Nothing should happen until after Jan 20. Hodor!

AgResearch said:

---

Step 1 - make federal employee unions illegal.

---

Why?

samurai_science said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

AgResearch said:

---

Step 1 - make federal employee unions illegal.

---

Why?

---

Private union negotiate with the companies, public unions negotiate with the people the help get elected and NOT the tax payers.

See the problem? The tax payers are getting screwed because the money they pay in taxes gets funnled to candiattes by the Unions who give them better contracts and deals.

---

They're not all the same, which is why I asked the question. My piddly ass $3 a month Fed Union negotiated for such horrific things as compressed work schedules and Flex Time. It let us hit the field EARLY to avoid Texas heat (or get out when the ground was frozen in Dumas) and let me leave the office at 6 am to get to my far outposts. They can't strike (NO PUBLIC UNION SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT), and can't negotiate salaries and such like the private ones. That being said, there are apparently those out there (especially in DC) that swing far too big a stick and need to be slapped down.

Maybe that's what your union looks like now. Get back to me in 20-30 years. History shows that unions are more interested in justifying their existence and growing their power to put ever and ever greater pressure on the 'owners' which happen to be the taxpayers in this case.

samurai_science said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

AgResearch said:

---

Step 1 - make federal employee unions illegal.

---

Why?

---

Private union negotiate with the companies, public unions negotiate with the people the help get elected and NOT the tax payers.

See the problem? The tax payers are getting screwed because the money they pay in taxes gets funnled to candiattes by the Unions who give them better contracts and deals.

---

They're not all the same, which is why I asked the question. My piddly ass $3 a month Fed Union negotiated for such horrific things as compressed work schedules and Flex Time. It let us hit the field EARLY to avoid Texas heat (or get out when the ground was frozen in Dumas) and let me leave the office at 6 am to get to my far outposts. They can't strike (NO PUBLIC UNION SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT), and can't negotiate salaries and such like the private ones. That being said, there are apparently those out there (especially in DC) that swing far too big a stick and need to be slapped down.

---

The tweet in the OP is a perfect example....how are they able to "quickly scramble" to update the agreements? Update with WHOM? Not the taxpayers that pay the bills....thats the problem.

---

That's why I did a "CYA" with my last sentence. Maybe there are this folks in DC and such that work under "agreements" but field people in the USDA worked under the "Get to work on time and do your job" agreement as far as I know.

Quote:

---

Maybe that's what your union looks like now. Get back to me in 20-30 years.

---

That one was the same for the 30 years I was a member. Pretty boring as unions go.

If your union is boring and doesn't really shake anything up, then what's the point of the union?

The benefits you described don't seem like something that would require a permanent union.

You'll have to explain to me how Fed Unions negotiate salary since they all fall under Civil Service rules. The only exceptions I know of to this are Fed law enforcement (Border Patrol, ICE, US Marshals, etc…) making a % more than the normal scale and "locality pay" in high COL areas.

Quote:

---

If your union is boring and doesn't really shake anything up, then what's the point of the union?

---

In the world that is filed USDA people, those little schedule changes were quite a shakeup, and it's not like we can just go to the bosses and ask. ;-)

Why do we need federal unions? If you accept the job, work or gtfo. Nobody is being forced to work in slave labor camps with dangerous conditions, we already have OSHA to ensure workers are safe.

B-1 83 said:

---

You'll have to explain to me how Fed Unions negotiate salary since they all fall under Civil Service rules. The only exceptions I know of to this are Fed law enforcement Border Patrol, ICE, US Marshals, etc…) making a % more than the normal scale and "locality pay" in high COL areas.

Quote:

---

If your union is boring and doesn't really shake anything up, then what's the point of the union?

---

In the world that is filed USDA people, those little schedule changes were quite a shakeup, and it's not like we can just go to the bosses and ask. ;-)

---

NATCA did this for Air Traffic Controllers in the late 90's. FAA admin agreed and set the FAA back 20 years.

I have seen the FAA try to implement for goofy stuff that was really bad and NATCA stopped it. I have seen the opposite as well. Currently, the FAA pays for all NACTA reps to be off site/on travel and making 50-80K a year of per diem just to show up for meetings. Trump needs to reset this!!

You'll get no argument from me on that, but that's why I said they aren't all the same. Flex schedule for a guy laying out a pond or measuring 3 miles of pipeline in Texas in July is a godsend, so I can't speak for those in other agencies who abuse it.

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Unions are bad and have ALWAYS been bad. Anybody who tells you otherwise is ignorant of economics.

---

False.

---

You are wrong. Unions impose a deadweight loss. Always have and always will. That is loss we can never get back.

aTmAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Unions are bad and have ALWAYS been bad. Anybody who tells you otherwise is ignorant of economics.

---

False.

---

You are wrong. Unions impose a deadweight loss. Always have and always will. That is loss we can never get back.

