NASA spent almost $900K on taxpayer-funded union time last year
Originally, NASA reported an expense of $417,798 on union time, but now the space agency is updating that figure to $893,620 over the 12 months ending Sept. 30, The Post has learned.
'As has been the case with other federal agencies under the Biden administration, NASA bureaucrats were racking up an astronomical tab doing union time on the taxpayers' dime,' Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), whose office requested the data, told The Post.
'We need to end the absurd practice of taxpayer-funded union time across government to ensure that federal employees serve the American people, not themselves.'
3 NASA admitted that it initially undercounted its spending on union time.
Getty Images
3 Sen. Joni Ernst has been probing federal spending on union time.
Getty Images
NASA also spent more than previously known on union activities in 2023. Initially, the space agency reported spending $477,204 in fiscal year 2023, but now the agency is updating those figures to $636,189.
Meanwhile, its budget shrank from $25.4 billion in fiscal year 2023 to $24.88 billion in fiscal year 2024.
Taxpayer-funded union time includes labor meetings, union-sponsored training activities, preparations for collective bargaining, work on behalf of those facing disciplinary action and more.
Due to the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute, federal unions can't negotiate with Uncle Sam on pay or benefits, which are determined by legal and regulatory policy.
Instead, federal unions negotiate over smaller-scale issues such as workplace procedures and telework policies.
'They're left negotiating for tedious things that are of zero or negative benefit to taxpayers,' Rachel Greszler, a senior research fellow on workforce and public finance at the Heritage Foundation, previously explained to The Post.
'This includes things like the height of cubicle panels, securing designated smoking areas on otherwise smoke-free campuses, and the right to wear Spandex at work.'
3 NASA saw its budget shrink between 2023 and 2024, but taxpayer-funded union time shot up.
Christopher Sadowski
In 2023, there were 43 employees at NASA who logged in taxpayer-funded union time, with about 6,588.5 hours of union work done that year.
By 2024, that jumped to 49, with 8,780.25 union work done, according to the new data.
NASA is covered by two prominent federal unions — the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and the American Federation of Government Employees.
Ernst, who chairs the Senate DOGE Caucus, has been seeking to end the practice of taxpayer-funded union time and fired off a slew of requests to 24 government agencies demanding data.
NASA had been one of the first to respond.
In a statement to The Post, the agency said it always 'complies with federal law.'
'In keeping with precedent, NASA is committed to providing transparency to those conducting oversight in the legislative branch,' a spokesperson said.
'NASA complies with federal law, allowing employees to be granted official time to perform certain labor union representation activities.'
So far, of the agencies that have divulged data to Ernst's office, the largest expenditure on taxpayer-funded union time came from the Defense Health Agency, which spent $3.3 million on it in fiscal years 2023 and 2024.
DHA is tasked with overseeing TRICARE benefits for military members.
The Office of Personnel Management used to collect comprehensive data on taxpayer-funded union time, but stopped after 2019. In February, the Trump administration pushed agencies to report that data.
In 2019, OPM found that the entire federal government had spent at least $135 million on taxpayer-funded union time. NASA spent $641,037 in 2019, according to the OPM data.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
David Sacks' "Goldilocks" scenario
David Sacks — famed tech founder & investor, co-host of the "All-In Podcast" ("The Rainman") and now White House special adviser for AI & crypto — declared Saturday on X that "Doomer narratives were wrong" about AI. Why it matters: The big takeaway from Sacks' post is that the fear of one AI frontier model dominating all now looks far-fetched, since high-performing competing models are diffusing power. "The AI race is highly dynamic so this could change," Sacks wrote. "But right now the current situation is Goldilocks": "We have 5 major American companies vigorously competing on frontier models. This brings out the best in everyone and helps America win the AI race." "So far, we have avoided a monopolistic outcome that vests all power and control in a single entity." "There is likely to be a major role for open source. These models excel at providing 80-90% of the capability at 10-20% of the cost. This tradeoff will be highly attractive to customers who value customization, control, and cost over frontier capabilities. China has gone all-in on open source, so it would be good to see more American companies competing in this area, as OpenAI just did. (Meta also deserves credit.)" "There is likely to be a division of labor between generalized foundation models and specific verticalized applications. Instead of a single superintelligence capturing all the value, we are likely to see numerous agentic applications solving 'last mile' problems. This is great news for the startup ecosystem." "There is also an increasingly clear division of labor between humans and AI. Despite all the wondrous progress, AI models are still at zero in terms of setting their own objective function. Models need context, they must be heavily prompted, the output must be verified, and this process must be repeated iteratively to achieve meaningful business value. Reality check: Though there's plenty of competition, as Sacks notes, the administration has worked closely with OpenAI on the Stargate Project. And as Axios' Scott Rosenberg noted recently, the history of tech shows that early dominant players could still fall to a competitor not yet born: Google came along to dominate what seemed like a well-established search industry in the early dot-com era. The bottom line: The "current state of vigorous competition is healthy," Sacks concluded. "It propels innovation forward, helps America win the AI race, and avoids centralized control. This is good news — that the Doomers did not expect."
