NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
BEN FRANKLIN STATION, BOX 7672, WASHINGTON D.C. 20044 - PHONE 202-566-2788
INTERNET
http://www.nteu280.org
E MAIL
evans.bill@epa.gov
DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX
Inside The Fishbowl
Official Newsletter of NTEU 280
April
2007 Volume
22 - Number 11
PRESIDENT Bill Evans (202)566-2789
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Dwight Welch (202)566-2787
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Diane Lynne (202)566-2786
CHIEF STEWARD Rosezella Canty-Letsome (202)566-2784
Bill Hirzy (202)566-2788
Anne-Marie Pastorkovich (202)343-9623
Diane Rains (410)305-2908
Dr. Freshteh Toghrol (410)305-2755
SECRETARY Jeff Beaubier, Ph.D. (202)564-7642
TREASURER Dr. Bernard Schneider (703)305-5555
EDITOR Diane Lynne (202)566-2786
MAIN UNION NUMBER (202) 566-2785
UNION FAX NUMBER (202) 566-1460
NTEU Chapter 280 Website: www.nteu280.org
NTEU National Website: www.nteu.org
Link
to NTEU Membership Form:
https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf1187.pdf
Table
of Contents
*1.
Landmark
Supreme Court Case on Global Warming; the Climate at EPA May be Changing….
*2. Know the New Hatch Act Interpretation: It Could Save Your Job
*3.
Risk Analysis and Review Public Workshops
*4. Pandemic Flu
Preparation
*5. Your Official
Personnel Folder:
Know your Rights under the Privacy Act
You can ask for a full copy of your OPF before
it’s –shipped off-site for scanning
*6.
House
Committee Investigates IG lay-offs and Bonus
*7.
The 2007 Best (and Worst) Places to Work in Government
(Bestplacestowork.org )
*8.
The Bully Boss
*9. Know Your Union Rights
*10.
EPA’s
Dwindling Science Budget for Ecosystems
*11.
Emerging Leaders Network
Survey: Let
us know what topics you would like us to address in a Lunch & Learn
session. Also, let us know what issues
you want us to work on on your behalf. Thanks for your help. You can hit reply, or contact any of the
Executive Board members individually.
*1.
Landmark Supreme Court Case on Global Warming; the Climate at EPA May be
Changing….
Supreme Court Ruling on Heat-Trapping Carbon Dioxide – It
is Pollution
and EPA Has the Power to Curb Global Warming Emissions
After a four-year court battle, the Supreme Court of the
United States ruled on April 2, 2007 in a 5-4 decision that carbon dioxide and
other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, and
that the U.S. government already has authority to start curbing them.
In 2003, EPA ruled that it had no power to curb emissions
of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping chemicals. On April 2, 2007 the High
Court struck down that ruling in a majority opinion written by Justice John
Paul Stevens. Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and
Stephen Breyer joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts filed
the dissenting opinion, in which Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel
Alito joined.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes as Congress is moving
into high gear on new legislation to cap and reduce global warming pollution
from all major sources across the economy.
And major U.S. businesses are supporting limits on heat-trapping
emissions. This January, The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) joined
General Electric, DuPont, BP and several other businesses and environmental
groups in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which endorses substantial,
enforceable limits on global warming pollution.
The information above was excerpted from an
April 2, 2007 press release that was issued by The Natural Resources Defense
Council, which is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and
environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the
environment.
Also on April 2, in a second important Supreme Court case,
the Court found that old power plants must control increases in noxious air
pollution when these old plants are modified.
This case opens the door for EPA to pursue enforcement cases against
power plants that do not comply with the Clean Air Act requirements.
Senate EPW Hearing on Global Warming
EPA Administrator Steve Johnson testified during the Senate
Environment and Public Works full Committee (EPW) hearing on April 24, 2007.
The Committee pressed the Administrator for swift action on global warming. The
Committee wanted to know how EPA was going to follow the Supreme Court Ruling,
and what schedules the Agency had developed. Former Administrators Carol
Browner and William Reilly, appearing on a panel before the Committee, and
emphasized that EPA career staff can do whatever regulatory actions are
required very rapidly. The former EPA Administrators reportedly made comments
to the effect that professional staff at EPA have been waiting for this opportunity
to combat global warming for a long time….
