The Brooklyn Dodger |
Vol. 23, No. 1 The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves Feb 10, 2006 |
Seizure Fever - It's Baaaaaaack |
The Brooklyn Dodger |
Published by NTEU Chapter 53 George Greenberg President Bob Schillaci Editor 107 Charles Lindbergh Blvd. 1180 Veterans Highway Garden City, NY 11530 Hauppauge, NY 11788 516 683-5679 631-851-4965 |
EMPLOYEE WISECRACKS |
Bushwhacked...Junior |
EDITORIALS |
While everyone has been fretting about Bird Flu we've been hearing from the dwindling number of Revenue Officers that the IRS is about to get swept up in an old pandemic: Seizure Fever. The last time the IRS was stricken by seizure fever it nearly died. After a long hiatus management is preparing to send it's forces out to fight tax delinquency with their favorite weapon: Seizures. Actually, the notion of collection management gearing up for a major offensive brings to mind images of Hitler in the bunker ordering non-existent armies to stop the Russians. As long as it was just a fantasy of their's it was of no concern to us. Expect managers to soon awaken from their long slumber to start pushing for seizures to make themselves look good. Of course, the restrictions of RRA '98 are still there as far as we know and therein lies the rub. It is still fairly obvious to NTEU that the only taxpayers who will have anything seized are those who lack the means to secure proper legal representation. In other words, while the fat cats get away with sucking the Treasury dry Collection personnel will be expected to go after the little guys....just like 1997. "When will they ever learn?" to quote Pete Seeger. That one of the tricks involved for upper management against lower management is 'pay-banding' is a foregone conclusion. Managers will be getting screwed out of raises unless they are rated "outstanding". Does anyone want to place bets on what it will take for a group manager to get an 'outstanding rating?" Sure. Lead the Territory in seizures or go take a hike. No one reading this will have any doubt that managers will want you to take shortcuts around taxpayer rights in order to get them the numbers they want. That is the one thing you must not do. In fact, when a manager writes on a case review or consultation that he has recommended seizure you must immediately transcribe those instructions into your case history. Simply note in your next history entry which manager has directed you to proceed with enforcement action and cross reference it to the appropriate review form (just in case TIGTA wants to check it out later.) One would think that they couldn't have any objection to you putting their orders in writing, right? In case your manager does object, you must immediately let your steward know. That would not be a good sign. The reason you can't take shortcuts is because this entire exercise will end as badly as the other outbreaks of seizure fever. Everyone knows that but the executives don't care. In a sense, ROs today have it easier than ROs in 1997: the law still requires senior management to approve seizures. NTEU's position is that this makes them responsible for anything that may hit the fan later on as a result of their desire to collect statistics. We have to caution you against complacency, though. Management's main function is to protect management. They are pond scum and they like floating on top of the pond. Envision a scenario wherein a problem develops on a case you have seized and the Territory Manager approved. Then apply the "What Is More Likely Test." This test postulates 2 possibilities. You say to yourself, "What is More Likely...that a) the manager who approved the seizure will stand up and say "I am responsible for this decision" or b) that same manager will stand up and whine "I was misled because that stupid RO did not do things correctly!" Right. We'll go with "b" every time, too. There's a saying that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." Well, Collection management is the oldest collection of flea bitten mutts around but it seems to us that you CAN teach an old dog new tricks if you hit him with a big enough stick. In 1998, Congress hit them so hard that they retained the lesson for seven years. The next time Congress hits them it may finish them off. |
GUEST QUOTATIONS |
Out To Pasture In what is fast becoming an annual event, Chapter 53 takes this opportunity to note the retirement of two more long time Executive Board members. Gary Kaufmann and Mike Gillespie, the Collection Trustees for both Hauppauge and Garden City have packed it in and moved on to better things. Actually, it would require considerable effort to imagine something which is not better than the IRS but, we digress. Aside from being Board members, both Gary and Mike served as stewards and Gary also took on the difficult task of being the chapter's Survey Feedback Coordinator. This came about after other stewards announced that they simply could not deal with the management coordinator, Susan Dauber, for even one more day. With his customary good humor, Gary kept his sanity while discharging the thankless task that was SFA. As President George Greenberg noted, "I could rely on Gary to finish any assignment correctly and on-time." Their successors, Frank Gagliardi and Rich Enterlin, have big shoes to fill but that is the nature of the union. Best of luck to Gary and Mike. |
At a so-called Town Hall meeting in Hauppauge last October which one comedian promptly labeled "Mike Bernstein's Make My Merit Pay Telethon" we got some interesting quotes from Chairman Mike. He made such an impression on the assembled agents that one told us: If his head gets any bigger the comb over won't reach. The most enlightening comments came from Mike, himself. "Fairness to the taxpayer is no longer #1. #1 is now length of the Examination." It isn't up there in inspirational merit with Lord Nelson's "England expects every man to do his duty," is it? In an age when the IRS is not supposed to be motivated by statistics, Mike assured the assembled agents: "I look at numbers all the time." Never one to avoid the hard issues, Mike also complained that "Dealing with PSP is like talking to the wall." Which is pretty much how people feel about dealing with Chairman Mike. |
