Cartoon

Exclusive: Cash for Slackers

First of a Three-Part Series
Wouldn’t you like to have a job where you get paid to slack off, and no matter what, have a powerful authority to back you up, winning battles to preserve your salary, benefits, and your every demand if your boss tries to fire you?
It’s a fact of life for many government workers. A dive into government labor fights at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) reveals a nasty secret—the great lengths federal unions go to protect government slackers, at your expense.
Cases at the FLRA, a quasi-judicial body that oversees disputes between federal agencies and government unions, show federal labor unions are winning battles that are putting taxpayers, and the government, at risk.
And now one big government insider is calling foul on government union abuses of taxpayers and federal agencies. Patrick Pizzella, one of the three referees at the FLRA adjudicating these fights, is blowing the whistle on federal union abuses in case after case. “One cannot make this stuff up,” Pizzella said.

For example, federal labor unions are winning fights against federal agencies who try to fire their union workers for letting mentally ill military veterans walk out the door of psychiatric units in Veterans Affairs hospitals, or for not catching things like a major rat infestation in a food factory. Instead, union lawyers are getting their members’ jobs, back-pay, and benefits reinstated, all at taxpayer expense.
Federal unions have also battled Defense Dept. agencies that, for example, try to suspend a daycare worker for letting a toddler wander off a military base down the sidewalk toward traffic.
At the same time, federal worker unions have been fighting to unionize federal inspector generals’ offices, the watchdogs who catch waste, fraud and abuse committed by federal workers at agencies like the IRS, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Dept. of Transportation, or the Dept. of Veterans Affairs.
In the second part of our series, we’ll show you how federal unions are fighting to let their members work full-time from home on union business, and not on their work for the government, at places like the VA.
We’ll show you, too, how federal teleworking is on the rise, thanks to the Obama Administration, where a growing number of government workers are working from home, even from their couches. This, as workers at the U.S. Patent Office were found to be surfing on Facebook, shopping online, running errands or doing the laundry, while ostensibly working from home.
And in the final part of our series, we’ll show you how, despite the fact that cyber attacks on the government are on the rise, a federal union recently won a case that stopped Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from immediately blocking workers’ personal email accounts on government computers, like Hotmail or Gmail. Such accounts are often loaded with computer viruses or malware.
Instead, the union is forcing these security agencies to first enter into protracted collective bargaining over the use of personal webmail accounts, putting the government at risk of cyber-attacks at a time when security experts note cyber criminals, terrorists and nation states like China are increasingly trying to break in.
Just last week Russian cyber thieves were blamed for the hack into the IRS, where tax return data for 104,000 individuals was stolen in order to get fraudulent tax refunds, now estimated at $50 million. Hackers broke into the IRS’s Internet service that lets taxpayers access their past tax returns.
Big government is becoming harder to oversee as it increases in size. However, the head of the country’s biggest federal worker union recently threatened retaliation against anyone in Congress who tried to dial back the federal workforce in order to help rein in the ballooning $18.1 trillion federal deficit.
“We are a force to be reckoned with and we are a force that will open up the biggest can of whoop ass on anyone” who votes against the interests of federal unions, J. David Cox Sr., national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), recently said, adding, “every time the “fools” in Congress try to hurt the federal workforce we get bigger. We get stronger and we fight harder.” AFGE did not return repeated calls for comment on this story.

The percentage of workers represented by unions in the private sector is now at about 6.6%, a number that has been steadily declining since the seventies, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Compare that to estimates that show anywhere from 35.7% to more than half of the federal government is represented by a union.
About 1.2 million federal workers are members of a federal union, says the Government Accountability Office. That’s an estimated 57% membership rate; there are about 80 federal unions. At the same time, it can take anywhere from a little over five months to more than a year to fire federal workers for poor performance, and fired workers can still appeal, consuming another 200 days.
Meantime, the FLRA continues to hear hundreds of cases where federal unions battle attempted firings for government backsliders. Cases dense with an impenetrable fogbank of legalism, where federal unions hire attorneys who earn a bonanza of fees protecting miscreant federal workers and magick away accountability, putting taxpayers, and the government, at risk.
Taxpayers Must Reward Back Pay to VA Worker Who Let Psych Patient Vanish
Somehow, no one at the VA medical facility in Kansas City, Missouri noticed that an unnamed patient in its secure psychiatry unit for acute inpatients had vanished in the spring of 2014. VA workers had left the security door unlocked.
The reason the vets in the unit are kept in a secured, locked environment is due to their treatment for “drugs, [their] hostile nature, and mental problems,” notes the FLRA’s Pizzella in the case file. Pizzella, who served as assistant secretary for administration and management at the Labor Department under President George W. Bush, added: “Alfred Hitchcock would probably have referred to this case as ‘The Case of the Vanishing Patients.’"

