Latest news with #FederalLaborRelationsAuthority
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service
The House-passed budget reconciliation bill contains a troubling provision so dangerous and corrosive to the integrity of the federal government that it demands immediate scrutiny and swift rejection by the Senate. Buried in more than 1,000 pages of legislative text is Section 90002, a provision that strikes at the heart of the professional, nonpartisan civil service. It proposes a 9.4 percent salary surcharge on newly hired federal employees who wish to retain their civil service protections, ostensibly to pay for their retirement benefits. Those who cannot afford this effective tax on the rights that federal employees currently enjoy would be forced into permanent at-will employment. Although they would then qualify for a lower retirement deduction of 4.4 percent, as purely at-will employees they could be fired at any time, for any reason — or for no reason at all — with no legal recourse. This is not just bad policy — it is a direct attack on more than 140 years of bipartisan civil service tradition. Our professional civil service was born out of the rampant corruption of the 19th-century 'spoils system,' in which federal jobs were handed out as political favors by victorious candidates. That system came to a halt with the Pendleton Act of 1883, passed after President James Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office-seeker who believed he had been improperly denied a patronage job. The Pendleton Act established a competitive, merit-based hiring system and laid the foundation for the modern professional civil service that serves the nation — not the party in power. This commitment was reaffirmed and modernized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. That law improved efficiency and accountability and codified labor rights while protecting employees from arbitrary or politically motivated firings. It also created federal bodies — the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board — to safeguard merit principles and the integrity of public service. Now, with a single provision rolled out with little debate and no hearing record, the House reconciliation bill threatens to undo all this hard-won progress. If enacted, it would create a two-tier federal workforce: one class protected by civil service laws, and another completely vulnerable to the whims of political appointees. Worse still, the measure is designed to coerce new hires into giving up their rights for the rest of their careers. Faced with a 9.4 percent pay cut, most new federal employees — already earning salaries that are an estimated 25 percent lower than their private-sector counterparts — will feel they have no real choice. Many early-career workers live paycheck to paycheck; this surcharge would be an impossible burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of new hires would likely be driven into at-will status. Among the 800,000 federal workers I represent as president of the American Federation of Government Employees, few if any could afford to pay the surcharge. That inability to pay is one reason why the provision raises so little money — less than $500 million annually according to the CBO — or just 0.1 percent of the cost of the bill's accompanying tax cuts. Clearly, revenue is not the point. The point is to erode labor rights and weaken the civil service. This provision is also a political time bomb. If passed, it sets a precedent that could be exploited by any future administration. Imagine a newly inaugurated Democratic president firing every at-will federal employee hired during the previous Republican administration — no hearings, no cause, no appeal. If Republicans are willing to set this precedent, they must be prepared to live under it. But the real danger is institutional. How can federal scientists, doctors, safety inspectors or law enforcement officers operate with independence and integrity if they can be dismissed on a whim? These protections are what enable civil servants to speak truth to power — even when that truth is inconvenient. This proposal is also a direct attack on organized labor. Without civil service protections, unions are hamstrung in their ability to represent their members. Workers afraid of being summarily fired are unlikely to file grievances, assert their rights or even speak candidly in meetings. Only those who can afford the surcharge would retain access to effective representation. Section 90002 isn't just misguided — it's union-busting by design. Imagine the outcry if a Democratic Congress imposed a 5 percent income tax on corporations to preserve their rights to challenge unions under the National Labor Relations Act. Republicans would rightly decry this as the weaponization of tax policy. Yet that's precisely what this bill does to federal workers — using financial coercion to undermine their legal protections. The civil service exists to provide stability, expertise and continuity regardless of the party holding office. It is one of the bedrock institutions that has sustained American democracy through wars, crises and peaceful transitions of power. The Trump administration may not like the idea of a government that can resist political manipulation — but that is exactly what democracy requires. Section 90002 is not reform. It is sabotage. Congress must reject it and reaffirm its commitment to the principles that have guided our civil service since 1883. Our institutions — and the American people they serve — deserve no less. Dr. Everett B. Kelley is national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service
The House-passed budget reconciliation bill contains a troubling provision so dangerous and corrosive to the integrity of the federal government that it demands immediate scrutiny and swift rejection by the Senate. Buried in more than 1,000 pages of legislative text is Section 90002, a provision that strikes at the heart of the professional, nonpartisan civil service. It proposes a 9.4 percent salary surcharge on newly hired federal employees who wish to retain their civil service protections, ostensibly to pay for their retirement benefits. Those who cannot afford this effective tax on the rights that federal employees currently enjoy would be forced into permanent at-will employment. Although they would then qualify for a lower retirement deduction of 4.4 percent, as purely at-will employees they could be fired at any time, for any reason — or for no reason at all — with no legal recourse. This is not just bad policy — it is a direct attack on more than 140 years of bipartisan civil service tradition. Our professional civil service was born out of the rampant corruption of the 19th-century 'spoils system,' in which federal jobs were handed out as political favors by victorious candidates. That system came to a halt with the Pendleton Act of 1883, passed after President James Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office-seeker who believed he had been improperly denied a patronage job. The Pendleton Act established a competitive, merit-based hiring system and laid the foundation for the modern professional civil service that serves the nation — not the party in power. This commitment was reaffirmed and modernized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. That