|
Vol.
IV, No. 2, March 2003
The
PeopleTime Fiasco: Management Shoots Itself in the Foot
Have you had trouble lately with your credit
hours? Have you been shortchanged in your paycheck?
Are your leave balances messed up? Are your tax withholdings
wrong?
If
you can answer “yes” to any of these questions,
then you’re probably one of the many victims of
the new PeopleTime timekeeping system that Department
of Labor (DOL) management recently instituted. One BLS
employee, for example, received a paycheck of only $90.11
for 80 hours of work.
The
story of the PeopleTime fiasco is an excellent example
of why DOL should honor its collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) with AFGE 12. It is also an excellent example
of what happens when management goes off on its own
and refuses to work with the union.
Management
purchased PeopleTime from a contractor, PeopleSoft.
PeopleTime is part of a larger package that supposedly
integrates timekeeping, payroll, and personnel records.
Most of the PeopleTime staff are contractors.
PeopleTime is the successor to ATA, the Automated Time
and Attendance system. Management implemented both systems
in violation of the AFGE 12-DOL CBA.
ATA
In August 1997, management notified the Union that it
wanted to implement the ATA system, and correctly placed
the item on the mid-term bargaining agenda for January
1998. The quarterly mid-term bargaining sessions are
where all Department-wide negotiations occur between
the times when the entire contract is negotiated (“term
negotiations”).
During
the January 1998 mid-term bargaining session, the Union
and management bargaining teams discussed the specifics
of the ATA system. Implementation of ATA would modify
the contract, specifically Article 4 Section 3, which
deals with timekeeping for flexitime.
While
the Union is not opposed to technological progress,
it made clear that it would agree to the introduction
of ATA only in exchange for some concrete benefit(s)
for employees, such as a better transit subsidy. These
kinds of trades are what collective bargaining is all
about.
Management,
however, was not interested in doing anything for the
employees. Since the timekeeping method was already
covered by the contract, the Union was under no obligation
to negotiate over it. If management had agreed to provide
the employees some benefit(s), the union would have
ensured that the new computerized timekeeping system
worked properly before it was implemented.
In
response to the Union’s stand, management should
have maintained the status quo, namely, a paper-based
timekeeping system. Unfortunately, they did not and
arrogantly proceeded to implement the ATA system in
violation of the contract. The Union then filed a grievance
on March 6, 2000, which was heard on August 16, 2001
by an arbitrator—a neutral third party.
Arbitrator
David Vaughn ruled in favor of the Union, finding that
management had indeed violated the contract by implementing
ATA. In his decision dated October 30, 2001, Vaughn
stated: “The Department violated the Agreement
when it unilaterally instituted an automated time and
attendance system (ATA) for bargaining unit employees.
The Department shall cease and desist implementing the
system for bargaining unit employees and shall restore
the status quo ante negotiated time recording system
for such employees.”
Rather
than abiding by the arbitrator’s decision, management
asked the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) on
January 14, 2002 to overturn it. Therefore, the decision
is not final until the FLRA rules on management’s
appeal. A year and two months later, the FLRA has still
not ruled.
PeopleTime,
“Upgrade” from ATA
Last May, management briefed the Union on PeopleTime.
The Union pointed out that the arbitrator had already
ruled against introducing the predecessor ATA system
as well as any other electronic timekeeping system without
the Union’s concurrence. But management made clear
it was going to implement PeopleTime “the Contract
notwithstanding.”
AFGE
12 formally notified management by letter on June 26,
2002 that it viewed PeopleTime as a system similar to
ATA and therefore covered by Arbitrator Vaughn’s
decision. The Union called on management to abide by
the decision and return to the contractual paper-based
timekeeping system.
Management
ignored the Union’s request. When PeopleTime was
first implemented last August, however, it crashed and
burned. It had to be withdrawn almost immediately because
it overwhelmed the Department’s computer capacity.
Reintroduced this winter, it has been plagued by an
embarrassing host of problems such as not properly accounting
for leave, preventing employees from using credit hours,
and miscalculating employees’ taxes. For instance,
DOL employees from West Virginia were surprised to learn
that overnight they had become D.C. residents, at least
for tax purposes.
A
lot of time and taxpayer money are being spent to fix
the problems. This is what happens when management doesn’t
follow the contract.
