Latest news with #FLRA
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.
Reuters
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
In about-face, US judge says unions can sue over Trump's mass firings
March 25 (Reuters) - A federal judge in San Francisco has changed his mind and ruled that unions representing federal workers can sue over the Trump administration's mass firings of recently hired government employees in court rather than challenging them before federal agencies. U.S. District Judge William Alsup in a written order, opens new tab late Monday said two federal labor boards have no particular expertise on whether the U.S. Office of Personnel Management violated the U.S. Constitution by directing agencies to fire roughly 25,000 probationary employees, the central issue in the lawsuit. Alsup on March 13 had already ordered six agencies to reinstate about 17,000 workers who had lost their jobs as part of President Donald Trump's broader purge of the federal workforce, pending further litigation. Nonprofit groups and the state of Washington had joined four unions in filing the lawsuit. The Trump administration on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block Alsup's order while it appeals. Alsup's decision on Monday breaks with three other federal judges who said in preliminary rulings last month that unions could not sue in court over the Trump administration's mass firings and other policies. The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, who sued along with two affiliates, did not immediately have comment. The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In Monday's order, Alsup said it could be futile for workers and unions to appeal firings to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Labor Relations Authority because of recent political upheaval at the agencies. "The government here pretends that the constitutional claims are ... intertwined with or embedded in matters on which the MSPB and the FLRA are expert," Alsup wrote. "But defendants point to no specific fact or issue in our circumstances." Alsup during a hearing in February had ruled that he likely lacked jurisdiction over claims by the unions, but not the other plaintiffs. He also ruled at the time that OPM did not have the power to direct agencies to fire workers. Probationary employees typically have less than a year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal workers, and they have fewer job protections than other government employees. OPM has said that it merely asked agencies to identify probationary workers who could be terminated and did not order any firings. Federal employees are generally required to appeal their individual terminations to the three-member MSPB, and unions can bring challenges to the FLRA when their members are fired. Alsup at the February hearing said that because the federal Civil Service Reform Act designated those agencies as the exclusive avenues for federal employees to challenge their firings, he likely could not hear claims by the unions. But after a closer look, the judge on Monday said the challenge to OPM's authority to order mass firings was distinct from the individual claims that must go through the administrative process. He also noted that Trump fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel, which can petition the merit board to block mass firings, and is attempting to remove Democratic members of the merit board and the FLRA. The Trump administration is appealing decisions that reinstated those officials. "The CSRA's review channels are being restrained," wrote Alsup, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton. Alsup scheduled a hearing for April 9 on "why the relief extended to the organizational plaintiffs (or more, or less) should not be extended to the public-sector union plaintiffs." The case is American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 25-cv-1780. For the plaintiffs: Danielle Leonard and Stacey Leyton of Altshuler Berzon For the government: Kelsey Helland of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US judges order Trump administration to reinstate thousands of fired workers Trump administration reinstating almost 25,000 fired workers after court order Trump takes challenge to judge's federal worker rehiring order to Supreme Court US judge halts Trump administration's calls for mass firings at agencies Trump poised to launch new round of layoffs despite setbacks in court US agencies face Thursday deadline to submit mass layoff plans
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge finds Trump unlawfully fired head of federal employee labor board
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Trump's firing of the head of a board that resolves disputes between federal employees and the government was unlawful. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan's ruling in favor of Susan Grundmann, the Democratic-appointed chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), is the latest to push back on Trump's efforts to consolidate control over independent agencies in an expanded view of presidential power. 'The Government's arguments paint with a broad brush and threaten to upend fundamental protections in our Constitution. But ours is not an autocracy; it is a system of checks and balances,' wrote Sooknanan. Federal law protects FLRA members like Grundmann from termination without cause. The White House did not purport to have cause when it fired Grundmann in a two-sentence email last month and instead, like it has in other cases, contended the removal protections are unconstitutional. Sooknanan rejected that argument under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, effectively reinstating Grundmann for the rest of her term unless an appeals court overturns the ruling. 