I am a collateral-duty EEO Counselor for the Dept of the Interior, and have been so since 2004. As such, I take exception to the statement that Counselors act to protect agency managers. Yes, we work for the agency. But we are trained to be neutral. Our job is to find a resolution and find a solution that solves the problem(s) to the satisfaction of all parties within the 30-90 day time frame. In my agency, most of us are collateral duty, and there are few full time EEO Counselors. Our thought process is not to protect the agency or management...that is absolutely not why we volunteer to be part of this process. We volunteer to be collateral duty counselors only because we believe in a workplace that should be free of discrimination and harassment. Videos like this create a bias against the EEO Counselor that impede the process. I've had to overcome this, specifically because of this video.
I wished this was true in the majority of the discrimination cases but it's not. At times EEO and HR are working together with the managers to assist in covering up discrimination and retaliation. How do I know? I had a discrimination/retaliation investigation where one of the managers admitted in writing that HR was guiding them on how to treat me.
Rangerdj, By saying what you said, you are on the agency side. You guys don't care about what we have gone through because you never tasted being a victim. Predators are everywhere, and federal employees are the most vulnerable creatures, you know why, because the justice system is designed for federal employees, in a way to minimize the harm to the managers and to deny cases as many as possible. A SMALL Percentage of cases go to EEOC hearings every year. This process takes years to complete. Even theajority of EEOC Administrative Judges are biased. They just want to get rid of cases to clear their dockets and get an outstanding performance reviews. That is why not many lawyers accept federal employees cases. There is no punitive damages for federal Government and if you are lucky to go to a hearing and if you prevail, your damages are about 20 to 40k after a long time. Even the Agency still appeal that and that will delay the process a couple more years. That is why reasonable federal employees who are the victims of discrimination are dissuaded from speaking up. I think the producer of this video who I think is working for EEOC, said the truth and that is why I love her videos. However, I wish she could be more open about the whole process. I watched too many videos about EEO, and she is the first honest person about the informal phase of the EEO. I haven't seen anyone ever talk about the reason behind granting summary judgement for the agency as a rate of over 90%. Why? Do they think, that tens of thousands of complainants are out of their mind when they file their complaints? Our Justice system is supposed to be independent of executive branch but is it for federal employees???
@@brim7079 I have been on all sides of an EEO complaint. I was a complainant once, an RMO once, and now a counselor. In my agency we do not handle cases in our immediate office. So as a counselor I do not know the complainant, don’t know the RMOs, have no dog in the fight. So how can you argue that I fight for the agency? It is a fact of law that the burden of proof is on the complainant, but that is more important in the formal phase. In the informal phase the goal is to resolve the problem as soon as possible to avoid the stress on everyone, eliminate problems and hopefully save taxpayers money. Just this fiscal year alone my corner of the world spent over $300,000 on investigation contracts. These cases went formal for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the complainant is stubborn, sometimes the RMO stubborn, sometimes the agency stubborn. Sometimes the situation needs that formal investigation. Remember per law and policy EEO are not HR personnel. HR will fully admit they are on management’s side, particularly employee relations. But EEO counselors are employees who don’t have a dog in the fight. Personally, I don’t care if the complainant prevails, if management ultimately prevails, or if the agency does. The process has to play out. I’m not invested in the outcome. That’s how it should be. We’re not advocates.
@@unityaboriginelove6595 I’ve done EEO as a collateral duty since 2004, full time now. At no time have I ever worked with HR like you mention. Sometimes I have to do basic fact finding or perform a document collection. But there is at least in my agency a firewall between us and HR.
I needed this
I am a collateral-duty EEO Counselor for the Dept of the Interior, and have been so since 2004. As such, I take exception to the statement that Counselors act to protect agency managers. Yes, we work for the agency. But we are trained to be neutral. Our job is to find a resolution and find a solution that solves the problem(s) to the satisfaction of all parties within the 30-90 day time frame. In my agency, most of us are collateral duty, and there are few full time EEO Counselors. Our thought process is not to protect the agency or management...that is absolutely not why we volunteer to be part of this process. We volunteer to be collateral duty counselors only because we believe in a workplace that should be free of discrimination and harassment. Videos like this create a bias against the EEO Counselor that impede the process. I've had to overcome this, specifically because of this video.
I wished this was true in the majority of the discrimination cases but it's not. At times EEO and HR are working together with the managers to assist in covering up discrimination and retaliation. How do I know? I had a discrimination/retaliation investigation where one of the managers admitted in writing that HR was guiding them on how to treat me.
Rangerdj, By saying what you said, you are on the agency side. You guys don't care about what we have gone through because you never tasted being a victim. Predators are everywhere, and federal employees are the most vulnerable creatures, you know why, because the justice system is designed for federal employees, in a way to minimize the harm to the managers and to deny cases as many as possible. A SMALL Percentage of cases go to EEOC hearings every year. This process takes years to complete. Even theajority of EEOC Administrative Judges are biased. They just want to get rid of cases to clear their dockets and get an outstanding performance reviews. That is why not many lawyers accept federal employees cases. There is no punitive damages for federal Government and if you are lucky to go to a hearing and if you prevail, your damages are about 20 to 40k after a long time. Even the Agency still appeal that and that will delay the process a couple more years. That is why reasonable federal employees who are the victims of discrimination are dissuaded from speaking up.
I think the producer of this video who I think is working for EEOC, said the truth and that is why I love her videos. However, I wish she could be more open about the whole process. I watched too many videos about EEO, and she is the first honest person about the informal phase of the EEO. I haven't seen anyone ever talk about the reason behind granting summary judgement for the agency as a rate of over 90%. Why? Do they think, that tens of thousands of complainants are out of their mind when they file their complaints? Our Justice system is supposed to be independent of executive branch but is it for federal employees???
@@brim7079 I have been on all sides of an EEO complaint. I was a complainant once, an RMO once, and now a counselor.
In my agency we do not handle cases in our immediate office. So as a counselor I do not know the complainant, don’t know the RMOs, have no dog in the fight. So how can you argue that I fight for the agency?
It is a fact of law that the burden of proof is on the complainant, but that is more important in the formal phase. In the informal phase the goal is to resolve the problem as soon as possible to avoid the stress on everyone, eliminate problems and hopefully save taxpayers money. Just this fiscal year alone my corner of the world spent over $300,000 on investigation contracts. These cases went formal for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the complainant is stubborn, sometimes the RMO stubborn, sometimes the agency stubborn. Sometimes the situation needs that formal investigation.
Remember per law and policy EEO are not HR personnel. HR will fully admit they are on management’s side, particularly employee relations. But EEO counselors are employees who don’t have a dog in the fight.
Personally, I don’t care if the complainant prevails, if management ultimately prevails, or if the agency does. The process has to play out. I’m not invested in the outcome. That’s how it should be. We’re not advocates.
@@unityaboriginelove6595 I’ve done EEO as a collateral duty since 2004, full time now. At no time have I ever worked with HR like you mention. Sometimes I have to do basic fact finding or perform a document collection. But there is at least in my agency a firewall between us and HR.
Can your representative speak on your behalf? If so, what law does that fall under please