Latest news with #CivilServiceReformActof1978
The Hill
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Federal judge tosses Trump administration effort to end union rights for federal workers
A Trump-appointed federal judge tossed a suit brought by the administration in a preemptive move to strip collective bargaining rights from federal employees. The Trump administration brought the suit in the one-judge district in Texas shortly after signing an order seeking to end union rights at 18 different federal agencies. The suit sought a declaratory judgment from a Waco court that the White House has 'the power to rescind or repudiate' collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) across numerous agencies. But U.S. District Court Judge Alan Albright declined to do so, siding with unions in determining that the plaintiff agencies did not have standing to bring the suit and dismissing the suit. 'Plaintiffs ask this Court to do something it should not and cannot do: issue a declaratory judgment pre-approving the acts of executive agencies absent a legally cognizable injury-in-fact,' Albright wrote in the Wednesday ruling. 'This Court is unable to identify a single instance in which a federal court has exercised jurisdiction over agencies seeking a pre-enforcement declaratory judgment approving their desired future course of conduct.' Albright further wrote that doing so 'could open a Pandora's Box of encouraging the Executive Branch to seek the Judiciary's blessing for every Executive Order prior to implementation.' The move is a blow to the Trump administration, which sought Albright's blessing in a bid to terminate a number of existing collective bargaining agreements signed with unions. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest federal employee union, had been highly critical of Trump's move to end bargaining rights at the 18 agencies. Framed as a national security measure, the executive order from Trump sought to end unions rights at a wide range of agencies, including those not traditionally thought to have a national security role. A White House fact sheet at the time said the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 allowing government workers to unionize 'enables hostile Federal unions to obstruct agency management.' AFGE had condemned the action in an email to its members, saying the Trump administration was 'illegally strip[ping] collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers. 'Let's be clear. National security is not the reason for this action. This is retaliation because our union is standing up for AFGE members—and a warning to every union: fall in line, or else.'
The Hill
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Judge rules Trump can't eliminate federal workers' union bargaining
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from eliminating union bargaining for thousands of workers across the federal government. Siding with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other unions, U.S. District Judge James Donato ruled that President Trump's executive order letting several federal agencies dispense with union bargaining is likely unlawful. Donato wrote in a 29-page opinion that federal workers have had the right to unionize and collectively bargain for better employment conditions for more than 60 years, but Trump's order threatened that 'long-standing status quo.' The six unions that filed suit 'appear to have been deemed hostile to the President,' he said. The judge barred 21 federal agencies from following Trump's order until the outcome of a trial in the unions' lawsuit. Those court proceedings have yet to be scheduled. The unions sued in April after Trump signed the order directing numerous agencies to end the union contracts, pointing to a provision of the federal civil service law that allows such exceptions for national security agencies. The White House at the time argued that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which allowed government workers to unionize, 'enables hostile Federal unions to obstruct agency management.' An Office of Personnel Management (OPM) memo directed agencies to terminate their collective bargaining agreement. Donato wrote that the executive branch's judgment on national security is 'entitled to deference and significant weight.' However, courts do not defer to its reading of the First Amendment, he wrote, even when national security interests 'are said to be at stake.' The unions lauded Donato's ruling. National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) President David Holway called the decision a 'resounding rejection of the Trump administration's authoritarian tactics,' while American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) President Lee Saunders called it 'justice for the federal workers who were unfairly retaliated against and had their freedom to collectively bargain ripped away for standing up to illegal executive actions.' 'President Trump revoked our members' union rights in retaliation for our advocacy on behalf of federal workers and the American people, and we are grateful that Judge Donato saw through his disingenuous 'national security' justification and has ordered the immediate restoration of their rights,' said AFGE National President Everett Kelley. Donato said a trial date would be set in a separate order.
