17
t.ive Secretary - Forrest Stexvprt DID
ATTEND the mentioned- Board of
Control meetings, as the S O & M E
business agent well knows (unless his
/'eyes failed him there® S teW arm jd®
attej^ ^ fe t lfer I important I conferences
n this^W ter, which led up to favojSH
ble action, toj/wjiicb the S C & M E
representatives were apparently indif-
ferent, as they were conspicuous by
their absence!
That guff- about our OSEA being
nin by * supervisor ^ ,w S get a going
over a little later on, but you should
first hear what was’ written- .abou^u^l
in the November, 1949 issue of this
Oregon Publij|j Employees News ma
gazine about our comparatively small
BaflBB S S The article concerns the
slBfe M E 1947 and 1949 legislative
failut.ek^in trying to close the “back
.d o o r ” offthe Civil Service Act. As you
all know, the I Federal Civil Service
Act does haveva pa« W fclnsed back
door, and everyone finds fault with it.
“Closing the back door” means mak
ing it mandatory to rehire^with ba*cpl
MBfc>ay any employee, whio^^s discharged
:^ jRvhen he can ^^^texdoubt that his dis
charge" was du lllentirely to his (the
pm^'aM r o wn fault. Under the pres
ent Oregon Act g B M S s “ op en back
door,” a discharged employee who
cannot definitely be shown to be in-
H ^ B ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ c c ^ ^ n ^nded for rehiring,
for
IIBlIbmpaMble position
in another department, or at least is
placed at* the t o W s y K l i s t for re
employment. Many have been put back
to w o rk undeg^^^joplm back doo£^
•
Abuse Is Cheap
Well, to proceed with the quotations
from said
the 1949 session, labor again
duced a bill
from unwarranted discharges (that
I “back door” bo|S , and provided in
the same bill that one member of the
service commission should be a
representative of labor” (of the S C &
M E ?).
Continuing, they said, “ Of course,
you have guessed it, again' the non
union state employees association boss-
controlled company union (that’s the
OSEA they refer to) bitterly, fou^hl
this bill and bragged about -ik ir^ ^ ir-
•
cular they'put dût.” The next para
graph of this article read as follows:
“Statrn employee -locals bf 'th e State,
County and Municipal Employees,
American Federation of Labor, are' of
ficered by members who are iibt and
cannot be bosses or supervisors.”
While everyone draws a deep breath,
it is well to remind the readers that
the legislature would not ‘K'dvb- origin- I
ally passed our Civil Service Act if it -
had provided for the “ closed* back
dooi^B^j/l^^it is^ good to know , that;
the Act is patterned- on a national
model act which represents the best
thinking -of experts in
field, who
avoided therein the pit-falls and er
rors that have cü rsed and made non-
effectiye so many of the, present sys
tems of Civil Service throughout the
nation.
In these two articles under discus
sion, in October the OSEA was merely
called a “non-union àssôciation” ;
while the following month we were
referred to as a “non-union boss7 con
trolled company union.” How bad we
became in 30 days! Did you notice I
their reference to themselves as -being-
“officered by members who are not
and can not be bjos'ses.or supervisors 9 |
Could this be a slap in the face to
their State employee members by call
ing them incapable of advancing them-
trust and res^ou^
l a bility; *or do they infer thatfflSnBol
I g f the.S C & M S is by high-salarie$g
Ifurnon gj^^^^ayeer&fhen who live well
bn the high dues collected from
members^ I would rise in defense of
the ^^^^^mplbye^s * tc^^a ^ ^ ^ t ANY
of them have a chance to becomesl^ss3g
eslgangj^S^^^^Slin State service- if
the emp^^^^^^^^^to get ahead, and
I just don’t believe that any state em
ployee members of the S C & M E are
below average in their abilities to ad-
vance in the^senydæ’^M
Of
were pre^-
pared by their Organization Commit
tee, and perchance this committee is
not very well informed. If thejjj jjwant
the truth about OSEA organization/
they are w elcom e'tc^ ^ ^ gur Chapters
at any time. Naturally, this Committee,
trying to get a new organization and a
large Vnumber of -heavy* dues-paying
people in t h S nanks has to resort to