Latest news with #CivilServiceReformActof1978
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court OKs Trump's mass firing of new federal workers, blocking S.F. judge's rehire order
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected challenges to the Trump administration's mass firing of new federal workers. By a 7-2 vote, the justices set aside a ruling by U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco, who ordered the administration to "immediately" rehire 16,000 probationary employees across six departments of the government. In a brief order, the high court said the judge improperly based his ruling on complaints from nine nonprofit groups who said they would be affected by the cutbacks in staffing. "But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations' standing," the court said. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have denied the administration's appeal. The decision is the third in the past week to overturn a judge's ruling at the behest of the Trump administration. Trump's lawyers argued that judges do not have the authority to second-guess the management of federal agencies. Read more: Supreme Court upholds Trump's war power to deport Venezuelan gang members "This Court should not allow a single district court to ... seize control over reviewing federal personnel decisions," then-acting Solicitor Gen. Sarah Harris said in her appeal. The mass layoffs ordered by the Trump administration have mostly gone unchallenged in the courts because of the civil service laws. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 gave federal employees the right to file complaints with administrative agencies inside the government. But the Supreme Court said that meant they may not sue directly before an independent federal judge. As a result, several lawsuits brought by employees unions were dismissed in February. But on March 13, Alsup ordered the government to "immediately" rehire 16,000 probation employees who were dismissed in February. He relied on a different theory. He said a group of nonprofits that represent veterans, farmers, outdoor advocates and others had standing to sue because the staff cutbacks would hurt them. And he said Trump's Office of Personnel Management violated the law by ordering the mass firing of probationary employees. His order told the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and the Treasury they must reinstate their fired employees. When the 9th Circuit Court refused to lift that order, Trump's lawyers filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court OKs Trump's mass firing of new federal workers, blocking S.F. judge's rehire order
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected challenges to the Trump administration's mass firing of new federal workers. By a 7-2 vote, the justices set aside a ruling by U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco, who ordered the administration to 'immediately' rehire 16,000 probationary employees across six departments of the government. In a brief order, the high court said the judge improperly based his ruling on complaints from nine nonprofit groups who said they would be affected by the cutbacks in staffing. 'But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations' standing,' the court said. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have denied the administration's appeal. The decision is the third in the past week to overturn a judge's ruling at the behest of the Trump administration. Trump's lawyers argued that judges do not have the authority to second-guess the management of federal agencies. 'This Court should not allow a single district court to ... seize control over reviewing federal personnel decisions,' then-acting Solicitor Gen. Sarah Harris said in her appeal. The mass layoffs ordered by the Trump administration have mostly gone unchallenged in the courts because of the civil service laws. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 gave federal employees the right to file complaints with administrative agencies inside the government. But the Supreme Court said that meant they may not sue directly before an independent federal judge. As a result, several lawsuits brought by employees unions were dismissed in February. But on March 13, Alsup ordered the government to 'immediately' rehire 16,000 probation employees who were dismissed in February. He relied on a different theory. He said a group of nonprofits that represent veterans, farmers, outdoor advocates and others had standing to sue because the staff cutbacks would hurt them. And he said Trump's Office of Personnel Management violated the law by ordering the mass firing of probationary employees. His order told the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and the Treasury they must reinstate their fired employees. When the 9th Circuit Court refused to lift that order, Trump's lawyers filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court.