At issue is the approval of a waiver that would allow
California and eleven other states to limit global warming pollution from
vehicles. The waiver process has begun with a public comment period that closes
on June 15, 2007. Several Senators urged the Administrator to fast track the
regulatory process. Senator Boxer pledged to call another hearing after the
comment period closes to see how long it will take for EPA to act.
Administrator Johnson testified from a 19 page statement
that is available from the EPW website. In his testimony, the Administrator
recapped a wide variety of EPA climate initiatives, categorizing them by
sector: transportation, energy efficiency, energy supply, other industrial
sectors, and international efforts. As for the impact of Massachusetts v
EPA, the Administrator’s testimony says:
What is next? The
Supreme Court will send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. Then the Court of
Appeals will most likely issue an order sending the petition back to EPA.
While technically the petition is not back before the
Agency, EPA is exploring and studying the issues raised by the Court’s
decision, including potential ramifications on other provisions of the Clean
Air Act. The Agency fully recognizes
the decision as one of the most important environmental law decisions in years
–accordingly, we are trying to assure that the Agency is in the best possible
position to address its ramifications.
*2. Know the New Hatch Act
Interpretation: It Could Save Your Job
“Water Cooler” Exception Rescinded
WHAT IS THE HATCH ACT?
The Hatch Act governs political activity of federal
employees, and "political activity" is defined as any activity
directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for
partisan political office, or partisan political group. The Hatch Act is enforced by the Office of
Special Counsel (OSC). Most EPA
employees fall
into the less restricted category, while career SESers are the most restricted
and are curtailed in what they can do even outside of the office. Presidentially Appointed and Senate
confirmed employees, such as the Administrator, are in a separate category
altogether.
Most people at EPA (excluding the
career SESers) can engage in political activity outside of the workplace.
WHAT CAN'T WE DO?
Here's a quick synopsis of what most people CANNOT do in
the federal workplace: (1) use official
authority (which includes title and position) to influence an election; (2)
engage in any activity directed toward the success or failure of a political
party, candidate or partisan political group; (3) coerce any person, including
a subordinate, to participate in political activity; (4) solicit, accept or
receive uncompensated individual services from a subordinate for a political
purpose; (5) engage in political activity while on duty or in any room or
building occupied in the discharge of official duties, or while using a federal
vehicle. In addition, NO federal
employee can: (1) solicit or accept or
receive any political contribution, (2) allow official title to be used in
connection with fundraising, or (3) solicit or discourage political
participation from anyone doing business with the Agency.
WHAT ABOUT EMAIL?
OSC has taken a significant step to curtail use of government
email to "discuss" political activity with others. The short answer is "don't do
it." While the Hatch Act of course
permits employees to have personal political opinions, it places limits on how
those opinions are expressed in the workplace.
OSC recognizes that employees may engage in political discussion around
the proverbial water cooler, but they are now very clear that the email is not
a permissible substitute for conversation.
OSC had once carved out a "water cooler" exception to the
general prohibition against sending emails with partisan political messages. That exception has been rescinded. The now-defunct exception had said that a
partisan political email to a few friends may sometimes be analogous to
permissible political philosophizing around the workplace water cooler, but no
longer.
The "water cooler"
advisory opinion was withdrawn by OSC after the Merit Systems Protection Board
rejected use of the “exception” in several recent disciplinary matters. One of these cases involved an EPA
employee who used his government computer to forward a partisan political email
to approximately 30 coworkers. See Special Counsel v. Wilkinson (12/14/06) at
http://www.mspb.gov . In the words of the Special Counsel, “[t]he
four MSPB decisions send a clear message to the federal community. The Hatch Act
prohibits federal employees from sending e-mails that advocate for a political
party or candidate for partisan public office while on duty or in a federal
building, and engaging in such activity may subject them to disciplinary
action, including the loss of their job.
No political activity means no political activity, regardless of the
specific technology used.”
