tracking just providing SA Eric S. Montalvo Attorney at Law 1800 Diagonal Road Suite 210 Alexandria, VA 22314 eric@puckettfaraj.com (703) 706-9566Â Phone (540) 840-7717Â Cell (202) 318-7652Â Fax DC × CA × MI × VA
www.PuckettFaraj.com
Practice is limited to matters and proceedings before special courts - federal courts - agencies. Confidentiality / Privilege Notice: This transmission, including attachments, is intended solely for the use of the designated recipient(s). This transmission may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. The use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient of this transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the sender. From: Haytham [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 2:58 PM
To: Eric S. Montalvo
Subject: Re: TSA Continuing Story on the Fed Employ Law and Impact of Unions Debra need to speak to Neal about her concerns. I can do it but she has to give me the ok. Sent from my iPhone Eric S. Montalvo Attorney at Law 1800 Diagonal Road Suite 210 Alexandria, VA 22314 eric@puckettfaraj.com (703) 706-9566 Phone (540) 840-7717 Cell (202) 318-7652 Fax DC × CA × MI × VA
www.PuckettFaraj.com
Practice is limited to matters and proceedings before special courts - federal courts - agencies. Confidentiality / Privilege Notice: This transmission, including attachments, is intended solely for the use of the designated recipient(s). This transmission may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. The use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient of this transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the sender. From: Debra A D'Agostino [mailto:debra@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:00 PM
To: 'Eric S. Montalvo'
Subject: FW: TSA Continuing Story on the Fed Employ Law and Impact of Unions omg, she's blowing my box up From: Atwood Marcy [mailto:marcy@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:04 PM
To: D'Agostino Debra
Subject: TSA Continuing Story on the Fed Employ Law and Impact of Unions Debra, Don't understand this. Is this something that may be blogged upon? Marcy TSA Labor Relations Policy: NaÃve or Calculated? You DecideBy Bob Gilson Tuesday, March 1, 2011 A portion of the Story: Dispute Resolution TSA has reinvented the wheel. It says in the Determination that it will, âwithout delay, develop a unitary dispute resolution systemâ (my emphasis). The system will be developed before the election and its details shared with the winning union and TSA will consider the unionâs input comments and concerns. If any of you reading this have bargained with either NTEU or AFGE, Iâm sure that like me, youâd relish the opportunity to hear either unionâs input on a resolution system that wasnât bargained but imposed on the day of recognition. The acronym alone for the process conjures all kinds of images, none of which are particularly favorable. Like the FLRA decision that led to this particular nonsense, one could go on and on. Even a quick read of the Determinationâs will bring you face to face with unit ratification v. union ratification; the right of the winning union not to represent a non member; mandated interest based bargaining (whatever that means); exclusion from the unit of those that are âpart of managementâ. The Determination could be summed up as follows: We didnât want to do this but the President promised they could have a union then the FLRA stuck its nose in it, then we didnât want the law that governs Customs and Border Protection despite the fact that weâre in the same Agency doing security work and because weâre Democrats, we had to be politically correct and employee friendly when we wrote it but we really donât want to do this because were supposed to be security people and we donât care that its gonna result in tons of litigation and is poorly thought through âcause weâll dump it on the next Administration âcause it doesnât look like thatâll be us. As always, any personal view you discern is mine and mine alone.
|