late in the legislative and election cycle to see these enacted by this Congress. Certainly, if passed, they would NOT be signed by the current President and there are insufficient votes to have the 2/3 necessary to override a veto.
I really wish AFGE would put more effort into enforcing the few rights we have left in our contract, into getting a better contract in 2009, getting our own financial and representational houses in order instead of chasing more chimera. Being effective Union leaders is not sitting down regularly with management to schmooze, to sip cappuccino, to nibble on biscotti and talk about how we are going to help management implement all its great plans for completely electronic services with fewer and fewer bargaining employees (but still plenty of managers and supervisors). Why do we think partnership is going to be any better in 2010 than it was in 1992? Some things don't get better with age. It is never time for some ideas!
In my humble opinion, partnership legislation is ONLY going to add several more high-levels of mucky-muck people on committees, eating up our limited official time and travel dollars who will compromise our ability to bargain, grieve and otherwise represent our members, while they, themselves, will NOT do any of the heavy representational, litigational and negotiational lifting!
Seems to me that before we try to help SSA run the administration and its programs, we should give ourselves a good grounding in Union fundamentals: grievances, arbitrations, negotiations. Heck! The AFGE General Committee has NEVER put out a newsletter, never distributes minutes of its meetings or conference calls. Can you recall the last significant mid-term MOU it negotiated that had an impact on our working lives and working conditions? Can you recall the last arbitration it won that gave us rights SSA was denying or put money in our pockets? Do you remember the last time some one from the General Committee asked YOU for input for a meeting it was about to attend?
Why would I want a secretive (at best) or inept-can't do (at worst) organization to meet with the top levels of the Agency where it could waive our rights and we'd never find out until it was too late. Why would I want an organization who doesn't value MY OPINION to have such power?
(It is okay to tell me that it will all work out in the wash since I value my own opinions so highly and am not the least bit shy about sharing them)!
Anyway, FYI.
I think it is a bit late in the legislative and election cycle to see these enacted by this Congress. Certainly, if passed, they would NOT be signed by the current President and there are insufficient votes to have the 2/3 necessary to override a veto.
I really wish AFGE would put more effort into enforcing the few rights we have left in our contract, into getting a better contract in 2009, getting our own financial and representational houses in order instead of chasing more chimera. Being effective Union leaders is not sitting down regularly with management to schmooze, to sip cappuccino, to nibble on biscotti and talk about how we are going to help management implement all its great plans for completely electronic services with fewer and fewer bargaining employees (but still plenty of managers and supervisors). Why do we think partnership is going to be any better in 2010 than it was in 1992? Some things don't get better with age. It is never time for some ideas!
In my humble opinion, partnership legislation is ONLY going to add several more high-levels of mucky-muck people on committees, eating up our limited official time and travel dollars who will compromise our ability to bargain, grieve and otherwise represent our members, while they, themselves, will NOT do any of the heavy representational, litigational and negotiational lifting!
Monday, April 14, 2008
Council Caucus Imposes a Special Assessment
Since the Council was unable to squeeze a per capita increase out of the last two conventions, instead of husbanding our resources, the Council p*ssed them away to force the RVPs to impose a special assessment to soften up the next convention for a per capita increase.
I personally think this is throwing good money (ours) after bad (the Council's).
They explain nothing; they justify nothing; they are completely unaccountable and irresponsible. When ever their authority and judgment are questioned, they simply impugn the character and motivations and understanding to their questioners (in my case, their accuser).
Sigh….AND what do I expect to see from this drain on our resources? More Council funded travel, another junket to a nice location under the guise of contract strategizing, training, blah, blah, blah!
It is disgusting and demoralizing!
I can only hope that our fearless leaders' hard work pays off for them personally with political appointments for them so they will finally turn over the administration of our Union. Maybe, then, hopefully, competent administrations and leaders who aren't afraid to go toe-to-toe with SSA before 3rd parties (where you can always lose and lose badly and publicly) to fight for Union and Employee Rights (the ones they haven't given away).
I personally think this is throwing good money (ours) after bad (the Council's).
They explain nothing; they justify nothing; they are completely unaccountable and irresponsible. When ever their authority and judgment are questioned, they simply impugn the character and motivations and understanding to their questioners (in my case, their accuser).
Sigh….AND what do I expect to see from this drain on our resources? More Council funded travel, another junket to a nice location under the guise of contract strategizing, training, blah, blah, blah!
It is disgusting and demoralizing!
