So it's "your" union -- whether you support it, hate it or are totally indifferent -- to much of the public and most members of Congress. Which makes these interesting times because . . .

Federal unions are relearning a hard political fact of life. One they lived with during the 1990s, but haven't had to tackle in the last 8 years.

The lesson: It's harder to fight your friends than your enemies.

Case in point. All of the major federal and postal unions supported Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the presidential campaign. Most of the House and Senate incumbents and challengers unions backed -- with volunteer help and money from PAC funds -- went to Democratic candidates.

The unions expected they would get a better deal for their members than they did during the Bush years when nothing in their view went right.

What the unions wanted and expected was . . .

. . . Elimination of the pay-for-performance system (known in the Defense Department as the NSPS) which now covers more than 200,000 nonsupervisory feds.

The system, implemented during the Bush years, was supposed to make it easier for managers to give bigger financial rewards (pay raises and bonuses) to top-notch workers, at the expense of poor performers.

Critics say it simply institutionalized the buddy system, and that the people running it were (by and large) out-of-the-loop at best, and often inept.

But rather than killing it, the White House said it wanted to remake it in a form managers and employees would respect.

As a result, unions and the administration have been acting like a feuding couple at a neighborhood party. They've mostly made nice in public. But there's been lots of eye-rolling and some glaring, and 'We-need-to-talk-in-private!' moments, too.

Pay is also an issue.

The military is in line for a 3.4 percent raise (the president proposed 2.9 percent for them) while civilians are looking at a 2 percent January hike. That would be the smallest in years and one of the few times that one got more than the other.

Some union leaders are quietly fuming at the White House, and especially long-time friends in Congress who, had the election gone the other way, might be slamming NSPS and demanding pay raise parity between civilian and military personnel.

The unions were also surprised that the administration is opposed to a proposal (which is part of the pending Defense Authorization Act) that would give workers under the Federal Employees Retirement System credit for unused sick leave when they retire.

FERS employees are now under a use it or lose it system which the government says costs agencies $69 million a year.

Workers under the older CSRS retirement system (about 20 percent of the workforce) get service credit for unused sick leave.

For CSRS employees a year of sick leave is worth an extra 2 percent each year in life-time retirement benefits. It would be about half that under the FERS plan, but opponents say the long-term costs would outweigh the short-term savings.

A federal union lobbyist said, off the record, that "they are holding the FERS legislation over our heads to get support for a modified NSPS (pay-for-performance) plan."

The Defense Business Board's final report on the NSPS was released Monday.

Among its recommendations is that Defense "reestablish" a "committment to partnership and collaborating with employees through their unions." Although most nonpostal federal workers do not belong to unions or pay dues, unions are important because they represent most nonsupervisory feds in dealing with management.

The Secretary of Defense will study it and make recommendations on what stays, and what goes, in the current system.

That could take awhile.

To read the report yourself, click here.

Nearly Useless Factoid

Both Francis Rose (Host of In Depth) and Dorothy Ramienski (Internet Editor) share the same birthday -- and it's today!

To reach me: mcausey@federalnewsradio.com