This Could Have Been Better Done |
All's Well That Ends . . . |
Delegates to the last NTEU Convention in August were asked to make a constitutional change which raised the standard for official misconduct which resulted in "charges" being filed against chapter officers by disgruntled members. At a briefing conducted by John McEleney and Bill Harness of the NTEU national staff we learned that this problem was far more widespread than we had been led to believe. A number of chapter leaders expressed frustration at having to schedule "trials" for bogus complaints by a few disaffected members at considerable cost in time and/or money. The amendment added qualifying words such as "significant," "serious" and "willful" to existing language and was proposed by National President, Colleen Kelley, herself. The amendment was adopted by an overwhelming margin. So far, so good. As always, the devil is in the details. Shortly after our last election was concluded the losing side first protested the election and then, when that appeal was denied, tried to use the old "filing charges" routine. As the section which had been amended (Art. XVIII Sec. 1 A.) is the one which establishes the chapter as the "court of original jurisdiction" it fell to the Executive Board to meet to schedule a hearing. At this point, the new language comes into effect. The committee report which McEleney and Harness went over said, in its rationale to approve the amendment, "there are annually many charges that are filed against individuals in the various NTEU chapters and occasionally there is some question as to whether the charge(s) rise to the level contemplated in the constitution. This amendment resolves that issue." Apparently not. For a variety of reasons the Chapter 53 Executive Board reviewed the complaints and determined that such charges did not meet the standard specified in the new Article, or, even under the old one. As assumed, the complainants appealed to Colleen Kelley who wrote back to say that only she could make such a determination and invited the accused parties to appeal to her for dismissal of the complaints. This was done and Colleen did, in fact, dismiss all charges. While we have no disagreement with Colleen's decision or even with her right to make it, the whole exercise would have been better done if Article XVIII had been amended to give a stated right to an accused officer to appeal the charges directly to the National President. Since we like to have these things written down, Chapter 53 will propose an amendment to Article XVIII, Sec. 1 B. at the next convention which specifies exactly such a right. |
One LMSB agent, rebelling against excessive management reports told us. "Do you know how much time I have saved by not caring?" |
October 2005 finally marked the end of ten years of disruption for NTEU members in Brooklyn and Queens. Ten years after former NTEU President, Bob Tobias, broke up Chapter 53 and created Chapter #271 the members who were disenfranchised in 1995 shook off the chaos and elected Mike Royster and his entire slate to run the chapter. We won't rehash the prior ten years: It is too long and sordid a story and even those who won out in the end are doubtless glad to see the end of it. We will applaud the members of #271 for grabbing this particular bull by the horns and putting an end to the disruption. They needed a union which worked for them. Now they have one. We congratulate Mike Royster, the new President and James McKay, the new Executive VP and the rest of the new board and look forward to joining them to stop whatever atrocities the IRS has in mind for the new year. |
">
">
">
">
In Memoriam |
Kathy Gatto |
This "Rose" By Any Other Name, Just Smells |
In one of the clearest signs yet seen that senior IRS Management has taken total leave of its senses they have found a novel way to solve the problem of disappointing Employee Satisfaction scores. They have declared the phrase "employee satisfaction" shall never be used again. We recall Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments when the pharaoh banishes Moses:Let the name of Employee Satisfaction be stricken from every obelisk and pylon...." Doubtless these management jackasses think they are that important. They were distressed when employees in massive numbers ignored their last survey. In fact, IRS reported to NTEU that some 2,300 groups did not have four participants to even have reported results. That's what we call a boycott and it is what happens when you lie to people steadily for 12 years. The survey and its workgroup meetings never improved anything important and workers knew that 10 years ago. Chapter 53 has come into possession of two e-mails on the subject. One, from Kevin Brown, the Grand Poobah of SBSE and the other from one Annie Spiczak, who holds the unlikely title of Program Manager, IRS Employee Engagement Project, Human Capital Office. There's an impressive title. We'll begin with Spiczak who on December 14 issued her e-mail with the subject: Employee Satisfaction v. Employee Engagement - and then had the audacity to mark it Importance: High. We can assure Ms. Spiczak that she is a member of a distinct minority group if she thinks that anything to do with this subject is of any importance to the people who actually do the work of the IRS...unlike her. This e-mail was addressed to All Program Leaders and we do not know who leaked it to NTEU but whoever did has performed a public service. It is rare that we get to see the unvarnished