I can only hope that our fearless leaders' hard work pays off for them personally with political appointments for them so they will finally turn over the administration of our Union. Maybe, then, hopefully, competent administrations and leaders who aren't afraid to go toe-to-toe with SSA before 3rd parties (where you can always lose and lose badly and publicly) to fight for Union and Employee Rights (the ones they haven't given away).
Sunday, April 13, 2008
President Dumps on Rep Over the COUNCIL'S Official Time Debacle
From: Dejuliis, Ralph Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:01 AM
To: THE MASSES
Subject: FW: What Is The True Status Of Official Time Use In Council 220?
Thanks to Kirk for sharing this with us.
Administration of the Union is really hard: there are a lot of different competing interests and personalities. Part of administration and leadership is to try to assuage every one's ego without compromising your personal integrity and the Union's integrity.
Uhhh...sometimes, it is very difficult when the Union leaders have thin-skins.
Really, if you don't want folks taking pot shots at you, don't run for steward, let alone a higher leadership position!
No matter how great you think you are, if you are too important to even make an attempt at persuading others, if you immediately launch into personal political attacks on every one who challenges you, if you are a bully at heart, for God sake, put in for a promotion into SSA management where, in your deepest and darkest heart and in the crevasses in your tortured soul which sunlight can never reach, you belong!
Part of being a leader anywhere is the recognition that there are going to be some people who ALWAYS disagree with you and are as disagreeable as they can be in their disagreements. If you can't (repeatedly) respond to them with aplomb, grace and patience, then you really do NOT have the personality necessary for any public, leadership position.
Some people in the Union, of course I don't include myself in that group, really need to get over themselves because THEY, not their critics, are the real obstacles to the Union moving forward with unity, fraternity and solidarity. They seem to confuse unity, fraternity and solidarity with marching in lock step NOT with them but BEHIND them because they, alone, are the Union and they, alone, are the only ones who have the Union's real interests at heart.
We are in the fight of our lives with management because of the official time our negotiators gave up and those people don't even know who is using the time; they don't know how it is being used; and they get nasty to anyone who asks and doesn't take BS for an answer?!
They got us in this mess and refuse to be answerable, accountable or responsible.
Ralph
From: XXXX
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 6:09 PMTo: XXXX
Subject: Re: What Is The True Status Of Official Time Use In Council 220?
Witold,
Thank you for your separate e-mail response to me today answering my e-mail to you of 10/19/07. For the edification of the Council 220 union leadership indicated above, allow me to quote your response:
"I only select eight 1040 and four 2080 hour officials that the C-220 EC authorized me to select. The other 1040 hour officials are selected by either RVPs or LPs. I suggest that you contact either NY RVP XXXX or Local 3360 President XXXX for information regarding your Local and/or Region. I don't know why you would be interested in any other Local or Region.
I did appoint you to one of the 1040 hour positions for that I am empowered to select.
By the way, I don't recall that you were elected to any leadership position in either C-220 or Local 3369."
First, let me swiftly deal with the swipe you made in your last sentence above. If you want to denigrate me in my role as a Council 220 Representative as a non-leader who has no business asserting that he is a leader in the narrow sense of being elected to a union position, that's fine. I was merely asserting that I was a leader -- as well as everyone listed above -- in the broad, democratic sense that we are more involved with the running of Council 220 than the average union member and each of us has a direct, positive impact on the union at different levels of the organization. However, whether I or any of the above unionists copied on this e-mail are leaders is besides the point for the real focus for all of us has to be the state of the union, which, I am sure, we are all concerned about.
Also, I didn't write to you and Debbie to find out if I was a 50% union official for I can look on OUTTS and see that my yearly maximum allocation of official time is 1,040 hours. (I guess the implication of your response is that I should be happier than a pig in shit because I got 1,040 hours of official time this year.)
And you go on to state that you don't understand why I would be interested in any other local or region. Witold, my work as someone who has litigated arbitration cases at the Council, regional, and local level has required me to travel throughout this country in assisting locals, regions, and the Council. Naturally, as a committed unionist, I am concerned about other locals and other regions throughout the Council. Since I am a Council Representative, the business of Council 220 is my business too.
No, the reason why I wrote to you and Debbie about the official time issue is because I, as someone who has litigated more official time grievances at the arbitration level than anyone else listed on this e-mail and who has been fired twice by this agency in two separate disputes over official time, am sincerely concerned about the status of official time for the whole Council -- even though I am not a member of the EC, nor a member of the EB, nor am I an LP blah, blah, blah ... In other words, even if I was the lowest union member on the totem pole of Council 220, I would have still have the right, by virtue of my standing as a union member in this Council, to ask about the status of official time in Council 220.
