Organized Labor

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares104 Views

    Judge Blocks Trump Order Ending Union Protections for Federal Workers

    by

    An order signed by President Trump last month was aimed at stripping collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers.A federal judge in Washington blocked President Trump from ending collective bargaining with unions representing federal workers, stymying a component of Mr. Trump’s sweeping effort to strip civil servants of job protections and assert more control over the federal bureaucracy.Judge Paul L. Friedman of the Federal District Court in Washington ruled in favor of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents tens of thousands of federal workers across the government. Without including an opinion explaining his decision, Judge Friedman ruled that the executive order from Mr. Trump was unlawful, and he granted a temporary injunction blocking its implementation while the case proceeded.“An opinion explaining the court’s reasoning will be issued within the next few days,” Judge Friedman wrote in the two-page order.The order, if implemented, would strip collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers, effectively banning them from joining unions.Those unions have been a major obstacle in Mr. Trump’s effort to slash the size of the federal work force and reshape the government. With every stroke of the pen from Mr. Trump enacting new orders aimed at tightening control over the federal bureaucracy, federal worker unions have responded with lawsuits, winning at least temporary reprieves for some fired federal workers and blocking efforts to dismantle portions of the government.Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the union noted that it targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency.“The administration’s own issuances show that the president’s exclusions are not based on national security concerns,” the suit said, “but, instead, a policy objective of making federal employees easier to fire and political animus against federal sector unions.” More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares181 Views

      in Elections

      British Government Takes Control of Country’s Last Major Steel Mill

      by

      London says it acted to prevent the plant’s Chinese owners from closing the plant, threatening jobs and national security.The British government moved swiftly on Saturday to take control of operations at the country’s last large crude steel producing facility, in what appeared to be a major step toward nationalizing the plant.In an unusual and dramatic move, the government had summoned lawmakers back from vacation on Saturday to approve the government’s emergency legislation.The government said it was acting to prevent the owners of the British Steel complex in Scunthorpe, a Chinese company called Jingye, from taking steps unilaterally to close the blast furnaces, potentially costing 2,700 jobs.“Steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, to our security and to our identity as a primary global power,” Jonathan Reynolds, the business and trade secretary, told Parliament on Saturday in introducing the legislation.Members of the Unite and Community unions marched in Scunthorpe on Saturday.Ryan Jenkinson/Getty ImagesDespite the interest in preserving steel making now, it has long been in decline in Britain. Crude steel output has fallen by about 50 percent over the last decade, according to UK Steel, a trade group.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Federal Worker Unions Sue to Block Trump From Stripping Bargaining Rights

      by

      A group of federal employee unions filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the Trump administration’s efforts to strip union representation from about one million federal workers, arguing that President Trump had exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the unions’ rights.The complaint, filed late Thursday night in federal court in Oakland, Calif., is the latest development in the unions’ escalating battle with the administration over its attempts to slash the federal work force and roll back the protections afforded to the civil service employees. Unions representing government workers have repeatedly sued over the efforts to cut jobs and dismantle offices and agencies, winning at least temporary reprieves in some of those cases.Last week, Mr. Trump signed an executive order designating employees of about two dozen agencies as central to “national security missions,” a move explicitly designed to exclude them from federal unions, which the administration said were “hostile” to his agenda.The executive order was accompanied by a lawsuit in federal court in Texas, filed by the administration, which seeks to allow agencies to cancel collective bargaining agreements, which would strip the employees of union protection and the unions of millions of dollars in dues.Officials at the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal union, which filed the countersuit on Friday, said the president’s move was among the most aggressive they had seen out of the White House so far, one that threatened collective bargaining rights across the work force. The A.F.G.E. alone represents 800,000 workers.The lawsuit called the order an act of retaliation against the union for pushing back against “both his agenda to decimate the federal work force and his broader agenda to fundamentally restructure the federal government through expansive and unprecedented exercises of executive authority.”Since January, unions have filed an array of lawsuits challenging an array of executive orders and actions, including the February firing of some 25,000 probational employees.The administration said the move to eliminate union representation was necessary to protect national security and advance Mr. Trump’s agenda. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Order Could Cripple Federal Worker Unions Fighting DOGE Cuts