Therefore, OGC-Ethics advises that
EPA employees should not use their government computers to send any email that
advocates for or against a political party or candidate for partisan public office, or
otherwise engages in political activity. OGC-Ethics
is also strongly recommending that employees reconsider using the government
email to forward
political cartoons or jokes. However,
OGC-Ethics recognizes that if the email involves an issue that is particularly
contentious, such as the war on terror, the Hatch Act does not chill the ability
of employees to engage in discourse, either in person or via email. Recently, Ana Galindo-Marrone, chief of the
Hatch Act unit at the Office of Special Counsel, explained the rules this way: "E-mails on duty or while in a federal
building directed at the success or failure of a candidate, party or political
organization are prohibited," she said.
"Employees opining on the Iraq war or abortion, even though they
may be issues in a hot race, are permitted -- unless they're specifically tied
back to a candidate or party."
Finally, here are some examples of the specific activity
that was found to be in violation of the Hatch Act. These synopses are taken from the Office of Special Counsel's
press release:
a) A federal employee sent an email on duty and in a
federal building that was directed toward the success of a candidate for US
Congress. The email, sent to 300
individuals, attached an announcement for a Halloween party for a candidate
seeking re-election. The message
described the candidate in highly favorable terms and strongly encouraged
attendance at the event.
b) One employee sent an email containing a
widely-circulated picture of President George W. Bush in front of an American
flag with the statement, "I Vote the Bible." The text of the email contained several
statements in support of President Bush, a negative statement about Democratic
Presidential candidate John Kerry, and a statement urging recipients to
"Pass along the 'I Vote the Bible' button."
c) One employee sent an email that contained in the subject
line "Why I am supporting John Kerry for President," and presented a
letter purportedly written by John Eisenhower, son of former President
Eisenhower. The email contained several
reasons why the reader should vote for Presidential candidate John Kerry and
why the reader should not support the Republican Party.
d) Over a three year period, a federal employee, who was an
elected official of the California Green Party, received, read, drafted or sent
more than 100 emails through his government computer that were directed toward
the success of the Green Party. The extensive
emails concerned such politically charged issues as party fundraising
opportunities, outreach and recruitment plans, internal drafts of various party
platforms, and the planning of a State-wide Green Party political convention.
e) An EPA employee,
while on duty and using his government computer in the federal workplace,
forwarded a letter from the Democratic National Committee urging its recipients
to take immediate action after the Presidential debate in support of
Presidential candidate John Kerry.
This information was provided by
OGC Ethics. For further information, please feel free to contact Justina Fugh,
Senior Counsel for Ethics, at (202) 564-1786, or Peggy Love, DEO of OGC, at (202)
564-1784.
*3. Risk Analysis and Review Public Workshops
EPA is sponsoring
the Standing Committee on Risk Analysis Issues and Reviews. They will plan and
conduct a series of public workshops that will serve as a venue for discussion
of issues critical to the development and review of objective, realistic, and
scientifically based human health risk analyses for selected environmental
contaminants. Workshop participants will include members of government,
industry, environmental groups, and the academic community who will be invited
by the committee to discuss key scientific issues relevant to analyzing the
human health risks of specific contaminants. The committee, in consultation
with the sponsor, will select the specific scientific issues and contaminants
that will be discussed at the workshops.
Date for first workshop:
May 3-4, 2007
Topic: Implications of
Receptor-Mediated Events on Dose-Response
Date for second workshop: June 5, 2007
Topic: Quantitative
Approaches to Characterizing Uncertainty in Human Cancer Risk Assessment Based
on Bioassay Results
*4.
Pandemic Flu Preparation
Work at Home Policy in the Event of Social Distancing – Are
We Prepared?
Editor’s note: Although NTEU has not yet been briefed on
EPA’s draft pandemic policy, we understand that one aspect of the policy
concerns potential building closure scenarios. We understand that the draft
policy uses the language building “evacuation” rather than building “closure”.
The significance of this terminology is that under a building closure, such as
the recent flood, all HQ EPA employees were put on administrative leave, and
received their regular salaries. Under the proposed building evacuation,
employees would be required to show that they worked at home in order to be
paid. We’ll provide you with specifics once they are shared with us.
