Social Security office attack on AFGE splits union leaders

Send to friend

SUBSCRIBE to Union Democracy Review!

The American Federation of Government Employees has been plunged into a heated internal conflict over how to respond to the latest attack on their union by the Washington administration. Some local leaders are campaigning for a rejection of the new contract with the Social Security Administration accepted, without enthusiasm, by their top negotiators. The contract covers all social security employees throughout the nation. The administration insisted on devastating cuts in the number of union representatives (the equivalent of shop stewards) who would be allowed time off to service their constituents. A debate now rages over this issue and others.

Social security employees are organized into six AFGE divisions called components. John Riordan is vice president of AFGE Council 220, the largest social security unit with 25,000 members; it represents field employees, the ones the public actually meets in the SSA local offices. He reports that under the old contract, just expired, those 25,000 members were served by one hundred full time AFGE representatives.

Under the new contract, as demanded by the administration, that number is cut to four. From one hundred down to four! Additionally, there are cuts in all divisions among both full time and part time union representatives. With that level of cuts, the critics insist, the union is seriously weakened as an effective day-to-day force at job sites. When the contract is submitted for membership ratification, it seems fated to face substantial opposition.

During negotiations, the top AFGE representatives, who accepted the deal and now recommend general acceptance, had been under heavy pressure to cave in to the administration's demands.

Witold Skwierczynski, Council 220 president who was one of the union's top negotiators, writes, "On balance, the agreement is a step backward in both employee benefit provisions and Union institutional rights." Nevertheless, he reluctantly recommends acceptance, taking into account the circumstances that existed during the bargaining period and the reality of today's environment in making your ratification decisions." He argues that the administration's original demands were far worse than the final product; demands that would have almost totally eviscerated the union's ability to represent its members on the job. If the AFGE should reject the agreement, he notes, the issues go before the Federal Service Impasses Panel. President Bush, he writes, has appointed every member of the panel. Kirk Bigelow, a Council 220 representative who opposes the new contract, reports that the panel chairperson is Becky Norton Dunlop, a former vice president of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank.

Witold Skwierczynski warns that in impasse panel proceedings the administration could revert to its original drastic demands and the union could end up with a far worse deal. After all, this is an administration that has already eliminated the union from the Department of Homeland Security.

The tough question is whether to fight and take the risk or give in and await better times. Skwierczynski is convinced that "In view of the Bush Administration's anti-union contract strategy, it became evident that the only real solution was a political change." But the contract critics are not satisfied with his long-term view, considering it a recipe for passivity that would undermine union morale.

Sue Burton, president, and three other top officers of Local 3627 write:
"Witold, shame on you!... The fine contract you negotiated in 2000 stands as one of the masterpieces of collective bargaining... but the ratification copies of the 2005 'agreement' will remain forever in the Hall of Shame of labor-management relations."

The executive board of Council 247 makes this declaration:
"With this contract, we can expect a steady decline in both our membership as well as our influence... We at Council 247 are willing to continue to fight the good fight of faith. In good conscience we cannot stand by and give away what this institution fought so hard to obtain... What happened to the vinegar and fire that was the driving force that made this Union as powerful as it was?"

Andy Krall, president of Local 1164, writes,
"This is a bad contract and people should not ratify it. They should tell their union leaders and management that it is not good enough and send them back to the bargaining table. If you can't take any more, then we'll have to find someone who can. If management sees the union and employees are so weak and scared as to sign and endorse such a document, they'll be kicking sand in our face for the next four years, and Bush will still be around most of that time. It's time for people to show some heart and guts, not bend over."

The contract now goes for ratification to local meetings. June 23 is the deadline for voting.