Now to the substance of your 10/19 e-mail in which you describe how last fiscal year "many 1040 union officials did not use 1040 hours in FY 07." This should be an embarrassment to us as a union! If one reviews the Horowitz Award from 2006 pertaining to the agency's denial of official time for union officials during training, a Council 220 arbitration case which I represented the union at which we unfortunately lost, one will note that Arbitrator Horowitz delineates the history of official time use at the beginning of his award and indicates that under our prior 2000 National Agreement, Council 220 had 224,000 hours of official time but under the current 2005 National Agreement we were reduced to only 143,000 hours. According to my math, that works out to a 36% decrease in the availability of official time. Another way of looking at it, is that under the prior 2000 National Agreement, our Council had between 86 and 93 100% union officials, and now, under the current 2005 National Agreement, we only have 4 100% union officials. No matter how you look at it, Council 220's available bank of official time plummeted under the new contract.
Therefore, based on the fact that the amount of official time was drastically reduced under the present National Agreement, such that we, at most, were only allocated 4 100% official time positions, and 77 50% official time positions, it would obviously behoove us as a union to utilize our use of official time to the greatest extent possible. I think it goes without saying that our management counterparts at the next contract negotiations, which are not far off, will hold any failure on our part to use any and all of what little official time that we now have available to us, against us.
It is a known fact that last fiscal year, we did not designate 77 50% union officials nor apparently once we did designate 50% union officials did we make sure that those we designated all fully utilized their official time. (The official time debacle becomes even more shameful when one realizes that there is a union official of the commitment and caliber of Council Representative John XXXX who is only designated as a 25% official time user even though he has recently assisted Attorney Patti McGowan in research and appellate work and is currently representing a terminated employee in California in an upcoming MSBP hearing.) Therefore, in light of that, please share with all of us the following information: 1) exactly how many un-used 50% official time positions there were last fiscal year, 2) exactly how many underutilized 50% official time positions there were (meaning those 50% union officials who did not utilize their maximum amount of 1,040 hours of official time (unless they were in CR training) last year), and 3) whether Council 220 used all of its full allocation of 143,000 hours of official time last year.
This information is vital for all of us to be knowledgeable of before we go into the next contract negotiations with the goal of increasing both our total Council 220 official time allocation as well as the number of 100% union officials and 50% union officials in the Council.
Thank you.
Sincerely and Fraternally,
Kirk XXXX
To: THE MASSES
Subject: FW: What Is The True Status Of Official Time Use In Council 220?
Thanks to Kirk for sharing this with us.
Administration of the Union is really hard: there are a lot of different competing interests and personalities. Part of administration and leadership is to try to assuage every one's ego without compromising your personal integrity and the Union's integrity.
Uhhh...sometimes, it is very difficult when the Union leaders have thin-skins.
Really, if you don't want folks taking pot shots at you, don't run for steward, let alone a higher leadership position!
No matter how great you think you are, if you are too important to even make an attempt at persuading others, if you immediately launch into personal political attacks on every one who challenges you, if you are a bully at heart, for God sake, put in for a promotion into SSA management where, in your deepest and darkest heart and in the crevasses in your tortured soul which sunlight can never reach, you belong!
Part of being a leader anywhere is the recognition that there are going to be some people who ALWAYS disagree with you and are as disagreeable as they can be in their disagreements. If you can't (repeatedly) respond to them with aplomb, grace and patience, then you really do NOT have the personality necessary for any public, leadership position.
Some people in the Union, of course I don't include myself in that group, really need to get over themselves because THEY, not their critics, are the real obstacles to the Union moving forward with unity, fraternity and solidarity. They seem to confuse unity, fraternity and solidarity with marching in lock step NOT with them but BEHIND them because they, alone, are the Union and they, alone, are the only ones who have the Union's real interests at heart.
We are in the fight of our lives with management because of the official time our negotiators gave up and those people don't even know who is using the time; they don't know how it is being used; and they get nasty to anyone who asks and doesn't take BS for an answer?!
They got us in this mess and refuse to be answerable, accountable or responsible.
Ralph
From: XXXX
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 6:09 PMTo: XXXX
Subject: Re: What Is The True Status Of Official Time Use In Council 220?