law improved efficiency and accountability and codified labor rights while protecting employees from arbitrary or politically motivated firings. It also created federal bodies — the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board — to safeguard merit principles and the integrity of public service. Now, with a single provision rolled out with little debate and no hearing record, the House reconciliation bill threatens to undo all this hard-won progress. If enacted, it would create a two-tier federal workforce: one class protected by civil service laws, and another completely vulnerable to the whims of political appointees. Worse still, the measure is designed to coerce new hires into giving up their rights for the rest of their careers. Faced with a 9.4 percent pay cut, most new federal employees — already earning salaries that are an estimated 25 percent lower than their private-sector counterparts — will feel they have no real choice. Many early-career workers live paycheck to paycheck; this surcharge would be an impossible burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of new hires would likely be driven into at-will status. Among the 800,000 federal workers I represent as president of the American Federation of Government Employees, few if any could afford to pay the surcharge. That inability to pay is one reason why the provision raises so little money — less than $500 million annually according to the CBO — or just 0.1 percent of the cost of the bill's accompanying tax cuts. Clearly, revenue is not the point. The point is to erode labor rights and weaken the civil service. This provision is also a political time bomb. If passed, it sets a precedent that could be exploited by any future administration. Imagine a newly inaugurated Democratic president firing every at-will federal employee hired during the previous Republican administration — no hearings, no cause, no appeal. If Republicans are willing to set this precedent, they must be prepared to live under it. But the real danger is institutional. How can federal scientists, doctors, safety inspectors or law enforcement officers operate with independence and integrity if they can be dismissed on a whim? These protections are what enable civil servants to speak truth to power — even when that truth is inconvenient. This proposal is also a direct attack on organized labor. Without civil service protections, unions are hamstrung in their ability to represent their members. Workers afraid of being summarily fired are unlikely to file grievances, assert their rights or even speak candidly in meetings. Only those who can afford the surcharge would retain access to effective representation. Section 90002 isn't just misguided — it's union-busting by design. Imagine the outcry if a Democratic Congress imposed a 5 percent income tax on corporations to preserve their rights to challenge unions under the National Labor Relations Act. Republicans would rightly decry this as the weaponization of tax policy. Yet that's precisely what this bill does to federal workers — using financial coercion to undermine their legal protections. The civil service exists to provide stability, expertise and continuity regardless of the party holding office. It is one of the bedrock institutions that has sustained American democracy through wars, crises and peaceful transitions of power. The Trump administration may not like the idea of a government that can resist political manipulation — but that is exactly what democracy requires. Section 90002 is not reform. It is sabotage. Congress must reject it and reaffirm its commitment to the principles that have guided our civil service since 1883. Our institutions — and the American people they serve — deserve no less. Dr. Everett B. Kelley is national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.
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
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sen. Mike Lee spearheads efforts to block government workers from union activities while on the clock
WASHINGTON — Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is leading efforts in the Senate to ban government workers from engaging in union duties while on the clock, arguing the proposal is crucial to ensure taxpayer dollars are not used for partisan activities. Lee introduced the No Union Time on the Taxpayer's Dime Act on Monday, seeking to prohibit public sector union-related activities such as organizing or handling cases related to the Federal Labor Relations Authority while on official time. The bill comes as President Donald Trump is looking to rein in some government union activities, such as collective bargaining rights. 'President Trump is taking strong steps to rein in overpowered public sector unions, which even Democrat leaders like FDR thought shouldn't exist in the first place,' Lee said in a statement. 'American taxpayers shouldn't have to fund union organizing, and federal employees should be working full time for the American people when they're on the clock.' Under current law, union employees can engage in representational activities such as promotional procedures, establishing flexible work hours, representing members in disciplinary actions, and more, according to the American Federation of Government Employees. However, union representatives are not permitted to use official time to conduct union-specific business. Those activities, including membership solicitation and elections of labor organization officials, can be done only when the employee is 'in a non-duty status.' Still, Lee and groups that have endorsed his proposal say there are certain activities that union members can engage in while on official time that are a waste of taxpayer resources. Those duties include lobbying Congress on legislation related to unions and handling union representation functions while being paid by federal agencies. 'Federal government unions are heavily involved in party politics,' National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix said in a statement. 'They stage massive political protests, and contribute large amounts of money and manpower to influence elections. Employees of these unions should not have their salaries paid by American taxpayers.' Lee cited a 2016 report by the Office of Personnel Management that showed federal employees spent 3.6 million hours on union-related businesses, costing taxpayers more than $177 million. That number dropped to 2.6 million hours, costing $134.9 million, during the first Trump administration, according to Lee. However, data has not been collected since 2019 due to a lack of requirements, making it unclear how much time and money has been spent on union activities in recent years. A similar bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va. It's not yet clear when either bill may be scheduled for a vote. 'Taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for federal employees to conduct union business instead of fulfilling their official duties,' Cline said in a statement. 'Ending 'official time' is a commonsense step to ensure taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and to increase accountability across the federal workforce. Public funds should serve the American people, not private union interests.'
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.