      by

      The move added to the list of actions by President Trump that use the powers of his office to weaken perceived enemies.Federal worker unions have sought over the past two months to lead the resistance to President Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency, filing lawsuits, organizing protests and signing up new members by the thousands.This week, Mr. Trump struck back with a potentially crippling blow.In a sweeping executive order denouncing the unions as “hostile” to his agenda, the president cited national security concerns to remove some one million civil servants across more than a dozen agencies from the reach of organized labor, eliminating the unions’ power to represent those workers at the bargaining table or in court.A lawsuit accompanying the executive order, filed by the administration in federal court in Texas, asks a judge to give the president permission to rescind collective bargaining agreements, citing national security interests and saying the agreements had “hamstrung” executive authority.Labor leaders vowed on Friday to challenge the Trump actions in court. But, barring a legal intervention, the moves could kneecap federal unions and protections for many civil service employees just as workers brace for a new round of job cuts across the government.“They are hobbling the union, ripping up collective bargaining agreements, and then they will come for the workers,” said Brian Kelly, a Michigan-based employee of the Environmental Protection Agency who heads a local of the American Federation of Government Employees, the country’s largest federal employee union. “So, it’s a worst-case scenario.”The move added to the list of actions by Mr. Trump to use the levers of the presidency to weaken perceived enemies, in this case seeking to neutralize groups that represent civil servants who make up the “deep state” he is trying to dismantle. In issuing the order, Mr. Trump said he was using congressionally granted powers to designate certain sectors of the federal work force central to “national security missions,” and exempt from collective-bargaining requirements. Employees of some agencies, like the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., are already excluded from collective bargaining for these reasons.Are you a federal worker? We want to hear from you.The Times would like to hear about your experience as a federal worker under the second Trump administration. We may reach out about your submission, but we will not publish any part of your response without contacting you first.

      @media (max-width: 768px) {
      [data-testid=”region”]:has(#federal-workers) {
      margin: 20px;
      }
      }

      We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Allows Trump to Fire Heads of 2 Independent Boards

      by

      A federal appeals court sided on Friday with President Trump’s drive to bring agencies with some independence more directly under his control, ruling that the president was within his rights to fire the heads of two administrative boards that review employment actions and labor disputes.The decision cripples one of the bodies that might stand in Mr. Trump’s way as he slashes and reshapes the government, an agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board that reviews federal employment disputes, just as it is deluged with cases from the firings of thousands of federal workers.It also effectively paralyzes the other body, the National Labor Relations Board, in another blow to unions the day after Mr. Trump moved to end collective bargaining agreements for hundreds of thousands of federal workers.More broadly, the decision was an endorsement of Mr. Trump’s expansive view of executive powers in a case that many legal observers believe is headed for the Supreme Court. A final ruling there could put agencies across the government that Congress intended to be separate from the White House under the president’s control.By a 2-to-1 vote, the ruling on Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed two district court decisions that had reinstated Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne A. Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board while their cases play out. Mr. Trump fired Ms. Wilcox in January and Ms. Harris in February. Both women argued that they had been improperly terminated.“The government contends that the president suffers irreversible harm each day the district courts’ injunctions remain in effect because he is deprived of the constitutional authority vested in him alone. I agree,” Judge Justin Walker wrote in the opinion. Judge Walker was appointed by Mr. Trump in 2020. Judge Karen L. Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, also sided with the government.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      New Deal Reached to End Wildcat Strikes by N.Y. Prison Guards

      by

      The state and the correctional officers’ union agreed that officers should return to work Monday and that some provisions of a solitary confinement law would be put on pause.A new agreement has been reached to end wildcat strikes by thousands of New York State correctional officers, which have created chaos throughout the prison system.Under the agreement, negotiated by state officials and the correctional officers’ union, the officers are expected to return to work Monday.The officers, who maintained that staffing shortages, forced overtime and dangerous working conditions prompted the illegal strikes, had received an ultimatum this week from the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision: go back to their posts or face discipline, termination or, possibly, criminal charges, according to a memorandum issued by the agency.The union agreed on Saturday to the terms outlined in the memorandum, the corrections department said in a statement. Those terms will take effect when 85 percent of staff return to work. Any disputes over the agreement will be resolved by an arbitrator.It was unclear on Sunday how the union, the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, would enforce the return-to-work provision since it did not authorize the strikes. The department and the union struck a similar deal last month that would have ended the strikes by March 1. Most officers ignored that agreement.In the new memorandum, the state agreed to a 90-day pause on some provisions in the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act, known as HALT, which limits the use of solitary confinement for prisoners.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Dockworkers Vote to Accept New Labor Contract