Witold,
Thank you for your separate e-mail response to me today answering my e-mail to you of 10/19/07. For the edification of the Council 220 union leadership indicated above, allow me to quote your response:
"I only select eight 1040 and four 2080 hour officials that the C-220 EC authorized me to select. The other 1040 hour officials are selected by either RVPs or LPs. I suggest that you contact either NY RVP XXXX or Local 3360 President XXXX for information regarding your Local and/or Region. I don't know why you would be interested in any other Local or Region.
I did appoint you to one of the 1040 hour positions for that I am empowered to select.
By the way, I don't recall that you were elected to any leadership position in either C-220 or Local 3369."
First, let me swiftly deal with the swipe you made in your last sentence above. If you want to denigrate me in my role as a Council 220 Representative as a non-leader who has no business asserting that he is a leader in the narrow sense of being elected to a union position, that's fine. I was merely asserting that I was a leader -- as well as everyone listed above -- in the broad, democratic sense that we are more involved with the running of Council 220 than the average union member and each of us has a direct, positive impact on the union at different levels of the organization. However, whether I or any of the above unionists copied on this e-mail are leaders is besides the point for the real focus for all of us has to be the state of the union, which, I am sure, we are all concerned about.
Also, I didn't write to you and Debbie to find out if I was a 50% union official for I can look on OUTTS and see that my yearly maximum allocation of official time is 1,040 hours. (I guess the implication of your response is that I should be happier than a pig in shit because I got 1,040 hours of official time this year.)
And you go on to state that you don't understand why I would be interested in any other local or region. Witold, my work as someone who has litigated arbitration cases at the Council, regional, and local level has required me to travel throughout this country in assisting locals, regions, and the Council. Naturally, as a committed unionist, I am concerned about other locals and other regions throughout the Council. Since I am a Council Representative, the business of Council 220 is my business too.
No, the reason why I wrote to you and Debbie about the official time issue is because I, as someone who has litigated more official time grievances at the arbitration level than anyone else listed on this e-mail and who has been fired twice by this agency in two separate disputes over official time, am sincerely concerned about the status of official time for the whole Council -- even though I am not a member of the EC, nor a member of the EB, nor am I an LP blah, blah, blah ... In other words, even if I was the lowest union member on the totem pole of Council 220, I would have still have the right, by virtue of my standing as a union member in this Council, to ask about the status of official time in Council 220.
Now to the substance of your 10/19 e-mail in which you describe how last fiscal year "many 1040 union officials did not use 1040 hours in FY 07." This should be an embarrassment to us as a union! If one reviews the Horowitz Award from 2006 pertaining to the agency's denial of official time for union officials during training, a Council 220 arbitration case which I represented the union at which we unfortunately lost, one will note that Arbitrator Horowitz delineates the history of official time use at the beginning of his award and indicates that under our prior 2000 National Agreement, Council 220 had 224,000 hours of official time but under the current 2005 National Agreement we were reduced to only 143,000 hours. According to my math, that works out to a 36% decrease in the availability of official time. Another way of looking at it, is that under the prior 2000 National Agreement, our Council had between 86 and 93 100% union officials, and now, under the current 2005 National Agreement, we only have 4 100% union officials. No matter how you look at it, Council 220's available bank of official time plummeted under the new contract.
Therefore, based on the fact that the amount of official time was drastically reduced under the present National Agreement, such that we, at most, were only allocated 4 100% official time positions, and 77 50% official time positions, it would obviously behoove us as a union to utilize our use of official time to the greatest extent possible. I think it goes without saying that our management counterparts at the next contract negotiations, which are not far off, will hold any failure on our part to use any and all of what little official time that we now have available to us, against us.
It is a known fact that last fiscal year, we did not designate 77 50% union officials nor apparently once we did designate 50% union officials did we make sure that those we designated all fully utilized their official time. (The official time debacle becomes even more shameful when one realizes that there is a union official of the commitment and caliber of Council Representative John XXXX who is only designated as a 25% official time user even though he has recently assisted Attorney Patti McGowan in research and appellate work and is currently representing a terminated employee in California in an upcoming MSBP hearing.) Therefore, in light of that, please share with all of us the following information: 1) exactly how many un-used 50% official time positions there were last fiscal year, 2) exactly how many underutilized 50% official time positions there were (meaning those 50% union officials who did not utilize their maximum amount of 1,040 hours of official time (unless they were in CR training) last year), and 3) whether Council 220 used all of its full allocation of 143,000 hours of official time last year.
This information is vital for all of us to be knowledgeable of before we go into the next contract negotiations with the goal of increasing both our total Council 220 official time allocation as well as the number of 100% union officials and 50% union officials in the Council.
Thank you.
Sincerely and Fraternally,
Kirk XXXX
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