Avian Flu and influenza pandemic, are two examples of
events where social distancing will be used to reduce the spread of infection
or illness. Previous pandemics have
shown that early response of communities to encourage or mandate social
distancing does in fact reduce the rate of infection and fatalities. The EPA has been designated as the lead for
issues related to drinking water and waste water treatment and management. The EPA has a support role to HHS in the
event of a human pandemic. Ensuring
that EPA can conduct its mission of protecting human health and the environment
is the responsibility of everyone working at EPA.
NTEU Chapter 280 has been discussing employee issues
regarding continued work during periods of social distancing with EPA management
and has made the following recommendations:
Proposals to ensure success with Social Distancing at EPA:
1. Make laptop computers the default for all
EPA employees. In any event where
employees need to work at home, the laptop will already have the employee’s
electronic files and Lotus Notes, and other software needed to work.
2. If the first option is not feasible, help
employees to set up their own computer and fax system by providing group
discounts through computer companies and help purchases by using payroll
deductions for payments.
3. Just as fire drills are practice for the
unlikely event of a fire, practice social distancing is needed by having
employees who do not normally telecommute/telework practice work at home on a
quarterly basis to ensure that this will work when needed.
4. Make innovative work practices a part of
manager’s critical job elements. The bottom line is for work to be done and not
the number of people tied to a job site.
The goal should be that all employees are able to conduct their
work at an alternative site in the event of a disaster or pandemic event.
5. Have the critical information (ie:
databases) to accomplish the work on more than one server/location in the event
of overload or failure of servers.
6. Telephone trees or similar devices to
communicate with the group in the event of an emergency. This should also be tested out quarterly to
ensure that the system works.
Diane Rains/Freshteh
Toghrol Laboratory Issues Committee
Vice Presidents NTEU Chapter 280
*5.
Your Official Personnel Folder:
Know your Rights under the Privacy Act
You can ask for a full copy of your OPF before
it’s –shipped off-site for scanning
By Maureen Kiely, USEPA,
Region 8
Legislative Advocate, AFGE,
local 3607, and active member of the EPA Labor Coalition
The EPA plans to convert
employees’ Official Personnel Folders from a paper to an electronic
format. Nearly all of the local Unions
representing EPA employees have demanded to bargain over this proposal.
Your OPF contains the entire record of your career at EPA,
as well as some very personal information, such as your social security number,
your spouse’s social security number, the designated beneficiaries on your life
insurance policy, etc. (For a listing
of all the documents that should be in your OPF, scroll to the end of this article.)
A key reason that the Unions have all asked to bargain is
that we want to protect EPA employees in two ways:
1. We want
make certain that all of the important documents currently in your paper OPF
actually make it into the electronic version.
Loss of some documents, for instance, could adversely affect your
retirement.
2. We also
want to make sure that all of your personal information is not stolen during
the scanning/digitization process; or once the electronic-OPFs are “launched”
on the Agency’s intranet.
These labor-management negotiations are still in
progress. However, it is possible that
within the next month or two, EPA will begin shipping all the Official
Personnel Folders to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) contractor in
Virginia, to begin the scanning and digitization process.
You have a right under the Privacy Act to see all of the
personnel folders that EPA retains for you.
This includes your OPF, as well as other folders containing material
that should not be in your OPF. (See listing of these items at the end of
this article)
You have a right to ask your EPA Office of Human Resources
to make a copy of these personnel folders for you.
Furthermore, if your Human Resources office does not comply
with your request, you have the right to file a grievance. The Federal Labor
Relations Authority has, in the past, ruled that Privacy Act violations can be
enforced through the grievance process.
If you are concerned that important documents in your OPF
could be lost during the shipping, scanning and digitization process, we
encourage you to ask for a full copy of all of the personnel records that the
Agency has on file for you, including your OPF - before it is shipped off-site.