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Sean Duffy is doing his a great job at NASA, but it might not be enough
The naming of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim NASA administrator was as much of a surprise as was President Trump's withdrawal of his nomination of Jared Isaacman to the same post. So, how is Duffy doing, trying to bring the space agency out from its summer of discontent? Duffy has been spending a lot of his time boosting the Artemis program, designed to return astronauts to the moon and eventually send them to Mars. On the social media platform X, he posted that he 'spoke with the smart leaders of our mission directorates' and the consensus was 'America MUST dominate space and our critical moon mission, #ARTEMIS, must be as known & supported by America just as Apollo was!' He finished saying he was 'fired up and ready to launch.' Duffy repeated his advocacy of the Artemis program on the Fox News show Hannity. He noted that Artemis would proceed in three phases: a return to the moon, establishing a lunar base or outpost and crewed expeditions to Mars. Considering how well the Artemis program polls, Duffy is pursuing a sound political strategy. The trick is that the steps he laid out have to happen on a sensible schedule. Fortunately, Artemis II, the crewed trip around the moon, is slated to occur early in 2026. On the other hand, science journalist Robert Zimmerman gave Duffy the back of his hand for stating on Hannity that Artemis III, the next moon landing, is still a go for 2027. Considering the problems the SpaceX Starship has been having, few people believe that date is valid. However, SpaceX's Gwynne Shotwell has assured Duffy that it is. We'll see. According to Politico, Duffy has called for a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor to be deployed on the moon by 2030, to provide power for a lunar base. He has also called for the acceleration of commercial space stations that would replace the International Space Station when it ends its operational life. The new plan promises to be very disruptive. Duffy also had a meeting at the Kennedy Space Center with his Russian counterpart. Reuter's Joey Roulette said the meeting discussed ''cooperation on lunar programs' and 'joint exploration of deep space' as well as ISS cooperation,' according to Roscosmos. International Space Station cooperation is a natural topic of conversation between the head of NASA and the head of Roscosmos. The United States and Russia have been partners on the space station since early in the Clinton administration. The partnership exists in its own little universe, separate from the tensions between the two countries brought about by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Ars Technica reports that Bakanov brought up the possibility of using Russian hardware to deorbit the ISS in 2030. Clearly, he was attempting to take advantage of the feud between Trump and Elon Musk, whose SpaceX currently has the contract. Roscosmos would get a much-needed infusion of cash if it replaced SpaceX. However, the mention of cooperation on lunar programs and the joint exploration of deep space catches the eye. Russia has turned down participation in the Artemis program, preferring to be a partner on China's planned International Lunar Research Station. Russian participation in Artemis was likely dangled as an enticement for Putin to make peace in Ukraine on terms short of conquering the entire country. It would also serve as a way to separate Russia from China, something that has been a center of American foreign policy since the Nixon administration. Finally, Duffy has to deal with the NASA spending war that has developed between the Congress and the White House. A group of Democratic senators sent him a letter expressing their concerns not only about the planned cuts for the next fiscal year but plans to rescind some allocated money for the current fiscal year. They are also concerned about a planned buyout program that would cut 4,000 NASA civil servants. The Senate and House are concerned about NASA's plans to implement the spending plans in the 'big, beautiful bill.' They are demanding answers by Sept. 1. Duffy will need the diplomatic skills of a Henry Kissinger to reconcile the positions of the two branches over NASA funding. As able as he is, the situation cries out for a permanent NASA administrator, someone with the respect of both President Trump and the Congress. Otherwise, the chaos will just continue, hampering the space agency's ability to fulfill its mandate to explore space, for the betterment of the United States and all humankind. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond ' and, most recently, ' is America Going Back to the Moon ' He blogs at
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
80 years after Hiroshima, nuclear weapons haunt global politics
