|
DISAPPOINTED,
NOT DEFEATED
by Dan Sullivan
November 3, 2004
Yesterday was a disappointing
day for more than 55 and a
half million Americans. For
other millions it was a day
for gloating and self
congratulations. Their man,
President Bush was carried to
office on the backs of an Army
of Evangelical Christian and
Right Wing foot soldiers.
Those of us who support
worker, women and minority
rights, the soldiers overseas
and religious tolerance are
deeply disappointed, but we
are not defeated. One battle
is over. But the war and our
struggle continues.
Ahead lie other battles. Our
young men and women are stuck
in a Middle East quagmire,
fighting an ideological war.
We must find a way to support
them while opposing Bush's
war.
George Bush has promised to
rewrite the tax code to
benefit the wealthy and harm
the rest of us and to
privatize Social Security. He
will propose legislation to
privatize the Postal Service
or in other ways harm postal
workers. He will push for
further deregulation of
industry and further
intrusions into the privacy of
all Americans in the name of
the ‘war on terrorism.' And he
will strike quickly next year
to accomplish these goals by
trying to steam-roll the
Democratic Party.
We must not allow him to have
his way this time. We must not
accept an outstretched hand
offered in false unity as the
Democrats did after the 2000
election. This time, we must
be prepared to go to war to
protect the ideals that we
believe in: religious and
social tolerance, security for
the aged and disabled, justice
and fairness for all
Americans.
We must swallow our
disappointment over the
election and put our shoulders
back to the wheel.
To our enemies in the White
House, the Congress and all
across America where the
forces of social and religious
intolerance are gathered, we
say this:
The election is over. The war
is not. We will fight back. We
will oppose you every step of
the way. We will insist that
Democrats in the Senate
filibuster legislation that
would turn back the clock on
workers, the poor, women and
minorities. We will demand
that Democrats filibuster
legislation to privatize
Social Security and the Postal
Service and further deregulate
industry. We will demand that
Democrats filibuster judicial
appointments who endorse
religious and social
intolerance in America.
We will not go away. We will
not collaborate. We will meet
you again in another election
and another after that. And in
the end, we will prevail and
return America to its ideals
and greatness
|
|
|
|
Here' s a rebuttal to
columnist Peter Brown from the
Orlando Sentinel-
Brown wrong on federal
holiday for Reagan
by Dan Sullivan
June 11.2004
Peter A. Brown writes a column
for the Orlando Sentinel. And
he's mad again. This time
over the way the government
chose to honor the passing of
one of his heroes, former
President Ronald Reagan.
Brown thinks it mocks
President Reagan and all he
stood for to give federal and
postal workers a holiday on
the occasion of his state
funeral
(‘Giving federal
workers a holiday mocks
Reagan, what he stood for',
Orlando Sentinel, 6-10-04).
He admits it's just a guess,
but he doesn't believe
Reagan would have liked
seeing government slugs
getting off with pay for his
funeral. Not one bit.
Brown recalls a thrifty
president, one who jealousy
guarded the taxpayer's money.
And he thinks it's an insult
to the Great Communicator
that the government is wasting
hundreds of millions of
dollars giving federal
workers a holiday in honor of
him.
But the Orlando Sentinel
scribe seems to have a
memory like President Reagan
himself had, one that never
let the truth get in the way
of a good story.
In American political
mythology, President Reagan's
fiscal prudence ranks right up
there with the story of George
Washington and the cherry
tree.
The story is undeniably
sentimental and nostalgic. It
is also undeniably false.
Schoolboys and girls may
believe it. And so may a few
right-wing ideologues who have
a political interest in
promoting the myth. But no
responsible journalist buys
it.
The uncomfortable fact is
that President Reagan spent
the taxpayer's money like a
drunken sailor on shore
leave. Under Reagan,
government spending soared to
heights never before
reached.
"Reagan stood for making
government more efficient and
reducing the burden on those
who pay its bills," Brown
fondly remembers.
That would only be true if
running the largest budget
deficits in the history of the
United States and dumping the
burden of debt on future
generations is your idea of
efficient government.
No, the president who presided
over Pentagon procurement
scandals that saw the
government pay $600 for toilet
seats and $400 for hammers
was no promoter of government
efficiency, regardless of how
he is remembered by Brown. He
was just the opposite.
