US unions

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares56 Views

    Republicans are dodging fired federal staff: ‘They will not even look in our direction’

    by

    Workers hit by the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts of federal government jobs, programs and services turned to congressional Republicans for help. But Republicans don’t want to talk about it, according to people who have tried to reach the politicians.Sabrina Valenti, a former budget analyst for the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), was fired in February, then reinstated, and fired again weeks later.She started contacting Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives to express concern. “They represent hundreds of thousands or millions of people and those people deserve a safe and healthy life,” said Valenti. “They are allowing the people who create that safe and healthy life to be fired.”But as she worked with other fired federal workers in the Fork Off Coalition to reach members of Congress, the responses ranged “from indifference and being ignored to outright hostility”, Valenti claimed.Senators Josh Hawley and Chuck Grassley “just will not even look in our direction” in the hallways, she said. Hawley and Grassley’s offices did not respond to requests for comment.The House of Representatives narrowly passed Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget bill on Thursday, which would extend tax cuts for individuals and corporations; sunset clean energy incentives enacted under Joe Biden; relieve taxes on tips, overtime and car loan interest; and fund construction of a wall along the border with Mexico, and facilities for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.To offset its costs, the GOP has approved funding cuts and new work requirements for Medicaid, which provides healthcare for poor and disabled Americans, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as Snap, which provides food benefits to low-income families. Analysts fear these changes will bar millions from these benefits.Jeanne Weaver worked as an aide for 35 years at the Ebensburg Center in Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, one of two state-operated facilities for adults with intellectual disabilities, and is worried about the facility’s future .But when Weaver, now president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Retiree Chapter 13, tried to reach her representative in Congress, the Republican John Joyce, she had no luck. Even when she traveled to Washington, she was unable to get a meeting.View image in fullscreen“I’ve called, I’ve left him messages,” Weaver told the Guardian. “If he votes for cuts for Medicaid, I will make sure everyone knows him, because they don’t know him now. He’s hiding out, not doing what his constituents want him to do.”After the Guardian went to Joyce for comment, Weaver heard from a member of his staff. His office declined to comment. On Sunday, after House Republicans advanced Trump’s tax cut and spending package out of a key committee, Joyce claimed the legislation would “strengthen, secure, and preserve” Medicaid for “future generations of Americans who need and deserve these benefits”.John Kennedy, senator for Louisiana, did speak with Valenti – a graduate of Louisiana State University – about her program at Noaa, and its impact on Louisiana’s coast.“He seemed really certain that if there was any, if any mistakes were made in the past, that they would be able to go back and reverse them,” Valenti said. Kennedy’s office did not respond to requests for comment.Other workers reliant on federal funds that have been cut, or are facing cuts, have also been pressuring their elected officials to address their worries.Jesse Martinez, a teacher and co-president of the La Crosse Education Association in La Crosse, Wisconsin, expressed concern about cuts to education, Medicaid and Snap benefits to staff working for the Republican representative Derrick Van Orden.The staff claimed Van Orden would not vote for cuts to Medicaid or Snap benefits, according to Martinez – but he voted for a budget blueprint that included cuts.“In the school district of La Crosse, we receive approximately $500,000 per year in Medicaid funding. We use that to pay for speech and language pathologists in our schools, occupational and physical therapists across the district and school nurses in our schools,” said Martinez. “Losing that funding would be devastating to our kids.”Van Orden argued in a statement that “being fiscally responsible and protecting benefits for vulnerable Americans can exist in the same universe”, and a spokesperson for Van Orden denied the budget bill cuts Medicaid.Stephanie Teachman, an administrative assistant at the State University of New York at Fredonia, and president of Suny Fredonia Local 607, an affiliate union of AFSCME, fears that cuts could threaten the future of the only hospital in her rural area, Brooks Memorial, and the university, which is one of the largest employers in the area.But attempts to speak with her congressional representative, the Republican representative Nick Langworthy, have not elicited any responses, she said.“I’ve been to Langworthy’s office and he’s never there. We’ve written letters to him, and he doesn’t respond,” she added. “All of us deserve to have a voice and be heard. It’s unfortunate the people we vote for aren’t listening to us and they don’t seem to care what people of their districts are up to or what life is like for us.”View image in fullscreenA spokesperson for Langworthy claimed his office did not hear from Teachman until a few hours before a debate on the budget bill. “Not one penny is being cut from eligible Americans who rely on Medicaid,” the spokesperson claimed in an email, accusing Democrats of “dishonest fearmongering”.In Washington, those urging Republicans to resist cuts to key services have struggled to make headway. Senator Bill Cassidy’s office “kicked us out”, said Valenti, who noted the senator Katie Britt of Alabama called Capitol police on some fired federal workers, and that the Indiana Republican senator Jim Banks called a fired health and human services worker, Mack Schroeder, a “clown” who “probably deserved it”.Senators Britt, Cassidy and Banks’s respective offices did not respond to requests for comment. Senator Banks declined to apologize for his remarks following the incident and said he “won’t back down”.Four of the largest public sector unions in the US – AFSCME, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the Service Employees International Union, collectively representing 8.3 million workers – have launched a new campaign to target GOP representatives over the cuts.The drive includes a $2m ad campaign across 18 congressional districts held by Republicans, including in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona.“Their goal is the gutting of the schools and hospitals that help working Americans have a shot at a better life. And for what? To pay for tax cuts for billionaires,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT. “These ads send a message to Congress about the human toll of the administration’s attacks.” More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares127 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Really a mess’: US’s air traffic control system suffering from years of neglect

