Ames Federal Employees Union

IFPTE provided a presentation on FCR to Administrator Bolden on October 8th, 2009.

To view the Presentation, click on: fcr-presentation-final.pdf

You’d like to get better at communicating your goals, accomplishments, and dreams with your manager? Are you interested in what other work goes on at Ames and seeing how you might be able to get involved? You’d like to improve your communication and organization skills? I’m sure you do. I’d like to start a career development forum in AFEU that focuses on helping you be recognized as a leader in your line of work.

Are you interested in being a part of this forum? Drop me a line and let’s talk.

The South Bay Labor Council (AFEU is an affiliate) has been fighting for a living wage for employees who work at the SJC airport. It is shocking that employees who regularly work inside the security zone as “passenger service workers” (the folks who help out the disabled with wheelchairs and electric carts, for example) are paid an average of $16,640 a year and they do not receive health care or other benefits. Not only is this unfair and inappropriate, it poses a risk to the security of passengers and planes.

Read the full report: http://www.buildingabetterairport.com/other/BBAReport.pdf

And more details at: http://www.buildingabetterairport.com

(Note that San Francisco International [SFO] has a living wage ordinance and employers saw an 11% reduction in turnover of these employees. Less turnover results in reduced costs and increased airport security.)

AFEU has two agreements regarding EPCS (I believe there is a third in the works, our VP for Negotiations would know better) that you should be aware of when we enter the performance evaluation period.

The Record of Negotiations from 2004

The settlement from the 2005 Union Grievance

It would behoove you to read both so that you understand your rights under these agreements, and the appropriate articles of the main Contract would also be a good idea.

I strongly encourage employees to raise concerns but to sign their performance evaluation. The signature is simply stating receipt of the evaluation, not that you agree with the evaluation. Of course, you have 30 days to grieve (and 45 days to file with EEO, if appropriate).

Members,

I am writing this personal message to you, encouraging you to donate to the charities of your choice through the Combined Federal Campaign (this is the last week, the opportunity ends Nov. 16.) Why, beyond the obvious reasons to donate to charity?

If you haven’t donated through the CFC, you may not know this, but there is a hidden benefit–you choose whether to share your name/address/e-mail with the charity. Too many times, I’ve donated to a good cause only to receive a “thank you gift” followed by letter after letter asking me to donate more money. CFC not only sends your donation pre-tax automatically, it saves you from being on your favorite charity’s mailing list.

– Chris Knight, Chief Steward, AFEU, IFPTE #30

(p.s. I have a confession; in past years I donated directly to my favorite charities, but now that I know of this additional benefit, I’m going to make this a yearly practice!)

I’ve uploaded the latest version of the AFEU Constitution (that governs the inner operations of the local, including elections, position descriptions, etc.)

Word from the UGSOA International President (Acting) is that the guards fired last week have been re-instated and an interim agreement reached with SecTek. I’m sure we’re all glad that level heads prevailed, and that Ames is safe and secure with these experienced officers at their posts.

What about firing 9 guards for their involvement in a picketing event, particularly guards active in their Union, does not sound like Union-busting? The (previous) employees are now picketing the Center and other contractors that are members of other locals are honoring and supporting the picketing.

In our discussions with the UGSOA local president and international president, the contract has been null and void for a while now.

For Civil Servants, however, make sure you do not get involved in any sort of work action as it is a violation of the law. But give the folks a smile and a wave as you enter. AFEU has a small solidarity fund to support the picketers with food and water, but so far they are well supplied and ready for the fight.

AFEU is also concerned about the possible short- and long-term impacts to the safety and security of employees at the Center. The fired guards are, by and large, the senior guards at the Center with significant experience and expertise.

A message from our Local’s President:

Dear Ames employees,

As you may be aware, the security guards that protect Ames Research Center at the various gates have been in negotiations with their employer, SecTek, which is under contract with ARC, for many months with no resolution to their union contract. Yesterday evening we were informed that the President of their local (UGSOA Local #403) was terminated for his Union activities, notably the informational picketing many of you may have seen outside the front gate. AFEU is very concerned about this action and is in touch with the their President and we will keep you informed. Note, however, that Ames CS employees are explicitly prohibited by law from any work action (strike, walkout) and we cannot represent Contractors to Ames, but we can show our solidarity with fellow labor activists fighting for reasonable working conditions. More news will be provided, as it develops.

– Paul K Davis, President, Ames Federal Employees Union (IFPTE local 30)

May 21, 2007

Mr. John G. Stewart
Fellow and NASA Workforce panel member
National Academy of Public Administration

Dear Mr. Stewart:

At the hearing, you testified that IFPTE had seriously mischaracterized the NAPA report and that, specifically, the report did not talk about giving NASA BRAC-like authority. (Indeed your exact quote was: “For example, nowhere in our report do we talk about BRAC-commission; it just isn’t there.”)

To refresh your memory, I have included one of the relevant sections of the NAPA report, which states:

“(p. 59) … if it becomes clear that the current organizational configuration of ten centers does not contribute to a healthy NASA and does not allow NASA to meet its changing mission within its available budget, the Panel believes that the Administrator should work with Congress to gain statutory authorization for a BRAC-type commission to determine whether one or more centers should be closed.”

Your testimony also emphasized NAPA’s criticism of Dr. Griffin’s “10 healthy centers” approach as too “people focused”. NASA’s greatest asset is its people. Any NASA Human Capital plan that is not “people focused” is doomed to failure. Any high-tech entity that seeks to be creative and innovative at the cutting edge of current science and technology cannot have the top-down authoritarian personnel system you seek for NASA to implement, with flexible power to reassign and fire, nearly at will, to meet short-term needs or to get rid of older employees. Many of the best and brightest engineers and scientists will simply refuse to work in such a unpleasant environment and will take jobs elsewhere where they are treated with the “people focused” respect they deserve. That would be a disaster for NASA.

In a discussion after the hearing, a member of NAPA’s senior staff (no irony intended) reiterated to me that the NAPA report does indeed advocate that NASA be given the authority to preferentially target its older retirement-eligible employees for termination in order to open the door to hire the next generation of younger employees.

” (p. 185) The Panel also recommends that, given the immediate need for NASA to begin reshaping its workforce, Congress provide the agency with limited emergency authority to invoke retirement.
… generally speaking, it is not as much of a hardship for someone who is fully eligible for their annuity to retire from their job.”

It is the premise that openly discriminating against NASA’s older employees is a necessary pre-requisite for NASA building its future workforce that IFPTE finds both false and repugnant.

In addition, the fact that the victims of such coercive, non-merit based, personnel decisions would be targeted because they are older and can supposedly handle it financially, is analogous to the calls of yesteryear to fire women employees preferentially because their husbands can support them.

The bottom line is that IFPTE fundamentally disagrees with key elements of the NAPA report and of your testimony, which speak for themselves and require no mischaracterization.

Sincerely,

–Lee Stone
Legislative Representative
NASA Council of IFPTE locals