Even though a security camera had recorded the patient walking out of the VA psych unit through an unlocked security door, at least three employees still wrote in VA reports that they were seeing the veteran in the unit.
For example, VA worker and AFGE union member Afolabi Olubo not only had marked the patient present, he had reported that he had physically seen the veteran four times, even though the patient had already disappeared. Hours later, that evening, the veteran was discovered at his brother’s house.
Other “patients had escaped” from this VA unit before, and in one case, a VA patient “was gone for two days” before it was discovered he was not in this Kansas City VA facility, the FLRA case file notes.
VA patients are vanishing elsewhere, including, for example, from VA medical facilities in Cleveland, Ohio, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A reporter for a CBS affiliate in Pittsburgh noted in 2013 after a vet vanished: “Let’s be honest. The patient could only ‘go missing’ if the people who were supposed to be watching him weren’t doing their job.”
FLRA official Pizzella notes in the case file that “one might presume, therefore, that solving the mystery of the unlocked door would be a priority shared by the managers and union officers at AFGE Local 2663 in order to ensure that no other [VA] patients are lost in the future.”
But ensuring that VA workers protect the safety of mentally ill vets wasn’t the union’s priority in this case. When VA managers tried to fire Olubo, the AFGE union fought to cut his penalty to a fourteen-day suspension, then to a one-day suspension.
Then, in September of last year the federal arbitrator on the case, Archie Robbins, ordered the VA to reinstate Olubo and award him back pay. AFGE argued that suspension was inappropriate because Olubo “had just returned from...vacation and mistakenly thought he saw another patient who looked like [the missing] patient.”
Olubo’s negligence was ruled just a “shortcoming,” and the arbitrator even lectured the VA in Kansas City “that it should have used the disciplinary process ‘to inspire [Olubo] to be a better worker in the future,’” Pizzella wrote. Arbitrator Robbins also ordered the VA in Kansas City to not place any evidence of a verbal reprimand “into [Olubo’s] work record or utilize it in any future disciplinary action.”
Pizzella notes that the AFGE union and the arbitrator “treated this case as if losing a patient is no more serious than losing one’s office key,” adding, the VA workers’ “misconduct is inexcusable and must have violated many written and unwritten policies pertaining to the public health and welfare,” (see FLRA case details).

Taxpayers Must Reward Back Pay to USDA Food Inspector Who Didn’t Catch Rat Infestation
A federal food-safety inspector at the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service got suspended for “negligently” failing to discover that rats had infested a pasta factory in Bridgeview, Illinois.
However, the AFGE won, his punishment was overturned and his back pay was reinstated. The federal labor review board may reinstate the legal costs for his union attorney as well.
Back in February 2010, Irvin Boesen, a 25-year USDA food inspector, supposedly inspected Vince & Sons Pasta Co. in Bridgeview, Ill. But USDA officials did their own looksee, and found that “the rat infestation in the pasta-production facility was extensive and widespread,” the case file shows.
Somehow Boesen, the USDA inspector, “failed to discover” rat feces in a storage area holding bags of raw flour and rat excrement on the floor around “a bag of flour that was ripped open,” documents indicate. He also “didn’t pay sufficient attention” to reports from the pest control company hired by the plant, which noted four rats were trapped inside the factory that month
Because of the rat infestation, the government shut down the pasta facility “for more than a week,” due to the “serious health and safety issue” in the plant, putting employees temporarily out of work, documents show. The USDA also suspended the inspector for just five days without pay, “on the lenient side,” the USDA admitted, taking into account his long service, the case file shows.
But the AFGE union lawyer on the case fought back, arguing the USDA “failed to apply progressive discipline,” and that Boesen’s five-day suspension was “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, punitive and an abuse of discretion.”
The AFGE won. The federal arbitrator, Robert D. Steinberg, set aside the USDA’s decision as unwarranted. He ruled the worker was merely negligent rather than willful or reckless, emphasizing Boesen was a long-term employee with a satisfactory performance record. So, the inspector got his back pay (he made more than $67,500 yearly) and lost benefits were reinstated, with just a slap on the wrist.

The USDA inspector “suffered no significant consequence, even though his inexcusable negligence could have affected the health of hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers,” FLRA official Pizzella wrote, all contrary to the mission of the USDA, which “is to ensure that the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe.”

