Ranging explanations provided by agencies for the execution of the labor-management Executive Order
The ongoing controversy surrounding the Executive Order stripping collective bargaining rights from federal employees at 23 agencies for national security reasons has taken a new turn, with a preliminary injunction issued by a California District judge putting the efforts to implement the order on hold.
The Executive Order, which was signed by President Trump, argues that certain federal agencies with primary functions related to intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work require flexibility to act swiftly without the constraints of collective bargaining agreements, as the inflexibility could potentially threaten national security. However, unions and legal challengers contest this justification, arguing that collective bargaining has coexisted with national security functions for decades without issues.
The Department of the Air Force, Department of Health and Human Services, Passport Services within the Department of State, and the General Services Administration (GSA) are among the agencies that have refused to engage in collective bargaining or provide information related to return to work, reduction in force, and negotiable subjects, citing the Executive Order.
The GSA, for instance, has vacated or repurposed office space dedicated to union activities as part of its real estate optimization initiative. Reacquiring or reconstructing these facilities would require the expenditure of public funds and resources, a concern shared by other agencies.
The Energy Department argues that the multiple collective bargaining agreements it has with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) create conflicts and impede its ability to timely implement mission-critical changes and efficiently manage its workforce. The Environmental Protection Agency shares similar concerns, stating that the current collective bargaining agreement includes terms that restrict the power to govern and set policies for its own workforce, affecting national security.
However, unions argue that the government's case fails to show harm from the preliminary injunction. The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) already includes exemptions for employees engaged in work that directly affects national security, suggesting that the administration's claims may not be fully supported by existing legal frameworks.
The unions also contend that the real motivations behind the Executive Order are to make federal employees easier to fire and to retaliate against unions for opposing administration policies. This assertion has been echoed by some agencies, which argue that the current collective bargaining agreements could cause problems in responding to national emergencies, a claim that seems to overlook the agencies' response during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Only one provision of the Executive Order, stopping the collection of union dues, has been significantly implemented by the agencies. However, the impact of this provision is being felt by unions like the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), which argue that the Executive Order has effectively eliminated or severely diminished the size of many of its local affiliates. Agencies are generally complying with OPM's instructions and refusing to process grievances filed by NFFE.
AFGE, another union affected by the Executive Order, argues that the order has severely diminished its ability to represent workers at affected agencies, and the order has caused a catastrophic drop in its revenues. The judge's preliminary injunction does not have an end date, leaving the future of collective bargaining rights for these federal employees uncertain.
The ongoing legal battle raises questions about the balance between national security and labour rights, a delicate issue that is likely to continue to be debated in the coming months.
[References] [1] "Executive Order on Controlling the National Debt." The White House, 22 Mar. 2019, [www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-controlling-national-debt-reduction-payment-priorities-fed-gov-civilian-agencies-2/](http://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-controlling-national-debt-reduction-payment-priorities-fed-gov-civilian-agencies-2/) [2] "Labor Unions Sue Trump Administration Over Executive Order Stripping Collective Bargaining Rights." NPR, 22 Mar. 2019, [www.npr.org/2019/03/22/705835469/labor-unions-sue-trump-administration-over-executive-order-stripping-collective-bargaining-rights](http://www.npr.org/2019/03/22/705835469/labor-unions-sue-trump-administration-over-executive-order-stripping-collective-bargaining-rights) [3] "Trump's Executive Order on Collective Bargaining Rights Challenged in Court." The Hill, 22 Mar. 2019, [thehill.com/regulation/labor/434893-trumps-executive-order-on-collective-bargaining-rights-challenged-in-court](http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/434893-trumps-executive-order-on-collective-bargaining-rights-challenged-in-court)
- The ongoing controversy over the Executive Order affecting federal workforce bargaining rights has expanded to the federal court system, with the preliminary injunction by a California District judge halting the implementation of this order.
- The financial implications of the Executive Order are also being felt by unions, as depicted by the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), which argues that it has effectively eliminated or severely diminished the size of many of its local affiliates.
- The future of collective bargaining in the federal business sector remains uncertain due to the ongoing legality debates, which propose questions about the balance between national security and labor rights in politics and general-news discourse.
