|
Vol.
III, No. 7, November 2001
Russ
Binion not running
It
has been a high honor for me to serve as your president.
When I took the oath of office on January 31, 1996,
it was a difficult time to takeover. We were just being
released by our National Union from Trusteeship for
financial mismanagement. We were confronting potential
reductions-in-force (RIF’s) and assured furloughs
(days without pay) because of the nation’s budgetary
crisis. Federal sector unions were being assailed by
leaders in the Congress. “Partnership” was
being used by the Clinton Administration to politically
coopt the fed unions. Indeed it was a difficult time,
yet a challenging time.
I
had been out of the elected and active leadership of
our union for 15 years. I have no regrets with regard
to my decision to take the challenge and run for election
as your president. I’m gratified that you elected
me two times since the Trustee Election in October 1995.
Since the end of Trusteeship in January 1996, we have
come a long way. When Trusteeship was imposed in July
1994, we were in debt. Deficit budgets had been adopted
for two successive years (planned expenditures exceeded
planned income). Not a single bargaining gain was made
that benefited all members from the signing of the contract
on February 10, 1992 through the imposition of Trusteeship
in July 1994. Let me add that no bargaining gains were
made during Trusteeship. Financially, the Trusteeship
brought our union from a deficit of approximately $16,366
to $59,560 in cash assets over 18 months.
Through
sound, disciplined financial management and good business
operations, we now have cash assets in excess of $470,000.
Additionally, substantial bargaining gains have been
made for all members since the end of Trusteeship on
January 31, 1996. Avoiding the furloughs in 1996, winning
Transit Subsidy in 1997 and Flexiplace in 1998 are the
most notables of these.
As
I step aside, it is my fervent hope that we will elect,
as our next president, a competent, capable person with
flawless integrity and the experience needed to effectively
manage the affairs of our union. We’re riding on
a good set of tracks, and it is imperative that we stay
on them. It’s easy to run aground if too many of
our members are not paying attention. Let us learn from
the mistakes of our recent past, for fear that we will
repeat them. Let us always make the decisions that are
in the best interest of us as a family, not as individuals.
It
has been one of the most fulfilling experiences of my
life to serve as your president. The confidence you
showed to re-elect me in 1998 and again in 2000 spoke
volumes and I thank you for the opportunity that you
afforded me. I love you all.
Fraternally
yours,
Russ Binion
Is
DOL’s child care subsidy program fair?
An ESA employee who participated in the Child Care Subsidy
program for a year was kicked out of the program and
was told that she no longer qualifies for a subsidy
because she is an AFGE 12 bargaining unit employee.
The management program was unilaterally implemented
when AFGE 12 refused to agree to a maximum $40,000 family
income limit for eligibility. AFGE 12 wanted all BU
employees with qualifying child care costs to benefit
from the program, i.e., the distribution of the total
number of dollars that DOL decides to allocate for the
program to all BU employees with qualifying child care
expenses, with no limit on family income.
The
Union requested negotiations on the Child Care Subsidy
Regulations in January 2000, even though the regs did
not become final until March 14, 2000. Public Law 106-58
of September 29, 1999 permitted agencies to participate
in Child Care Pilot Programs. In April 2000, AFGE 12
and DOL started negotiations for a child care subsidy
program. They exchanged three different proposals each
but never reached agreement. On May 17, 2000, then Acting
Deputy Secretary of Labor, Edward Montgomery sent a
letter informing AFGE 12 President Russ Binion that
DOL planned to implement its $40,000 income limit program
and immediately publicized this program in DOL’s
May 2000 Spotlight.
AFGE
12 filed an “unfair labor practice” charge
with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) against
DOL on June 29, 2000 for illegally implementing its
$40,000 child care subsidy program. The FLRA issued
a complaint (indictment) against DOL on September 29,
2000 but reversed that decision on November 29, 2000.
The Union appealed the FLRA’s decision on February
1, 2001. The FLRA decided that what DOL did was not
“unfair” and denied the Union’s appeal
in April 2001. In the meantime, Congress extended the
pilot program through September 30, 2001.
In
January 2001, DOL expanded the child care subsidy program
for all DOL employees, except those represented by AFGE
12, raising the family income limit from $40,000 to
$59,999. Who thinks that is fair?
ETA
illegally moves employees
ETA is one of the DOL agencies that engages in illegal
actions on a regular basis. On July 7, 2000, Arbitrator
Marilyn S. Ermer ruled that ETA’s Workforce Investment
Act reorganization and related space changes were implemented
illegally. The Union learned on November 9, 2001 that
ETA had illegally moved its Office of School to Work
from 400 Virginia Avenue, SW to FPB without concluding
negotiations with the Union over the move. The Union
was in agreement with the move, but wanted to protect
its institutional position on the negotiation of the
size of offices and workstations without causing harm
to Management in any way. Management ignored the Union’s
“no harm offer” and made the move illegally.
ETA
has illegally engaged in an ongoing series of space
changes since Arbitrator Ermer’s July 7 decision.
One of its illegal space changes will be presented in
an arbitration hearing on December 5, 2001. A second
illegal space change is scheduled to be invoked to arbitration.
Additionally, ETA continues to illegally advertise job
vacancies. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to stop
the illegal practice in negotiation sessions that the
Union has had with ETA level management and DOL’s
Office of Labor-Management Relations. A grievance will
be filed with DOL to stop illegal job advertisements.
DOL’s
automated time and attendance, ruled illegal
On March 6, 2000, the Union filed a grievance on DOL’s
use of an ATA system. The Union has allowed the use
of personal computers for calculation purposes only,
as a personal convenience for bargaining unit employees,
with access limited to the employee making the personal
calculation.
On
October 30, 2001, Arbitrator M. David Vaughn upheld
the Union’s grievance saying, “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.”
The Arbitrator gave DOL six full pay periods to restore
the negotiated system.
PWBA/DOL
denies leave of absence
As the 2001 school year approached, Reggie was waiting
for PWBA to respond to his request for a one-year leave
of absence. He had been offered a Visiting Professor
of Law position for the 2001-2002 academic school year
to teach at the University of Arkansas School of Law
(UASL) in Little Rock. Some can vividly recall the scenes
from Little Rock in the late 1950’s as they filled
the newspapers, magazine, and TV screens around the
nation. President Eisenhower was forced to nationalize
the Arkansas National Guard to protect the lives of
nine brave, little African-American students who dared
to attend Central High School
in 1957 following a court order.
It’s
ironic that the first of those nine brave, little students
to graduate from Central High was Ernest Green, the
Asst Secy of Labor for ETA during the Carter Administration.
Arkansas, like our nation, has changed. Today, we don’t
see scenes like the 1950’s and 1960’s when
there were “civil rights” battle grounds throughout
the South. Today, we don’t see terrorist killing
and seeking to intimidate the nation and the President
of the USA in effort to turn back the clock to a time
of “freedom denied.” Yes, these are changed
times. Change is a continuum. Undoubtedly, both Reggie
and the UALS see the visiting professorship as a positive
in the continuum of change.
Reggie
is a 27-year-old African-American attorney and a native
Arkansan who graduated from the Georgetown University
Law Center. He resigned from DOL’s Pension and
Welfare Benefits Administration in August 2001 after
being denied the leave of absence. Incidentally, Reggie
was the AFGE 12 Vice President for PWBA. Those who worked
with him at DOL believe that he is brilliant and have
every confidence of his success. We thank Reggie for
his dedicated service to DOL and the unselfish aid that
he gave to our union. Godspeed to Reggie!
|
