Latest news with #CivilServiceReformAct
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's pick for a key watchdog role is irresponsibly unqualified for the job
Picking Paul Ingrassia to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is not like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. It's more like setting fire to the whole farm. On Thursday, President Donald Trump nominated the former far-right podcast host to lead the important albeit little-known federal agency office. OSC is not to be confused with the special counsel position recently occupied by Jack Smith, who was appointed under federal regulations by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump for alleged violations of criminal law. Instead, OSC is an independent agency created by Congress as part of the Civil Service Reform Act in the wake of the Watergate scandal. The office protects whistleblowers and other federal workers from unlawful employment practices. OSC also enforces the Hatch Act, the law that bars political activity in the federal workplace. The nature of the work demands an experienced investigator who is scrupulously apolitical. Ingrassia is anything but. The 30-year-old Ingrassia has been a lawyer for only three years. He previously worked at the Claremont Institute, the same far-right think tank that brought us John Eastman, a key alleged architect of the 2020 election's fake elector scheme. According to its website, Claremont is currently 'working to undermine the Left's hold over America's institutions and conscience.' Ingrassia doesn't have the legal experience for the role. But he has something more important, at least for this administration. Early in Trump's second term, Ingrassia served as the president's liaison to the Justice Department, where he referred to himself as Trump's 'eyes and ears,' according to NBC News. He was reassigned to the Department of Homeland Security after he reportedly clashed with DOJ officials by pushing to hire candidates with 'exceptional loyalty' to Trump, reports ABC News. His views on the Jan. 6 riot are extreme, even by MAGA standards. In December, Ingrassia called for not only pardons of the Jan. 6 defendants, but also for $1 million per family in reparations. He advocated for Trump to 'expressly name, in a public proclamation, any judge and prosecutor involved in the J6 scam — and call on them to resign from their offices, and pressure Congress to undertake impeachment proceedings against them if they do not cooperate.' Ingrassia also urged Congress to make Jan. 6 a national holiday to place 'the day's events in their proper historical context: as a peaceful protest against a great injustice affecting our electoral system.' Ingrassia has referred to former Vice President Mike Pence as a traitor who belongs in 'the ninth circle of hell.' Of course, all private citizens are entitled to express their opinions, but someone who is either as delusional or sycophantic as Ingrassia is, in my opinion, simply unfit to lead an agency that is tasked with enforcing nonpartisanship. In February, Trump fired the prior head of OSC, Hampton Dellinger, a Joe Biden appointee who was only one year into a five-year term set by Congress. Dellinger challenged his removal, alleging it violated a federal law that prohibits termination except for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' A court had found Dellinger's dismissal unlawful, but Dellinger dropped his lawsuit when an appeals court declined to reinstate him. Trump's move to effectively neuter OSC may be in response to the agency's oversight during his first term, when investigators found that 13 senior administration officials violated the Hatch Act by campaigning while conducting official government business. A loyalist at the helm of the agency could help Trump avoid similar findings. What's more, without an independent watchdog in charge, whistleblowers may be reluctant to come forward with complaints of fraud, waste and abuse at federal agencies. Federal employees will also lose their advocate in cases of prohibited personnel practices, such as discrimination, coercing political activity or violations of our merit system in the civil service. This move threatens the integrity and efficiency of our civil service. The selection of Ingrassia to lead OSC rivals the nomination of Ed Martin as U.S. attorney in Washington. Trump ultimately withdrew Martin's nomination after he failed to earn support from key Republican senators. Martin now leads the Justice Department's 'Weaponization Working Group' and serves as Trump's pardon attorney, where he has already processed two dozen pardons that include corrupt public officials, business executives and Trump supporters. Last week, Martin posted on social media, 'No MAGA left behind.' Like the U.S. attorney position, the head of the Office of Special Counsel must be confirmed by the Senate. For the sake of our federal workforce and the important work they do for our country, let's hope this nomination meets the same fate as Martin's. This article was originally published on
Forbes
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
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.