So what better way to honor
one of the greatest
spendthrifts in American
history than by giving
government workers a day off
with pay? Forget the cost.
Brown whines that the Great
Communicator's passing
"should not become just an
opportunity for federal
workers to shop or snooze."
But why not?
Isn't a good nap an
appropriate way to honor a
president who was renown for
falling asleep during staff
meetings and made no bones
about enjoying his daily
siesta?
"A paid holiday for millions
of public employees in
Reagan's honor makes a mockery
of the man's ideals," he
grumbles.
But Brown is wrong once
more.
Before President George W.
Bush, Reagan was the biggest
spendthrift this nation has
ever seen.
If a paid holiday for millions
is a waste of taxpayer's
money, as Brown argues it is,
then there is no more fitting
tribute to President Reagan
than allowing federal and
postal workers a day off in
his honor.
Dan Sullivan is the former
Editor of APWU
Southwest Michigan Area Local
read other articles written by
Dan Sullivan |
|
|
|
|
FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
 Carl
C. Bosland, an arbitrator from
Denver, Colorado, who serves
on panels for the Postal
Service, APWU, and NPMHU, has
written a new book addressing
the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA). Published in
November 2003 , the 700+
page book, A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation , provides a
comprehensive, up-to-date
review of the four variants of
the FMLA that apply to federal
sector employees and
employers. The Guide clearly
explains what employees are
covered by the four federal
sector variants of the FMLA,
and details similarities and
critical differences in the
rights and responsibilities of
employees and management under
each of those variants. The
Guide also reflects current
case law and administrative
developments interpreting the
FMLA."
6/3/04
(Thanks to PR Readers for
these articles )
What federal executives
and managers don't know about
the Family and Medical Leave
Act could get them sued.
Executives and managers could
be at risk of personal
financial ruin, to the tune of
hundreds of thousands of
dollars, from employee
lawsuits if they violate the
1993 Family and Medical Leave
Act. Some might think they are
protected from personal suits
and their agency is the proper
party to file a claim against
for such violations. Not so.
Unlike more familiar
anti-discrimination laws, the
Family and Medical Leave Act
allows certain employees to
sue individual executives and
managers for errant leave
decisions, in addition to
suing the agency. Moreover,
executives and managers are
unlikely to avoid financial
ruin because they were unaware
of their FMLA
responsibilities. On the
contrary, lack of knowledge of
the law's requirements could
result in an award of double
damages for a so-called
willful violation.
While all federal employees
are covered by the Family and
Medical Leave Act, their
rights and remedies can differ
substantially, depending on
which of the law's four
federal-sector provisions
applies. Two provisions each
cover White House and
congressional employees. Civil
servants are protected by
another provision, and U.S.
Postal Service and other noncivil servant employees
(e.g., part-time, temporary
and other special categories)
are covered by the fourth.
Federal employees can be
covered under more than one
provision of the FMLA.
Executives and managers run
the risk of being personally
sued for violations when they
apply the requirements of one
provision to employees covered
by another. Compliance with
one provision does not ensure
compliance with the law's
other provisions.
KNOW THEIR RIGHTS
All employees share common
basic entitlements. The law
requires federal employers to
allow eligible employees a
maximum of 12 weeks of unpaid
job-protected leave during a
designated 12-month period
for:
| |
•
The birth, adoption or foster
care placement of a son or
daughter.
•
A serious health condition.
•
Care of a son, daughter,
spouse or parent with a
serious health condition.
|
|
During such leave, federal
employers are required to
provide health benefits. They
also must allow an employee to
return to the same or an
equivalent position. These
basic entitlements often are
interpreted or enforced
differently under each
provision of the law.
Postal and other noncivil
service employees can file
suit against an individual
manager, supervisor and or the
agency for violations of the
FMLA. They also can file a
complaint with the Labor
Department, although
administrative channels are
not required. In rare
instances, the Labor
Department can initiate a
civil action on behalf of a
Postal or other noncivil
service employee.
Civil service employees can
challenge FMLA violations only
through established agency or
collectively bargained
grievance procedures. The
Office of Personnel
Management's Office of Special
Counsel can investigate and
prosecute employee claims
against the agency under
certain circumstances.
White House and congressional
employees have the right to
sue their agency, but only
after filing an administrative
complaint. The mandatory
administrative process
includes a period for
counseling and mediation. Only
after that process is complete
does the employee have the
right to file a further
administrative appeal or a
federal civil action.