Pizzella noted “the unavoidable conclusion”: That the USDA inspector “created the potential for a serious health crisis.”
Union Says Suspension Excessive for Federal Daycare Worker Who Let Toddler Wander Off
Video footage revealed a federal daycare worker at Elgin Air Force Base in Florida was so busy talking, she let a toddler walk off a gated playground in February 2014 toward traffic. But the AFGE argued her five-day suspension for negligence was “excessive,” despite the video proof.
Specifically, the toddler, under the care of the federal worker (both unnamed), walked out of the playground through an unclosed gate, and proceeded down the sidewalk toward traffic while the daycare worker, an AFGE union member, talked to a parent. “Video footage of the incident indicated that the incident would not have happened if the grievant or her coworker had monitored the playground,” the case file reads.
Even though it admitted the video footage was “credible,” AFGE argued the Air Force “failed to prove” the daycare worker’s misconduct since “the playground gate was broken,” blaming it on the “responsibility” of the day-care center director.
However, the Air Force’s table of penalties “permits firing even for a first offense of this nature,” notable in this case since this lapse could have created “serious injury” to the toddler.” This time, the union lost, and the worker was suspended.
Next: Taxpayers must pay for government workers to do full time work on union issues—from home.  

Graham makes nine: Time, money running out as more Republicans enter 2016 race

The Republican presidential field swelled Monday to nine candidates as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham officially entered the 2016 race, making campaign fundraising even more challenging for those still on the sidelines. 
The list of potential candidates who have not yet announced includes: former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
Each of the hopefuls has a unique set of challenges, to be sure. But for those at the bottom of the polls, the ability to raise money likely becomes more difficult as more candidates enter the race.
On Sunday, Kasich and Jindal each responded to questions about whether they had waited too long to enter, with Kasich alluding to the money factor.
“If I think I can't win, I wouldn't do it because I don't want to burden my family and my friends,” Kasich told NBC's "Meet the Press." “I raised money the old fashioned way. I go out and tell people what I think. … I'm optimistic where we are. I'm optimistic on the resources. I'm becoming more and more optimistic on the organization.”
Jindal, who is polling near the bottom in the list of roughly 14 GOP candidates and hopefuls and plans to announce his intentions at the end of the month, said the race will “ultimately be up to the voters.”

More on this...

• Sen. Graham: 'I want to be president to protect our nation'

“I think every politician says this is the most important election of our lifetime,” he told ABC's "This Week." “This really is.”
Graham enters the race also running well behind in early polls but is running on a tough national security message and could use his home state's status as holder of the first-in-the-South primary to his advantage.
But arguably bigger fish have yet to jump in the 2016 pool -- namely, heavyweights like Bush and Walker. Right now, they still enjoy solid numbers in the polls and have already lined up a fundraising network.
David Payne, a Republicans strategist and partner at the Washington, D.C.-based firm Vox Global, voiced confidence in their ability to keep raising money, even on the sidelines.
“There’s still time for serious contenders to ‘ante up,’” he said. “Our current campaign finance laws are making this one of the most interesting primary campaigns ever for Republicans, but also confusing. Two of our top-three contenders are running without officially declaring their candidacy as of yet: Bush and Walker.”
Political analysts have predicted Bush’s Rise to Rise super PAC will collect $100 million to $500 million by the July 15 federal filing deadline. It reportedly has done so well that Bush has asked donors to limit contributions to $1 million.
Walker certainly cannot match Bush’s extensive donor list, built with help from his father George H.W. Bush and brother George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns.
However, Walker has reportedly amassed a sizeable amount of cash through his political group, Our American Revival, pulling from small-dollar contributors and such mega-donors as casino magnate Sheldon Anderson and millionaire investor Foster Friess. The super PAC Unintimidated PAC is also raising money to help Walker.
The field of nine declared candidates is Graham, Sens. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, ex-Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina, former New York Gov. George Pataki, retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.
Still, fundraisers and analysts predict as much as $5 billion could be spent on the entire 2016 White House race, twice as much as in 2012, with Democratic frontrunner and fundraising juggernaut Hillary Clinton able to collect and spend as much as $1.5 billion.
“If … Christie or Kasich decide to get in the race, they would instantly command more attention and more money than most of the individuals who have already filed their official paperwork,” Payne said. “Late summer 2015 will clear up all this confusion about who’s actually running and who our top candidates are in the early primary states. ...
"If you’re a candidate who’s still playing it coy in August, it will be too late for you.”

School's 'racist' statue of priest praying over Indians moved indoors after complaints

St. Louis University

A statue that stood for years on the St. Louis University campus has been moved from its prominent place outside a key building after complaints it evoked "Christian and white supremacy."
The metal statue, which depicts Jesuit missionary Pierre-Jean De Smet praying over two American Indians dressed in traditional clothing, stood for years outside the university’s Fusz Hall in the center of the private Catholic school. But it was moved to the university’s art museum after a student-written editorial in the school paper declared it offensive, according to The College Fix.