If you decide to make this request, we strongly suggest
that you make it in writing, and include the language below. You can either
1. Copy the
language below onto a paper form, sign and date it, and personally give it to
your Human Resources Office (making a copy for yourself to keep); or
2. Copy the
language below into an e-mail text; and send the e-mail to your Human Resources
office. If you choose to send an e-mail, remember to send it “return receipt,”
so that you have a record of when the e-mail was opened.
One last important detail: When you receive the paper
copy of your personnel folders, review them quickly and carefully to note any
problems, errors, and omissions. Then,
contact your Human Resources office to get these problems corrected ASAP.
**********************************************************
Language to Request
Access and a Copy of Your OPF:
I am requesting a copy of all
of the personnel folders on file for me in EPA’s Office of Human Resources,
including but not limited to my Official Personnel Folder, as is my right under
the Privacy Act (5 United Stated Code 552a).
Section
(d)(1) of the Privacy Act states the following:
“Each
agency that maintains a system of records shall upon request by any individual
to gain access to his record or to any information pertaining to him which is
contained in the system, permit him and upon his request, a person of his own
choosing to accompany him, to review the record and have a copy made of all
or any portion thereof in a form comprehensible to him, except that the
agency may require the individual to furnish a written statement authorizing
discussion of that individual's record in the accompanying person's presence.”
(emphasis added)
I further request that the OPF
copy be made before my original folder is sent off-site for scanning and
digitization. Please let me know when
you will be able to make this copy for me.
Sincerely,
[name and date]
*************************************************************
What should be kept in
your Official Personnel Folder?
The US Office of Personnel Management’s Guide to
Personnel Recordkeeping identifies the following items to be included in
your permanent OPF:
· Applications for Federal employment, with supplemental
qualification statements (school transcripts, licenses, qualification
statements, etc..)
· Applications to establish eligibility for reinstatement to
career-conditional, or other active government status.
· Records that document military service creditable for leave
accrual, reduction-in-force, retirement or veterans’ preference.
· Proof of selective service registration.
· Statements of prior Federal service (if any); and
statements of acceptance or understanding regarding appointment to Senior
Executive Service.
· Some Agency award forms.
· Enrollment health benefit registration form, including any
authorized attachments. (Medical
certificates and documentation should be placed in a sealed envelope before
being attached to the enrollment forms, to limit the number of people who see
this medical information).
· Premium conversion waiver/election form – Used to elect or
waive pretax treatment of employee FEHB premium.
· All life insurance forms.
· Documentation of an individual’s retirement coverage.
· Deposits for military service
· Designation of beneficiary(ies) for retirement benefits,
including any authorized attachments such as trustee designation.
· Notices of approval of disability retirement application.
· Thrift savings plan information, including the thrift
savings plan election form; and the “catch-up” contribution election form.
· Personnel actions, such as grade and pay retention
applications, and notifications of personnel actions, and documentation of
employee’s resignation or retirement.
· Birth certificates.
· Medicare eligibility OPM Form 1528.
What
should NOT be kept in your Official Personnel folder?
· Alcohol and drug abuse records
· Personnel-related complaints and appeals
· Drug testing records
· Information on wage garnishment
· Self-identification records (or statements) regarding
medical disability
· Medical records on employee occupational illnesses,
accidents, injuries, exposures, or other medical or health maintenance matters
· Minority group identifiers
· Payroll, leave, financial records
· OPM Form 1635 – welfare to work program
*6. House Committee Investigates IG
Lay-offs and Bonus
The powerful Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, John Dingell ((D-MI), has sent EPA Administrator Steve Johnson an
April 23rd letter asking questions about EPA’s Inspector General
(IG) shop. It appears that acting IG, Bill Roderick “launched” his plan in June
to cut 60 of his 360 employees. (Investigative or audit employees of the IG are
excluded from the NTEU Chapt. 280 bargaining unit.) Chairman Dingell questions
whether the IG shop performed analysis or fact finding to ensure that the IG’s
functions would not be impaired by the lay offs. There is also apparently some consternation on the Hill
concerning Mr. Roderick’s telling his employees that a proposed $5.1 million
cut in the IG budget for FY2008 would require employee buyouts to reduce
staffing levels – accepted by 12 people. Sources say that Congress is actually
unlikely to cut the budget.
