San Diego Sector Chief Michael Fisher shows contempt for your Union

Since taking over as Chief, San Diego Sector Chief Michael Fisher has destroyed the positive labor-management relationship that evolved between San Diego Sector management and Local 1613 since 1998. This is the first time since I have been a Union representative that I can honestly say I now understand why Union officials act the way they do in some locations. How is the Union supposed to respond when the management official in charge of San Diego Sector shows complete contempt for your Union and prior agreements without any rational explanation?

For the past nine years, I have participated in meetings between sector management and the Union. I witnessed the labor-management relationship evolve into an effective forum for resolving labor-management disputes. Chief Fisher, without considering the history of labor-management relations in the San Diego Sector, decided that the relationship was non-existent, eliminated the management-labor workgroup, and essentially terminated all effective communications between your Union and sector management. In addition, Chief Fisher has attempted to unilaterally terminate several prior agreements without even providing the Union as much as a courtesy notice.

Chief Fisher decided that he can do a better job than you in selecting your representatives. So, instead of meeting with your elected representatives, Chief Fisher formed a new workgroup called the Radar Screen Workgroup. Each station sends participants, which in some locations, the participants were hand-picked by management and in other locations the participants were selected by the Detail Management Team. In addition, supervisors were sent to represent your interests.

Now, I realize some may argue that we have always had workgroups in the past (i.e. Quality Initiative Workgroup). However, there is a major difference between the past workgroups and Chief Fisher’s workgroup. In the past, anything that was proposed by a workgroup of bargaining unit members and supervisors was presented to the Union prior to implementation. Under Chief Fisher, the Union is bypassed and whatever is proposed is implemented, regardless of what the majority of you may want or desire.

One of your elected Union representatives attended the last Radar Screen Workgroup. During the meeting, your elected representative listened to Chief Fisher as he praised the workgroup for their ideas. Ironically, a majority of the ideas he praised them for were ideas that were presented by the Union in the past and rejected by Chief Fisher. The following is a list of items from the last workgroup meeting:

1. Within Sector transfers-VRP should now allow for in-sector laterals.

In 1999 and then again in 2005, Local 1613 proposed a system for San Diego Sector Agents to transfer to another station within SDC at no cost to the government. The main difference between the Local 1613 proposal and the Office of Border Patrol’s VRP was that the selections were to be made by seniority since the government was not paying the agent to move. Another difference is that every station in sector would have a predetermined number of openings and every agent in sector, regardless of location, would be eligible to participate.

Chief Griffen was in favor of this program, as was every other management official who we spoke with during our negotiations. However, when Chief Fisher took over, the Union learned that Chief Fisher abandoned the idea. Chief Fisher never had the courtesy to notify the Union of his decision.

As for the VRP now handling in-sector transfers, we will have to wait and see what happens. We have already learned that there are several restrictions on which stations are participating, but for unknown reasons, that information is secret. Furthermore, does anyone understand the purpose behind asking an agent to fill out an application, as if they were applying for a new job, when the agent is just requesting a transfer from one location to another? Clearly the purpose of this application is to make it easier for management to deny a transfer for personal reasons. This is why Chief Fisher prefers this system for in-sector transfers.

2. Create or update station standard operating procedures

After witnessing the manner in which some stations responded or didn’t respond after September 11, Local 1613 proposed that management review and update as necessary the SOP’s for the stations. In addition, we proposed that the agents be made aware of the SOP’s, specifically what was expected in an emergency.

3. BIC and station Intel units providing updates briefings at muster

When operations became more Intel driven and Intel units were given more authority, Local 1613 requested that agents in the field be better informed as to the Intel that was being gathered. One aspect of this request was that station Intel units provide updates at muster.

4. Additional manpower

Since 2001, Local 1613 repeatedly questioned the lack of manpower and resources in San Diego Sector that were necessary to operate under the current National Border Patrol Strategy. Local 1613 also requested that Imperial Beach station not flex east until the appropriate resources and manpower were provided to the station. However, under Chief Fisher, that flex occurred without any regard to the safety hazards that exist when there is an insufficient number of agents to occupy a given area, especially an area that is prone to a high number of assaults against agents.

5. Station to Station Standardization

Local 1613 consistently requested the standardization of policies throughout sector. This resulted in Chief Griffen forming the Standardization Workgroup, which consisted of management and Union representatives. In addition to standardizing the disciplinary process throughout the San Diego Sector, we attempted to standardize the DMT policies. Chief Veal and Chief Griffen supported a standardized DMT policy and Local 1613 worked with various management officials throughout SDC to develop a standardized sector DMT policy that would have resolved many issues that are present with the existing outdated policies. However, Chief Fisher rejected this standardized DMT policy and again, never had the courtesy to notify your elected Union representatives.

6. Contracted Hospital Watch

Hospital watch has been an ongoing problem since at least 2000. Previously, Local 1613 requested that Detention and Enforcement handle hospital watch, as this fell within their duties. When DHS was created and we lost all of our Detention and Enforcement Officers, Local 1613 asked management to consider contracting out that position to ICE since the DEO’s were now under ICE. In addition, Local 1613 proposed a hospital watch program that required two agents to oversee a detainee in the hospital. There were several reasons for this program, but the foremost reason was the liability issues involved when just one agent was assigned to a detainee. Under Chief Griffen, an agreement was reached that required two agents for hospital watch. Under Chief Fisher, this agreement is being dismantled without any discussions with your elected Union representatives.