'A straightforward reading of Supreme Court precedent thus resolves the merits of this case,' the judge, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote. Legal experts believe the case could ultimately be destined for the high court, which would have authority to overturn its own precedent. Some of the court's conservatives have signaled a willingness to do so. Wednesday's ruling comes after a separate district judge previously reinstated Gwynne Wilcox, the chair of the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees disputes between non-federal employees and their employers. Another judge similarly returned Merit Systems Protection Board Chair Cathy Harris to her post. The independent agency firing lawsuit that was the furthest along, a case brought by former U.S. special counsel Hampton Dellinger, abruptly ended after Dellinger dropped his legal challenge upon an appeals court greenlighting his termination. 'Another illegal action by the Trump administration has been struck down. This is an important win for the American people,' Norm Eisen, an attorney who represents Grundmann and has long fought Trump in court, said in a statement. Sooknanan's ruling also addressed a recent hearing in the case, when the Justice Department contended that the courts do not have the authority to enter injunctive relief reinstating Grundmann and is limited to awarding back pay. The judge had questioned whether the government's representation was that if she determined the president encroached on Congress's authority, she has no recourse. 'That is the government's position,' said Justice Department lawyer Alexander Resar. In her ruling, the judge emphasized the case was 'far from [a] mere claim of lost employment' and instead 'a case of constitutional significance.' 'A check in the mail does not address the gravamen of this lawsuit. Perhaps that is why Ms. Grundmann has not even asked for one,' Sooknanan wrote. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
13-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Judge finds Trump unlawfully fired head of federal employee labor board
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Trump's firing of the head of a board that resolves disputes between federal employees and the government was unlawful. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan's ruling in favor of Susan Grundmann, the Democratic-appointed chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), is the latest to push back on Trump's efforts to consolidate control over independent agencies in an expanded view of presidential power. 'The Government's arguments paint with a broad brush and threaten to upend fundamental protections in our Constitution. But ours is not an autocracy; it is a system of checks and balances,' wrote Sooknanan. Federal law protects FLRA members like Grundmann from termination without cause. The White House did not purport to have cause when it fired Grundmann in a two-sentence email last month and instead, like it has in other cases, contended the removal protections are unconstitutional. Sooknanan rejected that argument under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, effectively reinstating Grundmann for the rest of her term unless an appeals court overturns the ruling. 'A straightforward reading of Supreme Court precedent thus resolves the merits of this case,' the judge, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote. Legal experts believe the case could ultimately be destined for the high court, which would have authority to overturn its own precedent. Some of the court's conservatives have signaled a willingness to do so. Wednesday's ruling comes after a separate district judge previously reinstated Gwynne Wilcox, the chair of the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees disputes between non-federal employees and their employers. Another judge similarly returned Merit Systems Protection Board Chair Cathy Harris to her post. The independent agency firing lawsuit that was the furthest along, a case brought by former U.S. Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, abruptly ended after Dellinger dropped his legal challenge upon an appeals court greenlighting his termination. 'Another illegal action by the Trump administration has been struck down. This is an important win for the American people,' Norm Eisen, an attorney who represents Grundmann and has long fought Trump in court, said in a statement. Sooknanan's ruling also addressed the recent hearing in the case, when the Justice Department contended that the courts do not have the authority to enter injunctive relief reinstating Grundmann and is limited to awarding backpay. The judge had questioned whether the government's representation was that if she determined the president encroached on Congress's authority, she has no recourse. 'That is the government's position,' said DOJ lawyer Alexander Resar. In her ruling, the judge emphasized the case was 'far from mere claim of lost employment' and instead 'a case of constitutional significance.' 'A check in the mail does not address the gravamen of this lawsuit. Perhaps that is why Ms. Grundmann has not even asked for one,' Sooknanan wrote.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Judge says Trump cannot fire democratic member of federal labor board
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday said President Donald Trump lacked the power to remove a Democratic member from the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which hears disputes between government agencies and their employees' unions, and ordered that Susan Tsui Grundmann be reinstated to her post. The decision by U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in Washington, D.C. is a setback to Trump's bid to bring independent agencies like the FLRA under his control, and potentially to his efforts to drastically shrink the federal workforce. Sooknanan's decision reinstating Grundmann to the agency gives it a 2-1 Democratic majority until her term expires in July.