Chairman Dingell, in his letter asks, “Is it correct that
in the same approximate time frame (December 2006) that you were considering
Mr. Roderick’s employee buyout package, Mr. Roderick was given a bonus that
exceeded $15,000?”
See Al Kamen’s In the Loop column, The Washington Post,
April 30, 2007, for more details, including the tidbit that former IG (from
1998 – 2006) Nikki Tinsley, never got a bonus like that, despite all the hard
work she did in putting out reports that criticized the agency.
*7.
The 2007 Best (and Worst) Places to Work in Government
(Bestplacestowork.org)
The 2007 survey results are out and EPA has dropped in the
ratings. The overall index score for employee satisfaction and engagement lists
EPA at #9 out of 30 agencies with a score of 65.5, which is down -3.4% from
2005 when it was 67.8%. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is #1 with a 2007 score of 76.2., up 1.9% since the
2005 score of 74.8. The NRC has a strong NTEU chapter, which may help make NRC
such a well liked place to work.
Here are some of the more specific ratings. To get ratings
of sub-offices and regions – Region 9 is very well liked – go to the website.
Employee Skills/mission match (Employees feel that their
skills and talents are used effectively): EPA is #17 with a score of 77.6, down
-0.3% from 2005.
Strategic Management: EPA is #16 with a score of 56.2, down
1.4% from 2005.
Teamwork: EPA is
#15 with a score of 71, down -0.3% from 2005.
Effective Leadership:
EPA is #17 with a score of 50.4, down -2.5% from 2005.
Performance Based Rewards and Advancement: EPA is #6 with a score of 48.7, down -5.6%
from 2005.
Training and Development: EPA is #13 with a score of 60.6,
down -3.0% from 2005.
Support for Diversity:
EPA is #5 with a score of 61.3, down -4.4% from 2005.
Pay and Benefits: EPA is #7 with a score of 69.2.
Family Friendly Culture and Benefits: EPA is #4 with a
score of 54.2.
Work/Life Balance:
EPA is #11 with a score of 63.1, down -2.8% from 2005.
*8.
The Bully Boss
The new Employment Law Alliance (ELA) Poll was released on
March 21, 2007. The results are that nearly 45% of US workers say they’ve
worked for an abusive boss. The percentage of workers who have suffered with
the bully boss rise as workers age
according to a national survey of 1000 American adults. Detailed
interviews were conducted with 534 full or part time workers. The most common
behavior that workers identified was making a sarcastic joke at someone’s
expense, commenting on performance in front of others, rude interruptions,
yelling, dirty looks and ignoring a worker. See all the poll results at
www.employmentlawalliance.com.
Stephen Hirschfeld, ELA’s CEO, said “the poll results
reflect recognition that abusive bosses are more than just an annoyance, but a
very real problem and that employees will increasingly demand protection, if
not from the employers then the courts.” Mr. Hirschfeld notes that the survey
comes at a time when nearly one dozen state legislators are considering laws to
specifically prohibit bullying in the workplace. An aware employer is a prepared employer when it comes to
focusing on preventing incidents and avoiding costly litigation. Of those
surveyed, 64% said that they believe an abused worker should have the right to
sue to recover damages.
In reacting to the poll results, Dr. Sutton, Professor of
Management Science and Engineering, and Co-Director of the Center for Work,
Technology, and Organization said, “This national survey adds to the growing
mountain of evidence showing that abuse of power is a rampant problem in the
American workplace. It is time for senior management to realize that this
conduct damages their people and is costing them a fortune. Demeaned workers
respond with a reduced commitment and loss of productivity, and they run for
the exits to find more humane bosses. And these costs will keep escalating as
more victims realize that they can fight back in court.”
Mr. Hirschfeld responds, “Only an employer in a state of
denial would ignore the poll results and not re-examine their personnel
policies, supervisor-employee relations and management training”. “One of our
Canadian members, Montreal-based lawyer, Manon Savard from Ogilvy Renault,
reports a recent case, still under review, where an employer was ordered to pay
$5,000 as moral damages for inflicting psychological abuse under Quebec's
anti-psychological harassment law. That law provides a right to recover damages
for “any vexatious behavior” that affects an employee's dignity or
psychological or physical integrity”.