truth that these management types send out to each other as they strive to convince each other that they have important jobs. Anyway, Spiczak wrote that "we are not to use the words "employee satisfaction" ever again" and that all communications must be changed to "eliminate any reference to Employee Satisfaction even when it pertains to the mandated balanced measures." In a sense, we agree with Spiczak. Having done their dead level best to eliminate satisfied employees it is only fair that they stop using the term employee satisfaction. Brown's memo is 3 pages of gibberish which is about standard for him. It contains one meaningful line: Managers at every level will have a separate employee engagement commitment. In other words, front line managers are now to be held responsible if employees don't give a rat's ass about the IRS. There is also an ominous line about "groups that need additional assistance." Coming from an official of this administration one has to worry about a comment like that. IRS management is always more comfortable with threats. They far prefer the stick to the carrot. In the past they threatened to lower your score in Plays Well With Others if you didn't volunteer to do their dirty work for them. Obviously, that is no longer enough. What is apparent to us from discussions with newly arrived managers, such as Territory Manager, Steve Levy, is that a mandate has been given to lower evaluations anyway. In years past it was rare for a manager to make a blanket statement that "appraisals are too high." Even if they thought it they wouldn't say it. Levy is just the latest to make such a comment and he is certainly not alone. The mechanism for this general lowering of appraisals will be their so-called "embedded quality" (CQMS, EQMS, etc.) silliness. They have made the job so impossible to do that meeting all of their goals is virtually impossible as well. Management does not think they are responsible for that irony. They never do. When their little schemes fail they never look in a mirror to discover the reasons for failure. We suspect that as they demand engagement while at the same time trying to screw people on their evaluations they will create a new concept to be known as Employee Estrangement. We are not terribly sure that is not their ultimate goal anyway. Too many people have said "I'm KMA but I'll stay until they start bothering me." You may soon find yourselves "bothered." |
Don't Be Fear-less |
In the last issue we discussed the Government's alleged NO-FEAR Act, allegedly designed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation by agency management. We didn't believe it then and we don't believe it now. From an online publication called FedSmith.com comes the following warning about the protections put in place for those who report fraud or misconduct in their agencies. "whistleblowers rarely have won when they've taken their cases to the protection board, the special counsel, or even the courts. Instead, whistleblowers routinely have faced firing, transfers, reprimands, loss of promotion and harassment, not to mention criminal sanctions in some instances. " A House committee taking up amendments to the Whistle-blowers Protection Act in 1994 reported that though the act "is the strongest free speech law that exists on paper, it has been a counterproductive disaster in practice. The WPA has created new reprisal victims at a far greater pace than it is protecting them." The hypocrisy of this reality is evident when one considers that presidents routinely praise whistleblowers as dedicated public servants while their appointed agency heads then go out of their way to destroy those 'heroes.' Given such an abysmal record by those who are supposed to "protect" the whistleblowers, we suggest that if something the IRS does strikes you as improper that you come to the Union. This publication goes to reporters, congressmen and is posted on the internet and we don't care what the IRS thinks. YOU must protect yourself, .no government agency can be trusted |
The Grinch Who Hijacked Christmas |
Hauppauge employees continued a tradition which stretched back for years by collecting donations to give gifts to the security guards and cleaning staff. They had done this for years with no assistance from management. Lately, meaning since Mike Bernstein became Commissioner's Representative, he has had one of his managers direct employees to run the collection and turn the money over to Bernstein who then disbursed it. We do not know or care if Bernstein was a contributor and we assume that all of the funds collected were disbursed for the purpose intended. The issue here is the IRS' Ethics Rules. For years, employees have handled solicitation of funds for CFC or other internal gift occasions. Supervisors always stayed out of it because the IRS wished to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In the past most managers willingly contributed to the fund - hell, they use the bathrooms, too. In this case, Bernstein did not 'solicit' the donations....he just used his managerial position to grab the proceeds. Of course, NTEU hears about such things because we have our own eyes and ears in the posts of duty, in this particular case, Examination Trustee, Pat Jary, who heard about Bernstein's little power play and went ballistic. From there it gets complicated. There is no contract provision involved so the issue is not subject to a grievance. It was not a Union program so an Unfair Labor Practice is also out of the question. We don't call TIGTA because they are not trustworthy. After a spirited internal debate, we did write to the Deputy Agency Ethics Officer on Jan. 22, 2006 for their interpretation of Bernstein's conduct in this matter. The question put to them was "Did his conduct violate any ethical guidelines?" We'll let you know their answer. |
Click icon for cartoon |