      by

      Workers at East and Gulf Coast ports who went on strike briefly in October ratified a deal that includes a 62 percent raise over six years.Dockworkers on the East and Gulf Coasts voted in favor of a new contract on Tuesday, ending labor turbulence at ports that handle a large share of U.S. trade with the rest of the world.The dockworkers’ union, the International Longshoremen’s Association, said nearly 99 percent of its members had supported the contract, which raises wages 62 percent over six years and guarantees jobs when employers introduce technology that can move cargo autonomously.The deal was reached after a short strike in October, the first full-scale walkout since 1977, and the intervention of two U.S. presidents.Officials from the Biden administration pushed the United States Maritime Alliance, the group representing employers, to increase its wage offer, which ended the strike and brought the I.LA. back to the bargaining table. After his election victory, Donald J. Trump backed the union, saying he supported their fight against automation.“This is an incredible contract package,” Harold J. Daggett, the president of the I.L.A., said in a statement.Dockworkers have significant leverage in contract talks because they can shut down ports, throwing supply chains into chaos. But labor experts said Mr. Daggett had bolstered the union’s cause by calling a strike and by establishing strong ties with Mr. Trump.“The only way they would have gotten a deal like this was through striking, showing that they had the economic power and, it turns out, the political power,” said William Brucher, an assistant professor at the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations.All 41 members of the Maritime Alliance, a group that includes port operating companies and shipping lines, voted for the contract, which covers the roughly 25,000 longshoremen who move containers on the East and Gulf Coasts.Under the contact, hourly wages will rise to $63 in 2029, from the current $39. That is comparable to the pay for dockworkers on the West Coast, represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, whose wages will rise to nearly $61 in 2027.With overtime and higher rates for working at night, longshoremen can earn well over $200,000 a year.The I.L.A. has long opposed the introduction of automated cranes and other machines.Like the old contract, the new one bars employers from deploying machinery that can operate at all times without a person directing its moves. The West Coast longshoremen’s union has allowed such technology — like driverless container-moving vehicles — at its ports for years.But the I.L.A.’s new contract does not stop employers from adding cranes that can at times perform tasks — like stacking containers — without direction from a human. And the new contract makes it easier for employers to introduce such cranes.Still, the union got a job guarantee that management would assign at least one worker for each additional crane. (Now, one union worker might remotely oversee and operate several cranes at once.) More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Pushback to Latest DOGE Demand May Signal Limits for Elon Musk

      by

      Pushback against Elon Musk’s latest demand to government employees reveals potential limits to his harsh approach to management and cost-cutting.Federal workers are on edge over Elon Musk’s latest demand that they justify their employment.Eric Lee/The New York TimesA clash over Musk’s latest missiveMonday could bring a standoff between Elon Musk and huge swaths of the federal government, including Trump-appointed agency leaders.The fate of the latest example of Musk’s brutal management style — having government workers justify their employment by midnight or risk being fired — may reveal the limits of President Trump’s cost-cutter-in-chief’s efforts.“For now, please pause any response,” a top Pentagon official told employees this weekend, adding that the Defense Department “will conduct any review in accordance with its own procedures.” Similar messages went out from Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence; Kash Patel, the director of the F.B.I.; the State Department; and more.What’s notable is that Trump loyalists lead many of those organizations. But The Times reports that many agency leaders are “tired of having to justify specific intricacies of agency policy and having to scramble to address unforeseen controversies” raised by Musk, especially after the billionaire’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency gained unprecedented access to government systems.It raises the prospect that the Musk approach has its limits. Yes, Musk made a similar move at the social network once known as Twitter. But the federal bureaucracy moves much more slowly than a private company — and has unions who can push back.The president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest such union, declared Musk’s missive “plainly unlawful” and added that the Office of Personnel and Management was being directed by “the unelected and unhinged Elon Musk.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Utah Bans Collective Bargaining for Public Workers

      by

      Utah joined two other states in prohibiting collective bargaining for teachers, police officers and other public employees in a move that was seen as a possible blow to the country’s labor movement.A new law signed by Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah prohibits unions from negotiating wages and other terms for teachers, firefighters, police officers and all other public employees, joining just two other states that have banned collective bargaining in the public sector.The law, which goes into effect on July 1, could have broader implications for the country’s labor movement, experts said. Its signing comes weeks after the new presidential administration effectively paralyzed — at least temporarily — the federal agency responsible for protecting workers’ rights as part of a broader crackdown on federal spending and regulations.The bill, which was passed by a Republican-controlled Legislature, was signed on Friday by the Republican governor over the pleas of unions representing employees across the public sector, who protested at rallies and spoke in opposition during debate on the Legislature floor.Federal law protects the collective bargaining rights of workers in the private sector, but determining labor law for public employees is up to the states.That’s why bargaining rights for public employees vary by state, with some offering stronger protections for workers and unions and others restricting the kinds of workers who can unionize. In Texas, for example, only police and firefighters can collectively bargain. But only two states, North Carolina and South Carolina, had banned collective bargaining outright.“It’s at the extreme end of the spectrum to have banned it for all,” said Sharon Block, the executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More