COMMON PITFALLS
To avoid violating the law,
federal executives and
managers must understand the
FMLA requirements. Application
of the requirements for civil
service employees might not
safeguard against (and, in
fact, could cause) violation
of provisions applicable to
noncivil service employees.
For example, the civil service
FMLA provision does not
require agencies to post
notices of family and medical
rights and responsibilities.
The noncivil service
provision, on the other hand,
requires all covered
employers, whether they have
eligible workers or not, to
display an FMLA poster
approved by the Labor
Department. Each violation of
this provision can result in a
$100 civil penalty. It's
likely that most federal
agencies are in violation of
the poster requirement.
The way in which employees
request family and medical
leave also varies. Under the
civil service FMLA provision,
employees must mention the law
by name to invoke protections.
By contrast, noncivil service
employees do not have to
mention the law at all when
requesting leave. The employee
only has to articulate facts
suggesting that the need for
leave falls within the
protections of the law, and
the agency must determine
whether the situation
qualifies for FMLA provisions.
Executives and managers who
fail to designate a noncivil
service employee's leave as
FMLA - protected because the
employee did not specifically
ask for FMLA leave could be
violating the employee's
rights.
PROVING A VIOLATION
An executive or manager could
be liable for violating the
FMLA absent knowledge or
intent. There are two types of
FMLA claims: those based on
interference of entitlement
and those based on retaliation
or discrimination. Claims of
interference do not require
proof of discriminatory
intent. Employees must only
establish that they met all
the requirements for family
and medical leave protections
and were denied their rights
under the law. Intent must be
established to prove
retaliation or discrimination
against employees who seek
family and medical leave.
For example, say a manager
appoints a vacancy board to
make recommendations for an
open position. Among other
factors, the board considers
attendance. But the agency is
unaware of the different
notice requirements for civil
service and noncivil service
employees under the Family and
Medical Leave Act. The agency
records absences for a
noncivil service employee that
should have been designated as
FMLA - protected. The employee
had articulated leave
conditions that his supervisor
should have known were covered
under the law. But at the
time, the employee did not
specifically mention the law,
and the absences were not
recorded as FMLA - protected.
The employee was not selected
for the position in part
because of absences.
In such a situation, the
deciding official and the
members of the vacancy board
could be personally liable for
violating the Family and
Medical Leave Act. It doesn't
matter that they were unaware
that the attendance
information contained FMLA -
protected absences. If the
employee was entitled to
family or medical leave for
the absences in question, then
the managers involved would be
liable, regardless of their
knowledge or intent.
WHAT TO DO
To avoid costly litigation and
ensure compliance with all
applicable provisions of the
Family and Medical Leave Act,
agencies should immediately:
Conduct an audit to determine
the composition of the
workforce.
Review agency policies,
handbooks, manuals, pamphlets,
Web sites and other materials
to ensure compliance.
Train employees responsible
for making decisions related
to the Family and Medical
Leave Act. In agencies with
unions, changes to FMLA
policies may require
collective bargaining.
|
|
|
Federal Workers Beware!!
(posted 6/3/04)
 Web
of Betrayal : A Work Saga for the 21st Century
--Wendy
Ghannam is a former federal employee turned whistleblower. She suffered a
disability from her job and was basically threatened, denied her rights, denied
her compensation and made unemployable because of her former work arena in the
U.S. federal gov't. If you work for anyone but yourself, you'll find this book a
"legal-like" treasure. It gives you all the information you need about all the
agencies involved, and the laws that are in place to protect workers' rights.
Federal workers are in for the bronco ride of their lives right now. They are
slowly witnessing the obliteration of their lifetime achievements and hoped-for
workplace solidarity and full-scale employment protections. The Bush
Administration and its business "as usual" cronies want to rid us from the
spectrum of America's elitism of employment. To the average fed: Get ready to be
outsourced, esp. if you become injured on your job!!
About the author: Wendy Ghannam won an EEOC based
discrimination claim against USAID (U.S. Agency for Int'l Development) for job
non-accommodation. She is an avid writer and speaker about what is going on
inside the federal work arena today. Her book, WEB of BETRAYAL, outlines what it
took to win an EEO case after eight years of litigation.
