Federal And State Lawmakers Aim To End Union Misuse Of Taxpayer Funds
Texas Capitol in downtown Austin
U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Ben Cline (R-Va.) reintroduced legislation Monday, April 7, that would bar federal government workers from engaging in the practice of 'official time.' 'Official time,' explains a release put out by Senator Lee's office, 'is paid time off for federal employees to engage in union-related work, bargain unit employees, and engage in activities that advance the cause of a union in lieu of actually working.'
'Official time' didn't exist until 1978, when passage of the Civil Service Reform Act created it. This practice, notes Lee's release, 'allows federal employees to use work hours for union-related activities and to deal with cases before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).' Senator Lee's release contends that American taxpayers 'should not be obligated to pay federal employees to engage in union activities,' added the release from Lee's office, which references official estimates for the taxpayer cost of official time:
'In 2016, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reported that federal employees spent 3.6 million hours performing union-related business at a cost of $177.2 million,' Senator Lee's release noted. 'Under the Trump Administration, the amount of hours used on official time fell to 2.6 million hours, at a cost of $134.9 million. Today, however, there is no unified reporting requirement for agencies' whose employees use official time. As a result, 2019 is the last year of available data on the use of official time. Because federal law provides so few guard rails on the use of official time, federal employees are routinely able to abuse the process and to engage in overtly political activities during work hours, or fail to do their job at all.'
Union officials and other proponents of 'official time' for government employees describe it as an important worker protection. Testifying before the U.S. House Oversight subcommittee hearing, Darrell West, vice president at the Brookings Institute, claimed that prohibiting 'official time' for federal workers 'would weaken labor-management relations in the federal government, reduce the ability of government employees to air their concerns with management, and undermine agency performance.'
'Like every other American, it is important that federal employees have the right to express their viewpoints and petition government for a redress of grievances,' West added. What 'official time' proponents present as a vital worker safeguard, critics view as an expensive entitlement unknown to most Americans. While the vast majority of private sector workers are not members of a union, the small share of private sector workers who are unionized (5.9% of all private sector employees according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) do not have a statutory right to 'official time' privileges like federal employees.
The reintroduction of Senator Lee's bill to end 'official time' follows the Trump administration's decisions to send a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to all federal departments and agencies on February 27, informing them that when it comes to 'official time' they need to 'monitor its use to see that it is used efficiently.' What's more, that OPM memo also ordered departments and agencies to resume submission of annual reports to OPM on 'official time' authorization.
OPM had previously published annual reports on the use of official time until the Biden administration suspended it in 2021. According to estimates from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, there are '700 workers in the federal government who never worked for taxpayers thanks to official time.'
'The Biden administration, which was aggressively pro-union, announced in March 2023 that the number of federal employees in unions had grown by 20% under its watch,' CEI added. 'The amount of official time used almost certainly increased with this growth in the workforce.'
While Senator Lee and Representative Cline make the case for their bill, the No Union Time on the Taxpayer's Dime Act, state lawmakers are also pursuing reforms that seek to end union misuse of taxpayer resources. In Texas, for example, members of the state House and Senate have filed legislation that would prohibit state payroll systems from being used to automatically deduct union dues.
'Banning state subsidiaries from the collection of union dues is long overdue legislation,' said Representative Carl Tepper (R-Lubbock), who filed 'paycheck protection' legislation in the House. Senator Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound) filed the Senate version.
'Our state and local governments should not be in the business of making payroll deductions on behalf of unions; especially when those unions so often advocate against the interests of the public,' Tepper added. 'I look forward to working with Senator Tan Parker to make this bill law.'
'It's time for Texas to stop acting as a debt collector for radical left-wing government unions,' said Freedom Foundation CEO Aaron Withe. 'For too long, taxpayers have been forced to finance the collection of union dues, often without their consent,' Withe added, noting that his organization 'proudly supports this legislation, which will help protect taxpayer dollars and restore the proper role of government.'
The 'paycheck protection' legislation filed by Senator Parker and Representative Tepper isn't the only reform now pending in the Texas Legislature that seeks to end what many view as an improper use of taxpayer dollars. That goal is also the impetus behind Senate Bill 19, legislation that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for contract lobbyists.
'In 2023, local governments spent as much as $98.6 million to hire contract lobbyists—an increase from $75 million in 2021,' explains James Quintero and John Bonura at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). TPPF points out other strong arguments in favor of SB 19, noting that local governments across the state that hire contract lobbyists with taxpayer resources 'oftentimes do so for the purpose of securing higher taxes, more spending, and greater regulatory authority.'