Editor’s note: NTEU Chapter 280 is urging management to
incorporate annual 360 degree reviews that get evaluated at levels above the
office director. The 360 can be a great early warning sign to upper management
that a supervisor is a bully or discriminates against classes of employees. As
the Administrator seeks new initiatives to strengthen EPA, one of the most
vital and important things that can be done is to provide an outlet for
confidential staff level evaluation of management. Exposing abusive managers and
removing them from supervisory jobs is in the best interests of EPA as well as
EPA’s employees.
Have an EPA bad manager horror story that you want to
share? Hit reply and tell me about it.
*9.
Know Your Union Rights (From NTEU)
You did not give up your basic
rights the day you became a federal employee. Many rights are provided by law
and additional rights have been negotiated. All are enforced for you daily by
NTEU.
Your rights, under both the law
and the NTEU/agency contract, are only words on paper until you claim them,
assert them, and exercise them. Exercising your rights will transform hopes and
aspirations for the future into a positive action program that will make a
better tomorrow for federal employees.
You will never be alone in
exercising these rights. NTEU--its members, leadership, and staff--stand with
you.
The Federal-Labor Management
Relations Act defines and protects your rights. As a federal employee, you have
the right to:
join NTEU;
actively participate as a member
of NTEU;
participate in the decisions
affecting your work life;
file grievances through your
NTEU representative;
be guaranteed protections in
exercising your rights.
It is against the law for
management to take any action against you because of your membership in,
support of, or active participation in, NTEU.
Question and Answers
Do you have the right to have an
NTEU representative present in a "formal discussion" between you and
management?
YES
Any examination of an employee
in the bargaining unit by a representative of the agency in connection with an
investigation, including Internal Security or Inspection, entitles you to have
an NTEU representative present if you reasonably believe that the examination
may result in disciplinary action against you and you request representation.
Do you have the right to file
grievances or complaints against the agency without fear of reprisal?
YES
It is illegal for the agency to
discipline or otherwise discriminate against you because you have filed a
grievance, complaint, or affidavit against the agency or its representatives.
Does the law state that the
statutory protection of the right of employees to form, join, and participate
in labor unions of their own choosing contributes to the effective conduct of
public business?
YES
In addition, Congress has found,
and the law thus states, that employees' participation in labor unions also
safeguards the public interest and facilitates and encourages the amicable
settlements of disputes between employees and the agency involving
"conditions of employment."
All of the above are rights
afforded to you in accordance with the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute. NTEU ensures that those rights are protected.
Congress guarantees your right,
as a federal employee, to join NTEU. Some managers may not understand the law
or have no respect for it. Make it perfectly clear to them that you know what
your rights are, and that you plan to assert them.
*10.
EPA’s Dwindling Science Budget for Ecosystems
An April 1, 2007 article from Environmental Science &
Technology magazine (American Chemical Society), graphs EPA’s research budget
for ecosystems and extramural Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant funding.
Not too surprising, they are in decline.
The president’s FY ’07 total budget for EPA is $7.3 billion, declining
4% each year since 2005. EPA’s budget for the Office of Research &
Development (ORD) in FY’07 is $557 million, about a 6% decline from the
previous year. EPA is tasked with protecting not just human health but the
health of the environment, yet ecosystems research is now at less than 15% of
the ORD budget and about 1.1% of the total EPA budget. “EPA is abdicating ecosystems research as a
priority –it is in danger of becoming the Human Health Protection
Agency, rather than the Environmental Protection Agency.”
*11. Emerging Leaders Network
NTEU Chapter 280 Board members met with Noha Gaber and
Scott Fraser, founders of the Emerging Leaders Network at EPA. This year old
grassroots organization was founded by Ms. Gaber and Mr. Fraser primarily as a
way to network outside of AAships. They sponsor social events, seminars and workshops.
The “Network” is open to all EPA employees.
To join email eeln@epa.gov.