By Wendy Ghannam
June 3, 2004
Federal workers are in for the bronco ride of their lives right now. They are
slowly witnessing the obliteration of their lifetime achievements and hoped-for
workplace solidarity and full-scale employment protections. The Bush
Administration and its business "as ususal" cronies want to rid us from the
spectrum of America's elitism of employment. To the average fed: Get ready to be
outsourced, esp. if you become injured on your job!!
Since the 1930's, federal workers have been afforded proactive workplace
protections when injured on the job. Under the Federal Employees' Compensation
Act (FECA), feds have been known to be the receivers of outstanding benefits'
protections, esp. if they become injured on the job--not anymore, however.
Today, the Senate Governmental Affairs Reform Committee is working up mandated
legislation that will overhaul the U.S. Postal Service and its operations. To
the American consumer, this appears to be a blessing, due to the combined
largesse of postal operations domestically, as well as the cost of postage
stamps--but what is being hidden from the public is becoming quite well known to
the average postal worker, and has been over these last few decades. Postal
rates are high due to the abyssmal working conditions afforded the average
postal civil servant, and the fact that when he/she is injured on the job--
nothing is done to rectify the workplace environment for the worker!! In other
words, USPS and every other department and agency inside the U.S. federal
service family is deliberately debiliating federal employees at an average rate
of 40+ percent since the mid-1970s, and no one wants to correct the situation.
When the current Postal Bill becomes law--and it will--in the next few weeks, it
will eliminate a large percentage of hard-won protections that feds have fought
long and hard for since 1930. It will cut out by 25 percent the amount to be
paid for anyone who collects compensation when injured on the job in FY 2006 and
beyond (after Oct. 1). It will also cut into the amounts paid for temporary
disability. Postal workers are the highest volume of people paid for workplace
disability in the U.S. Government today--mostly due to Repetitive Stress Motion
Disease (letter sorting is more than a boring task, it can be outright
debilitating!). Thus, the overhaul of the Postal Bill will broaden in scope to
affect and impact every U.S. worker in the next few years, as surely FECA laws
will be modified to reflect changes made in the Postal Bill now to be signed.
When one agency starts "with a cold, everyone else gets the flu."
While the U.S. Government is prone to investigate small businesses and
industries who do not comply with workplace environment laws through its OSHA
regulation arm, it is certainly lax when it comes to protecting its own federal
workforce members when workplace environment scenarios made them sick and/or
injured on their jobs. Repetitive Stress Disease is impacting feds and their
ability to maintain employment in today's work spectrum. Federal managers are
hiding compensation guidelines from injured feds, and covering up their faus pax
by diligently "strong-arming" workers when they become hurt from their jobs.
Women are esp. being abused and mistreated in this regard, and many are being
FIRED from their jobs once they claim workplace injury.
This hidden agenda is costing U.S. taxpayers a mint of money. Thousands of
beleaguered feds have workplace discrimination cases sitting inside the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), but it takes up to a decade to
see a case clear through the arm of the EEOC. In the meantime, feds are being
denied their full-scale working rights, as well as their full-scale medical
rights, and American taxpayers are footing the bill (any case in the EEOC is
paid for by American taxpayers). Instances of Repetitive Stress Disease dictate
that agencies/depts. pay upwards to $500 to offset any workplace injury on the
job--OSHA has supported this option since 1980,and there are Presidential
directives to protect injured federal workers; yet, no agency wants to afford
any type ergonomic arrangement for an impacted employee, esp. voice activation
technology!! Thus, each and everyday more federal workers are becoming
irreversibly injured on their jobs and nothing is being done to correct the
situation.
Perhaps with the passage of the new Postal Bill, it will incense enough federal
workers to stand up and demand their full-scale working rights to be given back
to them--as was formerly dicated in the FECA laws in the 1930's, as well as the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Only time will tell. Certainly, the unions know what
is going on here--but they too don't want to touch the subject with a ten-foot
pole either.
------------
About the author: Wendy Ghannam won an EEOC based discrimination claim
against USAID (U.S. Agency for Int'l Development) for job non-accommodation. She
is an avid writer and speaker about what is going on inside the federal work
arena today. Her book, WEB of BETRAYAL, outlines what it took to win an EEO case
after eight years of litigation.
related link: Federal workers' comp (OWCP) under scrutiny (6/20/04)
|
|
|