SB 19, introduced by Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), passed out of the Texas Senate in March and is now awaiting consideration in the Texas House. Though this same proposal has passed out of the Senate in previous sessions only to die in the Texas House, a different fate is expected this year. That's because Middleton's reform has the backing of Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock).
'This practice involves government lobbying government for more government, and according to a recent poll, eight in ten Texans oppose using tax dollars to hire lobbyists,' Senator Middleton said in a recent interview, adding that before adjourning this session, he and his colleagues in the Texas Legislature 'must once and for all prohibit local governments from using our tax dollars to support higher taxes, more spending, and greater government control in our lives.'
Senator Lee and Senator Middleton are proposing different reforms at different levels of government. Yet both Lee and Middleton are seeking end what they see as not only a misallocation of taxpayer dollars, but the use of taxpayer resources to advocate against taxpayer interests.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
36 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What it would take to convert a jet from Qatar into Air Force One to safely fly Trump
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump really wants to fly on an upgraded Air Force One — but making that happen could depend on whether he's willing to cut corners with security. As government lawyers sort out the legal arrangement for accepting a luxury jet from the Qatari royal family, another crucial conversation is unfolding about modifying the plane so it's safe for the American president. Installing capabilities equivalent to the decades-old 747s now used as Air Force One would almost certainly consign the project to a similar fate as Boeing's replacement initiative, which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns . Air Force Secretary Troy Meink told lawmakers Thursday that those security modifications would cost less than $400 million but provided no details. Satisfying Trump's desire to use the new plane before the end of his term could require leaving out some of those precautions, however. A White House official said Trump wants the Qatari jet ready as soon as possible while adhering to security standards. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not provide details on equipment issues or the timeline. Trump has survived two assassination attempts , and Iran allegedly also plotted to kill him, so he's well aware of the danger he faces. However, he seems willing to take some chances with security, particularly when it comes to communications. For example, he likes to keep his personal phone handy despite the threat of hacks. He boasted this week that the government got the jet 'for free,' saying, 'We need it as Air Force One until the other ones are done.' Here's a look at what it would take to make the Qatari plane into a presidential transport: What makes a plane worthy of being Air Force One? Air Force One is the call sign for any plane that's carrying the president. The first aircraft to get the designation was a propeller-powered C-54 Skymaster, which ferried Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference in 1945. It featured a conference room with a bulletproof window. Things are a lot more complicated these days. Boeing has spent years stripping down and rebuilding two 747s to replace the versions that have carried presidents for more than three decades. The project is slated to cost more than $5.3 billion and may not be finished before Trump leaves office. A 2021 report made public through the Freedom of Information Act outlines the unclassified requirements for the replacement 747s under construction. At the top of the list — survivability and communications. The government decided more than a decade ago that the new planes had to have four engines so they could remain airborne if one or two fail, said Deborah Lee James, who was Air Force secretary at the time. That creates a challenge because 747s are no longer manufactured, which could make spare parts harder to come by. Air Force One also has to have the highest level of classified communications, anti-jamming capabilities and external protections against foreign surveillance, so the president can securely command military forces and nuclear weapons during a national emergency. It's an extremely sensitive and complex system, including video, voice and data transmissions. James said there are anti-missile measures and shielding against radiation or an electromagnetic pulse that could be caused by a nuclear blast. 'The point is, it remains in flight no matter what,' she said. Will Trump want all the security bells and whistles? If the Qatari plane is retrofitted to presidential standards, it could cost $1.5 billion and take years, according to a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details that aren't publicly available. Testifying before Congress this week, Meink discounted such estimates, arguing that some of the costs associated with retrofitting the Qatari plane would have been spent anyway as the Air Force moves to build the long-delayed new presidential planes, including buying aircraft for training and to have spares available if needed. In response, Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said that based on the contract costs for the planes that the Air Force is building, it would cost about $1 billion to strip down the Qatar plane, install encrypted communications, harden its defenses and make other required upgrades. James said simply redoing the wiring means 'you'd have to break that whole thing wide open and almost start from scratch.' Trump, as commander in chief, could waive some of these requirements. He could decide to skip shielding systems from an electromagnetic pulse, leaving his communications more vulnerable in case of a disaster but shaving time off the project. After all, Boeing has already scaled back its original plans for the new 747s. Their range was trimmed by 1,200 nautical miles, and the ability to refuel while airborne was scrapped. Paul Eckloff, a former leader of protection details at the Secret Service, expects the president would get the final say. 