7. Press releases will be sent to stations. Goal of having several releases per week carried by the media.

Although Local 1613 has not previously requested that the press releases be sent to the stations, we have routinely proposed that sector PIO become more aggressive in releasing positive news to the media for consideration. Since we deal with the media on a regular basis, we realize the media will ultimately choose what to publish, but that sector PIO should work toward challenging the media when they misrepresent the facts. The local’s proposal also discussed the perceived lack of support by management for agents who are involved in critical incidents.

8. Non-traditional awards of gift cards, etc. on a timely basis to agents and supervisors.

Local 1613 engaged in discussions with the previous Chief’s about awarding employees with other available means since the existing methods were restrictive. Although we never suggested gift cards since that money would have to be allocated or taken from the sector budget, we did propose that management award people with comp days. Due to our proposals, the previous Chief’s did award agents with comp days in certain situations. Under Chief Fisher, we are already hearing problems with the granting of comp days for certain situations (i.e. to reward agents who participated with the recent fires).

9. Team Leader, OIC development.

With the elimination of the Senior Patrol Agent position, as we knew it before the across the board positions were approved, Local 1613 proposed that management make every effort possible to provide agents with opportunities that once existed, like the Team Leader and Officer in Charge positions.

10. Limit time on sector details based on training and experience requirements.

As previously mentioned, Local 1613 worked with management officials under Chief Veal and Chief Griffen to revise the existing DMT policies and to standardize these policies into one sector policy. The revised sector DMT policy specifically addressed establishing a set time for details. However, Chief Fisher rejected the standardized sector-policy and instead is working to dismantle the DMT policies at your stations so that we can go back to the days of nepotism, cronyism, and control of the rank and file by fear of retaliation.

11. Early retirement training for agents.

Local 1613 has regularly requested additional retirement training for agents. At the last meeting we had with the now-dismantled labor-management workgroup, Local 1613 requested more training and that request was granted. We realized that the retirement training has always been disproportional to the amount of agents who need retirement training. Consequently, in the past, Local 1613 successfully sponsored retirement training for our members; however, that required coordination with sector officials. Under Chief Fisher, the only coordination we have observed is a coordinated effort to remove your Union from the workplace and to dismantle all the labor-management relations that were established over the past ten years.

A sampling of some of the other items raised by your management-appointed representatives:

• Rapid response and dynamic operations based on threat assessments.
• Rename sensors according to zones they are in.
• More station level STRIKE teams.
• Monthly/Quarterly meetings between stations and Special ops Units.
• Sector Training to provide briefing of SDC Enforcement Strategy and National Border Patrol Strategy to agents and stations.
• Briefings to stations regarding Special Ops Units and their missions.
• Reorganization of Special Ops Division.
• Monthly/Quarterly meetings between stations and Special ops Units.
• Implemented online system to increase direct contact between field and the Chief.
• Install flat-panel TVs in muster rooms.
• Install Chief’s mailbox on Outlook.
• CBPNet- Ask Chief Fisher icon.
• Increased Command Staff visits to musters. (Anyone aware of these?)
• Frontline Newsletter. 1000 copies will be sent to stations and units. Family news to be included.
• Training with DCPA Barlow for new supervisors.
• Sector Training to explain Intern responsibilities. Field Training Unit program and Post Academy to visit musters to explain.
• More leadership training to be held at DTAC and Range.
• Civilian analysts for Intel thus returning agents to the field.
• Command 101 Program.
• Technical Training Course for new supervisors.
• Mentor program through Wilson for new supervisors.

As you can see by the above list, some of your management-appointed representatives were looking out for your best interest and attempting to resolve important issues that affect your conditions in the workplace. I am curious how many agents agree that the Agency should hire civilian analysts to handle Intel or how many agents wanted to learn more about the Special Ops units. More importantly, how many agents want to hear more propaganda about the National Border Patrol Strategy? I think it is safe to assume every agent has heard more than enough about this Strategy since Chief Fisher arrived in San Diego Sector.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that Chief Fisher does not respect your right as an agent to be a member of a Union, nor does he respect your right as a Union member to designate a representative of your choosing. Instead, Chief Fisher has decided it is in his best interest to circumvent your elected Union representatives and meet with agents that are selected by management. Basically, Chief Fisher has determined that management can do a better job than you in selecting who speaks on your behalf.

Now you may not participate with the elections of Union officials or you may not be actively involved with the Union, but here is the difference: with the Union, you have the ability to decide who represents you; with Chief Fisher’s program, you never will have a say in who represents you. Furthermore, you have no recourse if that person promotes their personal agenda or even better, management’s agenda.

All that is required of you by your Union is to stay informed, check the Union websites, and communicate with your Union representatives (email, phone, meetings, etc.); attending meetings isn’t even necessary with the current technology that is utilized by your union. If you regularly disagree with a particular Union representative on an issue, you always have the option of changing that person at the next election. If the person is appointed, you should express your concerns with your elected Union officials; otherwise, how are your elected officials ever going to know there is a problem. So, you decide, do you want to retain the right to choose who represents you on issues that affect you in the workplace or do you want management to retain that right and make the choice for you?