UDWC Daily Update

• This Week’s Schedule (Meet and Confer to Run April 18th to May 19th)
• Monday – 9-5
• Tuesday - 1:30 – 2:30
• Wed – No Meeting
• Thursday, Friday - TBA

Developments from the May 9th, 10th Meetings -- From the Coalition

• Last week, the UDWC and DoD/OPM ended discussions on Wednesday May 4th.  Discussions for the week concluded early because the UDWC, acting in good faith, granted management’s request to caucus among themselves with respect to two UDWC proposals.  Management agreed to return Monday, May 9th prepared to discuss the aforementioned proposals with the UDWC.

• The full UDWC national level bargaining, and scope of bargaining proposals were presented to management last Tuesday and Wednesday. 
• The UDWC, acting in good faith, presented management with proposals that would fulfill the desired flexibility asked for by various Pentagon and OPM officials before Congress.
• Mary Lacey told the UDWC last week that she “appreciated the proposals,” and agreed to directly address the proposals on Monday.  Lacey indicated that she needed to vet the proposals through other decision-makers within the Pentagon hierarchy.
• The UDWC, pointing out to management that the coalition needs to determine the scope of bargaining before moving forward on any other issue, was assured of a response on Monday and therefor granted Lacey’s request.
• In granting Lacey’s request, the UDWC allotted management last Thursday and Friday to confer on the coalition proposals.

• On Monday, May 9th management failed to provide the UDWC with any response to the two proposals.

• The UDWC, again attempting to meet and confer in good faith, reiterated to management that the coalition, before moving forward, needed to get a response to both proposals.
• In particular, the UDWC, as articulated by Dan Schemmer, informed management that the coalition needed to know if management was “willing to define ANY subject that could not be defined as an implementing issuance that the unions would have bargaining rights over?”
• Charlie Abell’s response was, “got it”.
• The UDWC proceeded to provide management with a third proposal on Department of Component-wide rules and regulations was given to management for their consideration.
• The day ended on Monday with the UDWC expecting a concrete answer from management as to whether or not any subject, in management’s view, would be negotiable without the constraints of implementing issuances.  The UDWC also expressed the coalition’s desire to get concrete responses to the three proposals put forward to management.

Tuesday, May 10th’s meeting was a short one.

• Charlie Abell began the meeting, which started at 1:30, with a prepared statement indicating that any subject can be overridden at management’s discretion by implementing issuances and alike.
• The UDWC, noting again that our proposals were prepared in good faith and did preserve workers rights and collective bargaining, asked Mr. Abell for a written statement defining that position.
• Management gave no indication a statement would be forthcoming.
• The UDWC continues to contend that such a stance on management’s part is not only contrary to the many statements that have been made to Congress, but is also contrary to the written intent of the authorizing law.
• Today’s position laid out by Charlie Abell underscores the UDWC’s contention that management has little interest in coming to conclusion on any issues through the meet and confer.
• Today’s developments also underscore the fact that NSPS is an ideologically driven issue, not one driven by compromise and good will.  The proposal management continues to point to is what was published in the Federal Register, further underscoring their lack of interest in revising NSPS through meet & confer.
• Tuesday’s session ended with the UDWC requesting to caucus tomorrow to determine how to proceed with the remainder of meet and confer.
• Today’s meeting transcript, in part, went as follows:

Charlie Abell – “Intend to strike a balance between employees’ interests and mission requirements.  We believe our proposal is a happy medium, even though you want to keep the status quo.  You have provided three proposals – and though they all have merit, we cannot accept them and we are standing on our original position.”

Byron Charlton (who Chairs the meeting on behalf of the UDWC) – “can you give us an answer in writing?”

Abell – “um, um, we will work on it.”

• Tomorrow the UDWC will use the day to Caucus to determine the next steps of the coalition. 

• It is clear that DoD is unwilling to budge from the NSPS that was published in the Federal Register.
• As Secretary Abell said at the Monday, May 9th meeting with respect to scope of bargaining, “it is a hard one for us, or at least for me, to understand if there is room on either side to find some middle ground, and to try to understand your wants or desires in this regard.  I match that with the fairly rigid position the administration has taken on this so far, and to find out if there is any fertile ground we can plow, that we can plant the seed.” 
• The ‘fertile ground’ that Mr. Abell speaks of are the good faith proposals submitted by the UDWC.  Unfortunately however, it is clear that as a result of today’s meeting, management is unwilling to even consider working in good faith with the UDWC during the meet & confer.

Who is Really Calling the Shots on NSPS?

Given the clear indication that management is not following the recommendations laid out by Congress and acting in good faith with respect to the congressionally mandated meet & confer process, the obvious question of ‘who is really calling the shots?’ naturally comes to mind.   With respect to OPM, it is clear that those particular representatives are fueled by ideology. One need to look no further than the work of George Nesterczuk, who wrote several times for the Heritage Foundation about the dismantling of workers rights and union protections in the federal government. 

However, what about the DoD representatives? Mary Lacey, and the Honorable Charlie Abell, as well Bradley Bunn, are all seemingly reasonable people.  Could they possibly be the ones who are callously deciding to wholly discount, without even a discussion, the good faith proposals of the UDWC?  Or, is it David Chu, who was seemingly removed from taking part in this issue a long time ago, calling the shots?

What is clear, both by developments this week and the enlightening statement by Secretary Abell, is that NSPS really has more to do with the ideological ambitions of a few, and not nearly as much to do with national security.

Are Issuances Inconsistent with the Intent of the Law?

Senator Susan Collins (R, ME), who wrote the authorizing law along with Senator Carl Levin (R, MI), raised serious concerns with respect to issuances during the April 14, 2005 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

When questioning Navy Secretary Gordon England, Senator Collins, who authored the bill, said:

“As I read the regulations, they grant the secretary of defense sole, exclusive and unreviewable discretion to promulgate issuances without employee involvement related to overtime pay and several other important issues.

“And that does seem to me to be inconsistent with the intent of the letter of the law.”

Secretary England’s response was, “Senator, we will obviously do it in accordance with the underlying law.   And if we have this wrong, obviously we’ll go back and look at this.”

Senator Collins legitimate concerns have, contrary to Secretary England’s assurances, fallen on deaf ears.

Implementing Issuances and the March 2004 Kay Coles James Letter on NSPS – A Blueprint for Implementation  (given the developments of today’s meeting, it is important to remind all of DoD’s workers, and all of Congress, that what management is currently engaging in is eerily consistent with the direction laid out by former OPM Director Kay Coles James – see below)

DOD, fueled by a March 9, 2004 letter from OPM Director Kay Coles James to Secretary Rumsfeld in which she stated “we strongly support the objective of DOD’s discretion to act without being burdened by collective bargaining obligations”, believed they could simply ignore Congress while dismantling the rights of DoD’s workforce.  The James letter and accompanying memo went on to coach Secretary Rumsfeld as to how he could achieve his ideologically fueled objectives absent any public, union or Congressional scrutiny.  Today’s and past discussions with respect to “implementing issuances” only furthers speculation that management is following the letter of then OPM Director Kay Coles James directive.

The UDWC, continuing to attempt to follow congressional directives to work in good faith during the Congressionally mandated meet and confer process, remains skeptical of the true intention of management. 

Will management reverse course and ultimately follow the letter of the law and the directive of Congress, or will they continue to fulfill the direction of the Kay Coles James directive?  Answer as of today: No!

Next UDWC update will be published on Friday, May 13, 2005.

________________________________________________________________________________________