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump admin from nixing union bargaining rights
A federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump's administration from nixing bargaining rights for thousands of federal workers through an executive order the commander-in-chief signed last month. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled that Trump's March 27 executive order is unlawful, handing a short-term win to the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents around 160,000 federal workers. 'An opinion explaining the court's reasoning will be issued within the next few days,' Friedman said in a Friday two-page order, granting a temporary injunction that blocks the order from being enforced. The order would limit several departments' workers from being able to unionize and would direct the government to stop doing any collective bargaining. When rolling out the order last month, the administration said the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 permits government employees to unionize, 'enables hostile Federal unions to obstruct agency management.' NTEU's president Doreen Greenwald welcomed the judge's ruling, writing that it is a win for federal workers, 'union rights and the American people they serve.' 'The preliminary injunction granted at NTEU's request means the collective bargaining rights of federal employees will remain intact and the administration's illegal agenda to sideline the voices of federal employees and dismantle unions is blocked,' Greenwald said in a statement on Friday. 'NTEU will continue to use every tool available to protect federal employees and the valuable services they provide from these hostile attacks on their jobs, their agencies and their legally protected rights to organize,' the union's president added. Trump and the administration have argued that the executive order is necessary to shore up national security, while the union has said that some of the departments mentioned in the directive and their employees do not do any national security work. 'The OPM Guidance on the Executive Order shows that a significant motivation for the President's mass exclusion of agencies from the Statute's coverage is to make their employees easier to fire,' the union's attorneys previously said in court filings. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
27-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Judge blocks Trump admin from nixing union bargaining rights
A federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump's administration from nixing bargaining rights for thousands of federal workers through an executive order the commander-in-chief signed last month. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled that Trump's March 27 executive order is unlawful, handing a short-term win to the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents around 160,000 federal workers. 'An opinion explaining the court's reasoning will be issued within the next few days,' Friedman said in a Friday two-page order, granting a temporary injunction that blocks the order from being enforced. The order would limit several departments' workers from being able to unionize and would direct the government to stop doing any collective bargaining. When rolling out the order last month, the administration said the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 permits government employees to unionize, 'enables hostile Federal unions to obstruct agency management.' NTEU's president Doreen Greenwald welcomed the judge's ruling, writing that it is a win for federal workers, 'union rights and the American people they serve.' 'The preliminary injunction granted at NTEU's request means the collective bargaining rights of federal employees will remain intact and the administration's illegal agenda to sideline the voices of federal employees and dismantle unions is blocked,' Greenwald said in a statement on Friday. 'NTEU will continue to use every tool available to protect federal employees and the valuable services they provide from these hostile attacks on their jobs, their agencies and their legally protected rights to organize,' the union's president added. Trump and the administration have argued that the executive order is necessary to shore up national security, while the union has said that some of the departments mentioned in the directive and their employees do not do any national security work. 'The OPM Guidance on the Executive Order shows that a significant motivation for the President's mass exclusion of agencies from the Statute's coverage is to make their employees easier to fire,' the union's attorneys previously said in court filings.
The Hill
09-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's stance on unions is what Roosevelt wanted all along
Franklin Delano Roosevelt — the architect of modern labor law and workers' rights — wrote in 1937 that collective bargaining does not belong in the public sector. President Trump's executive order ending collective bargaining across national security agencies represents a return to Roosevelt's sensible approach. The order leverages authority granted by Congress through the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to ensure critical government functions aren't hamstrung by union obstruction. The urgency of this action becomes clear when examining recent history. According to the White House, since January, the Department of Veterans Affairs alone has faced 70 national and local grievances from unions, more than one per day. What's more, when the Veterans Administration attempted to implement congressionally mandated accountability reforms, unions tried to force the reinstatement of 4,000 employees, many of whom were removed for poor performance or misconduct. In what alternate universe can private organizations invalidate legislation passed by elected representatives? Similar stories play out across the federal landscape. According to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials cannot modify cybersecurity policies without first completing time-consuming midterm bargaining with unions. When vital agencies can't adapt to emerging threats without union permission, national security is at risk. Critics will argue the executive order's definition of national security is too expansive. Unfortunately, modern threats don't fit neatly into Cold War categories. Energy security, cybersecurity, pandemic preparedness and economic defense all represent critical vulnerabilities adversaries can exploit. The integrated nature of these threats requires a holistic understanding of national security extending well beyond traditional military concerns. To be sure, union supporters raise legitimate concerns that deserve serious consideration. Federal workers deserve protection from partisan purges, workplace discrimination and retaliation for whistleblowing. They're also entitled to reasonable compensation and safe working conditions. These are values most Americans share, regardless of political affiliation. But collective bargaining isn't necessary to secure these protections. Civil service safeguards predate unionization and will remain intact under Trump's order. Merit principles, anti-discrimination laws and whistleblower statutes continue to shield workers from abuse. All that changes is the union's power to dictate operational decisions that elected leadership should control. America needs a new framework that protects workers without undermining accountability. Some state reforms offer promising models, requiring annual recertification elections for unions, ensuring they maintain worker support. Other states have ended automatic dues deduction while strengthening civil service protections, effectively uncoupling worker rights from union power. In the months before President Joe Biden left office, his administration renegotiated the collective bargaining agreements of federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency. This move highlights the core problem: When unelected organizations can systematically obstruct policies established by elected leadership, the government becomes less responsive to voters' needs. Trump's executive order, even with its limitations, addresses a longstanding problem in federal governance. The question isn't whether you support unions or management, but whether you believe the government should prioritize serving citizens over protecting entrenched union interests, regardless of which party controls the White House. Our government's effectiveness depends on resolving this tension. We need a federal workforce that combines strong protections for individual employees with the flexibility agencies need to fulfill their missions. Only then can we achieve what both parties claim to want — a government that works for all Americans.