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, remains a pivotal and controversial event in modern history. Beyond its immediate impact on World War II, it ushered in the nuclear age, forever altering international relations and security. Eight decades later, the specter of nuclear weapons continues to haunt global politics: influencing conflicts, shaping alliances and raising profound ethical questions. Proponents argue the atomic attacks on Japan saved countless lives by averting a costly invasion. Critics point to devastating civilian casualties and long-term effects of radiation exposure, highlighting the bomb's inhumane nature. The use of atomic weapons established a precedent that continues to shape nuclear deterrence and proliferation, demonstrating the willingness of a major power to employ weapons of mass destruction. This raises concerns about potential similar actions in future conflicts, a danger visible in hot spots worldwide. 5 The atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, remains a pivotal and controversial event in modern history. AP The current nuclear rivalry between India and Pakistan is a dangerous manifestation of the Hiroshima legacy. These democratic states, bitter neighbors locked in a long-standing dispute over Kashmir and other territorial issues, have developed nuclear arsenals as a means of deterring aggression. The 'stability-instability paradox' suggests that nuclear weapons, intended to deter large-scale conflict, can embolden states to engage in lower-level provocations, believing that the threat of nuclear retaliation will prevent escalation. This dynamic is evident in ongoing tensions between the two nations, as cross-border attacks and accusations of supporting terrorism exacerbate the risk of miscalculation. In the latest skirmish, India unleashed Cruise missiles across the border into Pakistan. The international community has repeatedly urged both sides to engage in dialogue. However, progress has been slow, and the risk of escalation remains ever-present. North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons is another pressing challenge that underscores the enduring relevance of Hiroshima. Kim Jong Un has defied international sanctions and diplomatic efforts to develop a nuclear arsenal, viewing it as essential for its survival. 5 Eight decades after the Hiroshima bombing (above, in 1945), the specter of nuclear weapons continues to haunt global politics: influencing conflicts, shaping alliances and raising profound ethical questions. Getty Images The regime's nuclear ambitions are driven by a perception of vulnerability in the face of perceived threats from the US and its allies. There is a belief that nuclear weapons are the only way to deter a potential invasion or regime change operation as happened to Gadafi's Libya. North Korea's nuclear program has destabilized the region, prompting South Korea and Japan to consider their own nuclear options. The possibility of a nuclear arms race in East Asia is a major concern for policymakers and analysts around the world. Iran's nuclear program has been a source of international concern for many years. While Iran claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity and producing medical isotopes, Western powers and Israel suspect that it is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. 5 A scene of the aftermath of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Getty Images The US has repeatedly stated that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and Israel has hinted at the possibility of a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Further military attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities would have far-reaching consequences — triggering a wider conflict in the Middle East, drawing in other countries and destabilizing the region. Iran has threatened to retaliate against any attack by striking US forces and allies in the region. The Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane for oil exports, could be closed, disrupting the global economy. The humanitarian crisis would be severe, with potentially hundreds of thousands of casualties. 5 North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons under Kim Jon Un is another pressing challenge that underscores the enduring relevance of Hiroshima. Getty Images The concept of nuclear deterrence is based on the idea that the threat of retaliation will prevent a nuclear attack. However, deterrence can fail if a state miscalculates its adversary's intentions, if there is an accidental launch, or if a rogue leader decides to use nuclear weapons. The risk of nuclear proliferation remains a major concern; as more countries acquire nuclear weapons, the likelihood of a nuclear conflict increases. Arms control treaties, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote disarmament. However, these treaties are only effective if they are universally adhered to and if they are backed by strong enforcement mechanisms. The NPT has been weakened by the withdrawal of some countries and by the failure of others to fully comply with its provisions. The future of arms control is uncertain, as tensions between major powers rise and as new technologies, such as hypersonic missiles and cyber weapons, challenge traditional notions of deterrence. 5 Iain MacGregor's 'Hiroshima Men' is out now. The ethical implications of Hiroshima continue to be debated. Some argue that the use of atomic weapons was justified, while others argue that it was a crime against humanity. The moral questions raised are relevant to any discussion of nuclear weapons. Can the use of weapons of mass destruction ever be justified? What are the responsibilities of states that possess nuclear weapons? How can the world prevent another Hiroshima from happening? It is my belief that these questions will be answered, one way or the other, in my lifetime — if ever the world needed calm debate, intelligent foresight and pragmatic decision making, it is now. Iain MacGregor is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and the author of 'The Hiroshima Men: The Quest to Build the Atomic Bomb, and the Fateful Decision to Use It' (Scribner).