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal employees union sues over Trump move to block collective bargaining
A federal employee union has sued to block a Trump administration order that would strip bargaining rights at 18 departments, arguing the president abused a limited national security authority to attack unions. President Trump last week signed an order that directed agencies to terminate already-signed collective bargaining agreements and to 'cease participating in grievance procedures.' The Civil Service Reform Act that gives federal employees the right to unionize does have exceptions for national security, but in its suit the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) argues Trump went beyond authority that allows its use if an agency 'primarily does intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.' 'The President's sweeping Executive Order is inconsistent with this narrow authority. The Administration's own issuances show that the President's exclusions are not based on national security concerns, but instead a policy objective of making federal employees easier to fire and political animus against federal sector unions,' NTEU wrote in its suit. While the order targets agencies it says have a national security mission, many of the departments don't have a strict national security connection. In addition to agencies with clear national security ties, the order also covers the Treasury Department, all agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the General Services Administration and many more. NTEU said that the statute may only be used 'in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.' The suit, filed in Washington, D.C., comes as the Trump administration took the unusual move of filing its own legal action in Texas last week, making the first move in litigation by asking a judge to declare as legal its plans to terminate the contracts. That suit was filed in a single-judge district in Texas, possibly setting the stage for a square-off in the Supreme Court. The NTEU suit goes through each of the offices and agencies represented by the suit, which ranges from the IRS to the Bureau of Land Management, writing that they do 'not primarily perform security, investigative, or intelligence work.' The suit argues that the order, a White House fact sheet, and an accompanying memo from the Office of Personnel Management all reference broader plans to fire federal employees. 'The OPM Guidance on the Executive Order shows that the President's primary motivation for the mass exclusion of agencies from the Statute's coverage is to make their employees easier to fire,' it states. 'The same White House Fact Sheet reveals the secondary motivation for the Executive Order: political retribution. In justifying the Executive Order, the Fact Sheet states that '[c]ertain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda.'' The fact sheet said that current law 'enables hostile Federal unions to obstruct agency management.' NTEU wrote, 'Neither facilitating employee firings nor political retribution is an appropriate basis for invoking Section 7103(b)(1)'s national security exemption.' 'These are nonetheless the President's declared bases for excluding about two-thirds of the federal workforce from the Statute through this narrow exemption.' Updated: 2:34 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
31-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Federal employees union sues over Trump move to block collective bargaining
A federal employee union has sued to block a Trump administration order that would strip bargaining rights at 18 departments, arguing the president abused a limited national security authority to attack unions. President Trump last week signed an order that directed agencies to terminate already-signed collective bargaining agreements and to 'cease participating in grievance procedures.' The Civil Service Reform Act that gives federal employees the right to unionize does have exceptions for national security, but in its suit the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) argues Trump went beyond authority that allows its use if an agency 'primarily does intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.' 'The President's sweeping Executive Order is inconsistent with this narrow authority. The Administration's own issuances show that the President's exclusions are not based on national security concerns, but instead a policy objective of making federal employees easier to fire and political animus against federal sector unions,' NTEU wrote in its suit. While the order targets agencies it says have a national security mission, many of the departments don't have a strict national security connection. In addition to agencies with clear national security ties, the order also covers the Treasury Department, all agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the General Services Administration and many more. NTEU said that the statute may only be used 'in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.'
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump claims the right to ban 700k federal workers from having union representation
President Donald Trump eliminated legal rights to collective bargaining from hundreds of thousands of federal workers in a late Thursday night edict, marking the greatest setback for unionized federal workers so far in his second term. The White House says the executive order comes as 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda,' singling out labor organizations' legal fights against the Department of Government Efficiency's potentially illegal mass firings. It relies on a 'national security' exemption in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, a law meant to protect workers' rights to organize. The president fired members of the National Labor Relations Board to deny a quorum and prevent any nationwide labor enforcement earlier this year, ended the TSA's collective bargaining power and said he would break a strike by firing union workers on the campaign trail. But the Thursday decree is the single biggest union-busting order in American history. 'Roughly 700,000 union workers' at the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and more are targetted by the order, Eric Blanc, a professor of labor studies at Rutgers University, said in a post on Bluesky. The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal government labor union, condemned the move and promised to fight the administration's 'threat to unions and working people' in a Thursday statement. 'These threats will not work. Americans will not be intimidated or silenced. AFGE isn't going anywhere,' AFGE President Everett Kelley said. 'AFGE is preparing immediate legal action and will fight relentlessly to protect our rights, our members, and all working Americans from these unprecedented attacks.' The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, another massive labor union representing federal workers, called the attempt illegal in its own statement. 'This attack is meant to silence [federal workers'] voices, so Elon Musk and his minions can shred the services that working people depend on the federal government to do,' AFSCME President Lee Saunders said in the statement. 'The billionaires running this administration have proven that they are willing to bulldoze anything that stands in their way to enact their anti-worker, extremist agenda.'