---

As usual, aTmAg making bold statements with no basis in fact.

Unions had a purpose, at one time. That time has passed for many of them. Today, some are good, some are bad.

B-1 83 said:

---

AgResearch said:

---

Step 1 - make federal employee unions illegal.

---

Why?

---

Good gads.

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Unions are bad and have ALWAYS been bad. Anybody who tells you otherwise is ignorant of economics.

---

False.

---

You are wrong. Unions impose a deadweight loss. Always have and always will. That is loss we can never get back.

---

As usual, aTmAg making bold statements with no basis in fact.

Unions had a purpose, at one time. That time has passed for many of them. Today, some are good, some are bad.

---

LOL.. from the guy who literally wrong a single word "false" as his entire retort.

It is FACT that unions impose a deadweight loss. It is the same effect as a price floor. I would post a supply/demand supply chart for you if my employer didn't block it, you'll have to google for yourself.

1. The unions definitely has power in bargining for total compensation
2. While federal unions cannot directly bargain for pay, the hire an army of lobbyists to do so on their behalf. Using our own tax money to negotiate against the tax payer seems a little unethical, no?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

1. The unions definitely has power in bargining for total compensation
2. While federal unions cannot directly bargain for pay, the hire an army of lobbyists to do so on their behalf. Using our own tax money to negotiate against the tax payer seems a little unethical, no?

---

Not really. Exactly how is a union for Air Traffic Controllers negotiating for benefits for a Range Conservationist in Pampa Texas? They're not, and they can't. My entire point, made multiple times, is that they are not all the same, and apparently some wield more power than they ever should. How is your own tax money being used to negotiate against the taxpayer?

Perhaps this will help clear some confusion about Fed unions and the different types. It will explain where I'm coming from as far as "bargaining" positions and such and why it had zero impact on me. It also explains why there are total dips***s in Washington who do fall under this. I oppose that sort of nonsense, but throwing them all out is not a good thing.

There are totally different types of Federal "Unions"

Where do you suppose these unions get the money to pay the lobbyists, or anything else, they want to do?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Where do you suppose these unions get the money to pay the lobbyists, or anything else, they want to do?

---

Members pay with their own money, not taxpayer money.

B-1 83 said:

---

You'll have to explain to me how Fed Unions negotiate salary since they all fall under Civil Service rules. The only exceptions I know of to this are Fed law enforcement (Border Patrol, ICE, US Marshals, etc…) making a % more than the normal scale and "locality pay" in high COL areas.

Quote:

---

If your union is boring and doesn't really shake anything up, then what's the point of the union?

---

In the world that is filed USDA people, those little schedule changes were quite a shakeup, and it's not like we can just go to the bosses and ask. ;-)

---

Well, you can just go and ask DOGE now. If schedule changes make you more efficient, Elon and Vivek are your men! Won't cost you $3/ month now either.

B-1 83 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Where do you suppose these unions get the money to pay the lobbyists, or anything else, they want to do?

---

Members pay with their own money, not taxpayer money.

---

Where do members get their money?

You mean the money that comes from the taxpayer

American Hardwood said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Where do you suppose these unions get the money to pay the lobbyists, or anything else, they want to do?

---

Members pay with their own money, not taxpayer money.

---

Where do members get their money?

---

From their bank accounts. Are you suggesting that you can tell Fed employees what to do with their own money because taxes paid for it? My, oh my. Can I still donate to the RNC or Ted Cruz campaign?

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Unions are bad and have ALWAYS been bad. Anybody who tells you otherwise is ignorant of economics.

---

False.

---

No, its absolutely true. It is a fallacy that unions themselves have accomplished much of anything productive in this country. Perhaps some labor laws have, but not unions.

The irony/inconsistency/hypocrisy (call it what you want) underlying unions is that they are what they claim to be against: centralized power preying on the backs of their rank and file. A union is nothing with just workers who signed up and organized. They need so-called "leadership" to make any petition to management for whatever they're seeking -- higher wages, better working conditions (however they define that), etc. Thus, they're conceding that management -- in this case, they're "leadership" -- is necessary, yet that's that they try and suggest is the "enemy" in negotiations. Or that management is too powerful. They don't seem to give a damn if union "leadership" is too powerful, even in things like politics where the union membership isn't benefitting.

Sorry, but unions are a net negative on the economy and always have been. We abolished slavery a hundred and ten years ago. If you don't have the wage or hours you want, quit. If working conditions are truly bad, reasonable statutes can be put in place, otherwise tort law is available in most cases. I don't have an issue expanding either, if necessary.

Someone pointed out there is a relatively high likelihood many federal employees who are still work from home may be double dipping employment. I have to image a lot of federal work remote jobs don't require all the work hours allocated. Some of your resistance will come from these types not wanting to give up being paid twice for some of the same working hours.