'The Secret Service's job is to plan for and mitigate risk,' he said. 'It can never eliminate it.' If Trump does waive some requirements, James said that should be kept under wraps because 'you don't want to advertise to your potential adversaries what the vulnerabilities of this new aircraft might be.' It's unlikely that Trump will want to skimp on the plane's appearance. He keeps a model of a new Air Force One in the Oval Office, complete with a darker color scheme that echoes his personal jet instead of the light blue design that's been used for decades. What happens next? Trump toured the Qatari plane in February when it was parked at an airport near Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort. Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Allvin was there, too. The U.S. official said the jet needs maintenance but not more than what would be expected of a four-engine plane of its complexity. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it would be irresponsible to put the president and national security equipment aboard the Qatari plane 'without knowing that the aircraft is fully capable of withstanding a nuclear attack.' 'It's a waste of taxpayer dollars,' she said. Meanwhile, Boeing's project has been hampered by stress corrosion cracks on the planes and excessive noise in the cabins from the decompression system, among other issues that have delayed delivery, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last year. Boeing referred questions to the Air Force, which said in a statement that it's working with the aircraft manufacturer to find ways to accelerate the delivery of at least one of the 747s. Even so, the aircraft will have to be tested and flown in real-world conditions to ensure no other issues. James said it remains to be seen how Trump would handle any of those challenges. 'The normal course of business would say there could be delays in certifications,' she said. 'But things seem to get waived these days when the president wants it.' ___ AP writer Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Musk has money, but Trump has power
Elon Musk might have hundreds of billions of dollars and a social media megaphone, but President Trump's power over the levers of government may put Musk's business empire at much more immediate risk. The big picture: Virtually everything Musk does has huge regulatory exposure, from cars to spaceflight to neural implants. In a government where norms are already out the window, it would take relatively little for Trump to bring the weight of regulatory burden to bear on Musk's enterprise. What they're saying: " You just have to understand that if you own Tesla, it will be difficult to sleep at night as investors can scrutinize it from a fundamental standpoint, but also a headline standpoint," said David Wagner, head of equities and portfolio manager at Aptus Capital Advisors, in a commentary Friday. Zoom out: Trump, thus far, as has played the whole thing relatively cool, saying he doesn't really care if Elon turns on him. But he's also operating from a position of strength, as he clearly knows — thus, the threat on Truth Social to cancel all of Musk's government contracts. When YouGov polled more than 3,800 Americans on that question Thursday, those with an opinion supported ending Musk's contracts by a 2-1 margin. Friday morning, Trump had no hesitation about telling many of Washington's top political reporters he didn't care to speak to Musk — even amid reports Musk very much wanted to speak with him. How it works: There's a laundry list of ways Trump could squeeze Musk: Terminating contracts for space launches, Starlink Internet access and the like. Ending support for electric vehicle purchases, and the charging infrastructure to power those cars. More regulatory oversight of everything from Tesla's self-driving algorithms to Neuralink's implants. Further housecleaning of the loyalists seeded throughout the government, like the move to withdraw the NASA nominee who was a key Musk ally. The ultimate lever: Security clearances, a favorite Trump tool, and a question that has lingered around Musk for years. What to watch: How Musk's public position evolves in the coming days, given how incendiary his comments were Thursday and how much Trump appreciates deference.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Newsom pushes back against potential federal cuts to California public universities
The Brief Sources told CNN that the Trump administration is targeting California universities over alleged antisemitism on campus. Newsom is threatening to withhold federal tax dollars if the cuts go through. PALO ALTO, Calif. - California Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing back amid reports that the Trump administration is considering cutting federal funding for the University of California and California State University systems. A White House spokesperson told CNN no final decision has been made. Still, Newsom is threatening to withhold federal tax dollars if the cuts go through. H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the governor, responded to the CNN report on Friday. "Let's have a serious discussion about how much California contributes to the national economy," said Palmer. Newsom also took to X, posting, "Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back. Maybe it's time to cut that off." In Palo Alto, community members responded to the potential federal cuts to universities during a rally in defense of science research and academic funding. "We want to preserve our democracy, our science, and our medicine," said Carol Peyser, an organizer of the "Stand Up for Science and Sanity" demonstration. Big picture view Next year's federal budget proposal includes cuts of 40% to the National Institutes of Health and 55% to the National Science Foundation. Peyser and others expressed concern that additional cuts could reverse decades of progress in scientific research and public health. "The attacks on the universities are really severe and not what we voted for. People did not vote for this," Peyser said. "It's absurd, and it's not just going to hurt California. We develop technology that goes all over the country and supports our economy." The Source Original KTVU reporting