“Instead
of working cooperatively with the employees’ representatives,
management has acted like a bull in a china shop, so
now employees and supervisors throughout the Department
are saddled with a program full of bugs that is causing
everyone headaches,” declared Larry Drake, AFGE
12 President. “Management’s high-handed
and arrogant approach has come back to haunt them,”
Drake continued. “I call on Secretary Chao to
withdraw PeopleTime and go back to the timekeeping system
mandated by our contract,” Drake said.
If
the FLRA rules in the Union’s favor on management’s
appeal of the ATA decision, the Union will ask the FLRA
to ensure that management honors Arbitrator Vaughn’s
decision.
Individual
grievances for problems with PeopleTime
The Union has prepared a “customized” grievance
form which individual employees can use for PeopleTime
problems. In other words, if you have had your pay shortchanged,
or not been credited for all the hours that you’ve
worked, or had any other PeopleTime-related problem,
you can use the customized grievance form to file a
grievance for relief. Copies are available from stewards,
Agency Vice Presidents, and the main Union office (FPB
room N-1501).
The
moral of the story
What does the PeopleTime fiasco demonstrate? It shows
that when management violates the contract and ignores
the employees and their representative, the Union, there
can be truly adverse consequences. It also shows that
in the workplace, the final product—whether it
is a timekeeping system, a flexitime program, or anything
else—will be better if all concerned parties are
involved in the process. In arrogantly excluding the
union and employees from the process, management not
only denies itself important input, but also stirs up
resentment and anger. This attitude is in stark contrast
to the idea of DOL as a model workplace. Further, it
flies in the face of Secretary Chao’s many pronouncements
of her appreciation for the great work done by the employees
of this Department.
The
union wants any new technology to work for the employees,
not against them. That is why we must be part of the
process. No matter how sophisticated the gadgetry, the
old adage still applies: “Two heads are better
than one.” In the long run, involving the employees
and their union in the process will produce a better
outcome and give the taxpayers the best value for their
money.
Management
reopens contract
By letter dated December 16, 2002, DOL management notified
AFGE 12 that it was reopening the current contract for
renegotiation. Subsequently, representatives from management
and the Union met on five workdays in late December
and early January to bargain the ground rules for the
negotiations. Ground rules deal with matters such as
logistics, not the substance of the contract. The parties
did not reach agreement on the ground rules and are
now bargaining with the assistance of a mediator from
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
On
February 20, the Union membership elected its bargaining
team for the contract negotiations, namely: Larry Drake
(Chief Negotiator), Linda Copening (ESA), Kimothy Davis
(ETA), Salwa El-Bassioni (MSHA), David Hershfield (OSHA),
Maureen Hill (OASAM), Terry Hoopes (EBSA), Eleanor Lauderdale
(SECY), Paula Parrott (SOL), and Charles Young (BLS).
$525
That’s how much a DOL employee who would use the
full $100 transit subsidy has lost so far, as a result
of management’s refusal to raise the transit subsidy
to $100 in January of last year. It’s $35 a month
that many DOL employees should be receiving but aren’t.
The
Union estimates that the total amount that bargaining
unit employees as a group have lost is in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars.
2003
pay raise: 4.1%
On February 20, the omnibus appropriations bill for
FY 2003, covering DOL and many other Federal agencies,
was signed into law. The bill contains a 4.1% pay raise
for Federal civilian employees, retroactive to the first
pay period in 2003.
This
pay increase is a victory for Federal employees and
their unions. Strong lobbying by AFGE and other Federal
employee unions and associations, coupled with active
support from D.C. area lawmakers, made the difference.
President Bush had originally proposed a 2.6% raise
for civilians and 4.1% for military personnel. After
both houses of Congress supported military-civilian
“pay parity” by endorsing a 4.1% raise for
both groups, Bush decreed via Executive Order an increase
of only 3.1% for civilians (and 4.1% for the military).
Congress, however, did the right thing, insisting on
4.1% for both groups, and Bush acceded.
“The
extra 1% pay increase illustrates the important role
that AFGE plays for Federal employees,” remarked
AFGE 12 President Drake. “We’re facing a
tough battle again on next year’s pay raise, with
the Administration proposing an insulting 2% raise for
Federal civilian employees,” he continued. “Now
is the time for all DOL employees who are not yet members
of our Union to join, so together we can win the pay
raises we all have earned and deserve,” he emphasized.
|