“The statue of De Smet depicts a history of colonialism, imperialism, racism and of Christian and white supremacy.”
- Ryan McKinley, St. Louis University student

“The statue of De Smet depicts a history of colonialism, imperialism, racism and of Christian and white supremacy,” Ryan McKinley wrote in an editorial in the school paper, The University News. “This statue of De Smet is the clearest message that this university sends regarding American Indians, past and present. This message to American Indians is simple: “You do not belong here if you do not submit to our culture and our religion.”
Although it was not the first time students or faculty complained about the statue, the school's first-year president, Fred Pestello, told students in March he was taking the complaints seriously. SLU spokesman Clayton Berry said the school is not getting rid of the statue, but simply putting it in a location where it can be lent historical context.
“It will be housed in the “Collection of the Western Jesuit Missions,” Berry told FoxNews.com. “This permanent display, which takes up an entire floor of the museum, focuses on the Jesuit missionaries of the 1800s.”
English professor Steven Casmier told The College Fix he understood the objections, but was unsure if taking down the statue was the right move.
“I am not one for pulling down statues or effacing the evidence of history – even if that history is one we would like to forget," he said. "But it’s good that it’s not entirely effacing the past, and perhaps [the museum is] as good a place as any for it.”
McKinley said his editorial played a part in a larger process.
“This effort has been a years-long process by many different parties through students and staff,” SLU student, Ryan McKinley, told Fox News
As for De Smet, he might not have been such a bad guy.
A link on SLU’s website said De Smet, “known simply and affectionately as ‘Blackrobe’ by the Indians, ... traveled more that 180,000 miles during his lifetime, bringing Catholic Christianity to literally thousands of Native Americans while at the same time learning a great deal from the spirituality of the Indians.” That description has since been removed, although Berry told FoxNews.com that decision was made independent of the statue complaints.
“It’s purely coincidence,” Berry said. “The new timeline is more streamlined and focuses on the University history.”

Health insurers seek big premium hikes for ObamaCare plans in 2016

Dozens of health insurers selling plans under ObamaCare have requested hefty premium increases for 2016, according to preliminary information published Monday by the White House. 
The insurers have cited higher-than-expected care costs from customers they gained under the ObamaCare's coverage expansion and the rising cost of prescription drugs and other expenses as reasons for proposing the increases, many of which are in the double-digit percentages.
Among the market leaders, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is seeking a roughly 26 percent premium increase, while plans in Illinois and Florida, among other states, are asking for hikes of 20 percent or more. In Pennsylvania, Highmark Health Insurance Co. is asking for a 30 percent increase.
The preliminary requests were announced as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the validity of ObamaCare’s tax credits to offset the cost of premiums for lower-income consumers in most states in the country.
Individual health insurance policies are a relatively small slice of the overall market. Many more people are insured through an employer. And it is not clear whether any of these preliminary rate hikes will stick.
Regulators in many states have the power to reject price increases, and many who don't are expected to at least pressure insurers to soften their plans. Health insurance price hikes have been the subject of growing scrutiny for years.
Health insurance experts say it's tough to draw broad conclusions about prices from the requests released Monday. The health care law only requires insurers to report proposed hikes of 10 percent or more. That's only a partial picture of the market that tilts toward a worst-case scenario.
"It's hard to generalize, but that said, I think all signs are pointing to bigger premium increases than in 2015," Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation told the Associated Press.
Levitt said part of the reason is that insurers will be basing their 2016 premiums on a full year's worth of cost or claims data. That's the first time that has happened for plans sold on the overhaul's public insurance exchanges, which started enrolling customers in the fall of 2013.
Rates for 2015, for instance, were set based on only a few months of data collected last spring. Insurers normally want to see a couple years of claims from a patient population before they set rates.
Higher-than-expected costs were the main reason behind the hike sought by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, which was allowed to impose a 13.5 percent increase for this year. The insurer cited the costs of emergency room use, heart and cancer treatments and the cost of specialty drugs treating hepatitis C in its rate justification filed with federal regulators.
Some insurers may be seeking what seems like a sizeable rate increase because they charged much less than the competition for this year, said Catherine Murphy-Barron, vice president of health with the American Academy of Actuaries.
"The increase is not the right thing to be looking at, it's the general level of the premiums of everyone in that market at that tier," she said.
Insurers will spend the next several weeks talking to regulators about their premiums before rates are finalized later this summer. The companies will have better data to back up their request for hikes, but that might mean little if they are negotiating with a regulator determined to hold down prices, said Dave Axene of the Society of Actuaries.
"Even if you have all the evidence in the world, it's not a friendly environment at times," said Axene, an actuary who helped insurers in several states set prices for 2016.
Consumers should start learning how rates may change for their specific plan by early October.
That will give them several weeks to shop for the best deal before Nov. 15, which is when people can start signing up for coverage.