Advertisement

The United States: Staff Participation in Administrative Reform 1993–2004

  • James R. Thompson

Abstract

The accession of George W. Bush to the presidency in 2001 brought a sharp change in policy on issues relating to staff participation in the reform of management practices within the federal government. President Clinton was a strong proponent of such participation, both direct and indirect as evidenced in his attempt to ‘reinvent’ the federal government known as the National Performance Review. As part of that initiative, Clinton promulgated an executive order1 creating a National Partnership Council and directing that partnership councils be created within each federal agency. The intent was to provide a venue in which representatives of both labour and management could discuss issues of joint concern. The Bush administration, in contrast, has taken a confrontational stance toward the federal employee unions. One of Bush’s first actions upon taking office was to revoke Clinton’s executive order on partnership councils. During its first three years, the Bush administration repeatedly took positions or endorsed policies that directly challenged the role of unions in the federal workplace.

Keywords

Collective Bargaining Homeland Security Executive Order Bush Administration Employee Involvement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Federation of Government Employees (2004) ‘DoD personnel system plan’, Flyer posted on the AFGE web site at http://www.afge.org/ Google Scholar
  2. Barr, S. (2004a) ‘Pay overhaul plan leaves many Homeland Security employees uneasy’, Washington Post, 29 March, p. B2.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, S. (2004b) ‘Three unions come out against proposed Homeland Security pay rules’, Washington Post, 23 March, p. B2.Google Scholar
  4. Barr, S. (2004c) ‘Pentagon wants to hear from all corners about new pay system’, Washington Post, 2 April, p. B2.Google Scholar
  5. Clinton, W. (1993) Presidential Executive Order No. 12871: Labor-Management Partnerships. October 1, online at: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/direct/orders/24ea.htmlGoogle Scholar
  6. Friel, B. (1999a) ‘Gore set to order more bargaining with unions’, Daily Briefing, 4 February, online at: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0298/020499b2.htm Google Scholar
  7. Friel, B. (1999b) ‘Court rules managers can’t be legally forced to bargain’, Daily Briefing, 30 June, online at: http://www.govexec.com/news/index.cfm?mode=report&articleid=13281&printerfriendlyVers=1&Google Scholar
  8. Gore, A. (1993) Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: Report of the National Performance Review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Haynes, W. (2003) Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives from William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense. 10 April.Google Scholar
  10. Homeland Security Act of 2002.Google Scholar
  11. Kelly, C. (2002) Personal interview with the author, 30 September.Google Scholar
  12. Kelly, C. (2003) Personal interview with the author, 8 October.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, C. (2004) ‘Homeland Security rethinks personnel system’. Washington Post, 14 February, p. A10.Google Scholar
  14. Masters, M. (2001) A Final Report to the National Partnership Council on Evaluating Progress and Improvements to Agencies’ Organizational Performance Resulting from Labor—Management Partnerships. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  15. Masters, M. and Albright, R. (2003) ‘Federal labor—management partnerships: Perspectives, performance, and possibilities’. in J. Brock and D. Lipsky Going Public: The Role of Labor—Management Relations in Delivering Quality Government Services. Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association.Google Scholar
  16. McGlinchey, D. (2004) ‘Homeland Security workers criticize personnel reforms’, Daily Briefing, 4 March, online at: http://www.govexec.com/ Google Scholar
  17. National Treasury Employees Union (2004) ‘NTEU to fight IRS layoff plans’, 4 January, press release, online at: http://www.nteu.org/ Google Scholar
  18. Nesterczuk, G., Devine, D. and Moffit R. (2001) ‘Taking charge of federal personnel’, The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, 10 January, online at: http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/BG1404.cfmGoogle Scholar
  19. Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  20. Thompson, J. (2000) ‘Reinvention as reform: Assessing the National Performance Review’, Public Administration Review, 60 (6), 508–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson, J. and Rainey, H. (2003) Modernizing Human Resource Management in the Federal Government: The IRS Model. Washington DC: The IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
  22. Tobias, R. (2000) ‘The power of partnerships’, Government Executive, 32 (13), 72–4.Google Scholar
  23. US General Accounting Office (1991) Federal Labor Relations: A Program in Need of Reform. Washington DC: General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  24. US General Accounting Office (2000) Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century. (GAO/T-GGD-00–77). Washington DC: General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  25. US General Accounting Office (2003) Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  26. US General Accounting Office (2004) FBI Transformation: FBI Continues to Make Progress in Its Efforts to Transform and Address Priorities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  27. US Internal Revenue Service (2000) Modernizing America’s Tax Agency. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  28. US National Performance Review (1993) Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: The Report of the National Performance Review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  29. US Office of Management and Budget (2001) The President’s Management Agenda. Washington DC: Office of Management and Budget.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© James R. Thompson 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. Thompson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations