The dramatic move to terminate the master union agreement by the new bureau administration caused quite a stir in BOP land this week. I am an AFGE-CPL Local 33 member and have paid yearly dues since retirement. I’ve both negotiated one of the master agreements on the union side of the table and occupied management positions, so I can speak to lived experience on both fronts.

I want to say at the outset that I’m strongly in support of employee rights — including a BOP union and a master agreement that encompasses all the locals. The focus of PERA is primarily the need for reform of the bureau and the slow and painful evolution of BOP management. However, the union has often acted as an impediment to reform. And that’s partly why the new BOP management terminated the union contract. (President Trump paved the way, however, when he issued an executive order in March, citing a provision of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act to ban unionization at most federal agencies under the auspices of national security. Intense litigation has ensued, but federal appellate courts have—with one exception—allowed the administration to proceed with implementation while those lawsuits work their way through the courts.) In a blog post on the BOP’s website, Bureau Director William Marshall said he “comes from a pro-union family,” but “when a union becomes an obstacle to progress instead of a partner in it, it’s time for change.” 

He is right that some union officials are their worst enemies and often act as obstacles to needed change. It was widely reported that resistance from the union, and her fear of it, was a major roadblock for former BOP Director Collette Peters.  And I certainly witnessed poor judgement when I worked inside: For example, union officials  would often leave their posts, allegedly for official union business, but mostly hung out in the office, etc. Meanwhile, other workers had to cover their posts  a real problem when there is a severe staffing crisis. Another concern I often hear about is the yearly trips to conferences by local union officials on the members’ dime, which appeared to involve more partying than meaningful business.

Unions also have a track record of overly protecting rogue staff and deliberately slow-walking approval of new policies. (Union officials are part of the review process when policies are updated and can invoke the right to negotiate if they believe the policy update will affect its members – which many  will, since they staff the prisons.) This has historically caused significant delays in policy implementation but also gave dysfunctional BOP management a reason to maintain the status quo and blame the union for the inertia. This lack of progress on policy revisions has increased the BOP practice of managing by internal memoranda, which are frequently not publicly available (in contrast to official policies). A stark example of this is the policy governing placement in halfway houses (residential reentry centers, or RRCs), which has not been updated for nearly 30 years despite significant changes in the law (the Second Chance Act of 2007 and most recently the First Step Act of 2018).

However, dysfunction in the union/management relationship also occurs on the management side. Consider the process through which negotiations and other communications occur between local bargaining unit officials and management. When I was involved in negotiating the master agreement, workers were represented predominately by correctional officers and a few other line staff members, who sat across from a warden, associate warden and several department heads. That puts GS-8 correctional officers in a precarious position, since they must deal with people several levels above their boss. Political suicide often occurs, and management intimidation can impact negotiations, with one misstep wrecking a person’s career in the BOP “good ol’ boy” network (where promotion is not based on merit but the ability to be a good follower and boot lick).

Unfortunately, union officials predominately reflect the typical law-enforcement mentality of correctional officers, in which incapacitation trumps treatment. I could write a blog post just on this philosophical concept, but it can be summarized as “us vs. them.” In other words, the inmates are the enemy. This dichotomy is unnecessary and makes prisons more dangerous for both staff and the incarcerated. When the agency had stronger leadership in the 1980s and early ‘90s, the mantra was “firm but fair.” But that no longer seems to be the dominant practice, and PERA advocates for changing this mindset from the very beginning, when new hires are oriented at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Academy. Creating positive custodial and treatment relationships foster safe environments for everyone and reduces recidivism.   

Such a behavioral shift requires culture change, as well as real accountability. And the latter won’t be possible unless there is a truly independent ombudsman’s office. Creation of an ombudsman function was included in the recently enacted Federal Prison Oversight Act. However, it has not yet been funded. What a lost opportunity!

Here is a radical idea: Maybe the union rank and file should align with the incarcerated population. Despite the current divide, they share something critical: They are the ones living and working at ground zero of our prisons, and thus bearing the brunt of the risks (think high suicide rates and stress-related medical conditions) while management makes questionable decisions in their central and regional office crystal palaces.