MattS,

You make a good point and that is the issue that should be debated. Unfortunately, the Washington Times article misses the point completely.

“Basically, for certain things, the law mandates that the management offer the union the chance to negotiate how to implement changes in the workplace.”

Security of government systems/facilities should absolutely not be one of those things.

Basically, for certain things, the law mandates that the management offer the union the chance to negotiate how to implement changes in the workplace. In other things, there is no duty to negotiate.

The grievance is over impact and implementation of the edict, not the edict itself. Argue amongst yourselves what Congress intended. But if, as the FLRA found, Congress did not intend to exempt this from bargaining, blame Congress, not the unions.

There certainly is a relatively easy fix. Or there would be if Congress could ever agree on something.

This is the penultimate paragraph of the majority FLRA opinion: http://src.bna.com/c0Z

Finally, we note that the Arbitrator did not direct the Agency to restore employees’ access to webmail, or to bargain over the substance of the change; he directed bargaining over only the impact and implementation of that change. Thus, nothing in the award or our decision requires the Agency to bargain over proposals that actually conflict with law or government-wide regulation, including FISMA. Rather, we hold only that the Agency has not demonstrated that the cited provisions of FISMA foreclose bargaining altogether.

Not your system, big shot.