Dear Local Presidents, Regional VPs, and other Union Activists: Please Circulate to Employees

Management has come up with a new attempt to get employees to sign statements regarding their knowledge of the Systems Sanctions Policy, this time it is an online Systems Sanctions "training". Employees would be wise not to sign the last page of this "training" which acknowledges that you have completed the training: the agency will see this as proof that you have full knowledge of and completely know every possible interpretation of the Sanctions Policy. The devil is in the details. The "training" is oversimplified and does not explain the nuances of the policy that can get you suspended for 2 days, 14 days, or that you can get fired for.

If ordered to sign, write: "I do not fully understand the policy. Please define in writing the terms, family member, coworker, friend, and acquaintance and inform me what management in this office may use in arriving at the perception that I may have accessed the system for a prohibited relationship" and see if they will define the terms for you. I would wager that they will not. At the very least  write "ordered to sign" above your signature if so ordered. Probationary employees and FCIP hires with less than their 2 years should probably sign or who knows what management might do: you do not have your full compliment of employee rights yet. Better to just play along and challenge later when you are career conditional.

Below I have tried to explain some of the pitfalls of SSA's policy and why you might be better off not signing the Acknowledgement Statement. I took the "training" and marked every answer wrong and still passed the training and got the "Training Acknowledgement Statement" at the final screen.

Family members: For example, the Policy refers to "family members" but many employees have been suspended for accessing the system for persons they did not consider family members, but their supervisor did (such as the husband of your ex-spouse's remote cousin). Unless you completely know what your supervisor would consider to be a "family member" and are willing to bet a few days pay on it, we would advise against signing the Acknowledgement Statement at the end.

Coworkers: The questions are obvious regarding the co-worker (a TE in the office), but there are many murky work relationships that you may not consider to be a co-worker but management might. Employees have been suspended for providing a benefit statement for a former Green Thumb worker that had been in the office years ago and never actually worked with the accessing employee. It cost him 3 days pay that was later reversed, but is guessing what a co-worker is worth it?

Friends and Acqaintances: When does someone you know vaguely or even fairly well but who you do not consider a "friend" appear to be a friend to your supervisor? In the middle of an interview, a claimant asked a CR if she went to a particular school, and it turned out they used to ride the same school bus together in the 3rd grade. The CR did not consider the claimant to be a friend and hadn't seen her in 30+ years, but that was not good enough for the supervisor who suspended her for 2 days for accessing the system for a "friend". Basically, if management thinks a claimant is a friend, the burden of proof shifts to you to prove that she/he was not a friend. I asked at the negotiating table at what point an acquaintance turns into a friend in the eyes of the agency. They would not put it in writing but responded "a friend is someone you have invited to dinner or who has invited you for dinner". Following that definition will get you suspended because that is what the official written agency policy says, which is very vague.

PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING: The actual policy (greatly watered down in this "training"), says that if you have such a relationship or "are perceived as" having a prohibited relationship, you have violated the Sanctions Policy. Management could not explain how they would arrive at these perceptions or what criteria they would use. All it takes for you to get suspended is for management to "perceive" you are accessing the record of a relative, friend, or coworker. Do you feel comfortable knowing that your potential loss of pay for unauthorized systems access hinges on your supervisor's perception?

MANAGEMENT HAS REFUSED TO DEFINE THE TERMS USED IN THE SANCTIONS POLICY: The union has repeatedly asked management to define: friend, acquaintance, family member, and co-worker, but they have refused every time, preferring to leave it vague. Employees are the ones caught in the trap. Why should you sign the Statement when management refuses to define what the terms mean?

They don't get suspended, you do.

Better be safe than sorry. Protect yourself and your pay. Only sign the Training Acknowledgement Statement if you are convinced that you know every possible interpretation of the Sanctions Policy.

Charlie Estudillo, 1st Vice President Council 220

Website monitor by killerwebstats.com