      by

      Twice in the past two weeks, communications between air traffic controllers and airplanes at Newark Liberty, one of the US’s busiest airports, have failed – leaving controllers unable to communicate with pilots.The outages have, thankfully, only led to massive delays, not disaster. But they have also once again focused a harsh light on the persistent safety problems at US airports, which handle over 50,000 flights a day.As a result of that estimated 90-second communications breakdown on 28 April, many air traffic controllers said they felt traumatized, and thousands of passengers suffered from the hundreds of canceled and delayed flights. A brief radar outage on Friday morning left radar screens black for another 90 seconds – underlining a growing crisis.Political leaders were quick to criticize the rickety state of the air traffic system. Senator Charles Schumer of New York said the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was “really a mess”, while New Jersey’s governor, Phil Murphy, decried “decades of underinvestment” in air traffic control infrastructure, “delays” in modernizing technology, and “inadequate air traffic control staffing”.The transport department’s inspector general has found that at 20 of the nation’s 26 most critical airports, air traffic control staffing falls below the 85% minimum level, with many controllers forced to work 10-hour days and six-day weeks. After the communications breakdown in Newark, several air traffic controllers there was so shaken that they went on “trauma leave”, leaving that airport even more understaffed.The Trump administration moved swiftly to respond after the alarming episode at Newark. On Thursday, Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, unveiled a plan to build a new state-of-the-art system that would overhaul the technology used by the nation’s air traffic controllers. Duffy said his plan would replace “antiquated telecommunications, with new fiber, wireless and satellite technologies at over 4,600 sites”.“A lot of people have said: this problem is too complicated, too expensive, too hard,” Duffy said on Thursday. “But we are blessed to have a president who actually loves to build and knows how to build.”Airlines and the air traffic controllers’ union applauded Duffy’s proposal, but several airline industry experts voiced fears that it would fall short, as have many past plans to fix the system. In a statement, the Modern Skies Coalition, a group of industry associations and experts, said: “We are pleased that the secretary has identified the priorities of what must be done to maintain safety and remain a leader in air navigation services.”The air traffic control system has been through some tough months. In January, a commercial jet collided with an army helicopter near Reagan Washington National airport, killing 67 people in the deadliest aviation disaster in the US since 2001. Trump upset many aviation industry experts and outraged many Americans when he, even before an investigation was begun, rushed to blame the crash on diversity, equity and inclusion.On 1 May, another army helicopter forced two flights to abort their landings at Reagan airport. Newark airport has suffered at least two other similar communications breakdowns since last August. A New York Times investigation in 2023 found that close calls involving commercial airlines occurred, on average, several times each week – with 503 air traffic control lapses occurring in the 12 months before 30 September 2023.For some these latests issues are part of a much older story. “The system’s staffing problems started when Ronald Reagan fired over 10,000 air traffic controllers,” after they went on strike in 1981, said Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants.“And those problems were worsened by his pushing the hatred of government and the dismantling of government. That’s what’s put us on the track to where we are today. There were budget cuts and tax cuts for the rich, and all that stopped us from doing the infrastructure projects and hiring and training that we needed to have a stable system.”The nation’s air navigation system has just under 10,800 certified controllers, but their union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, says there needs to be more than 14,300, the number recommended by an arm of the FAA, called the Collaborative Resource Workgroup. There are over 2,000 controllers in training, and the union has urged the Trump administration to increase the number in the pipeline. Training usually takes 18 to 24 months, and getting up to speed to work at the most demanding airports such as JFK and Newark can take more than three years.“There is a shortage of controllers nationwide, but not to the degree it’s occurring at Newark,” said Jeff Guzzetti, an industry consultant who was an investigator for the FAA and National Transportation Safety Board.“There’s been a shortage of controllers for years, if not decades. That shortage was exaggerated by Covid; they couldn’t conduct training for new controllers. Beyond that, they’ve always had a problem finding the right people with the right skills to control traffic and to get people to pass the course work at the training academy and then to get them up to speed.”Many trainees drop out and don’t pass their exams, and many controllers don’t stay in the job because it is so stressful. In recent years, the number of controllers has been relatively flat. The total has declined by 10% since 2012 due to retirements and trainees failing to finish their requirements.“It’s not only the shortage of air traffic controllers. It’s antiquated facilities and equipment and software,” Guzzetti said. Many facilities still rely on floppy disks and copper wire.He said: “It’s all coming to a head now in New York and Newark. Newark has always been the worst in terms of air traffic staffing and modernizing its equipment.”Last September, the Government Accountability Office said the FAA needed to take “urgent action” to deal with its antiquated air traffic control systems. It said 51 of the FAA’s 138 air traffic control systems were unsustainable.On Thursday, Duffy did not say what his modernization plan would cost. The House transportation and infrastructure committee says it would cost $12.5bn to overhaul the air traffic control system, but Duffy says his plan would cost more than that. “Decades of neglect have left us with an outdated system that is showing its age,” he said. “Building this new system is an economic and national security necessity.”On May 1, Duffy announced a related plan filled with incentives that he said would “supercharge the air traffic controller work force.” It includes $5,000 bonuses to new hires who successfully finish the initial training.Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University who wrote a book about the 1981 air traffic controllers’ strike, said that ever since Reagan fired 11,345 striking controllers, “the system has been out of sync”.“The natural rhythm of the system broke down and we never fully recovered,” he said. “We’ve improved over time, but the FAA still has grave difficulty staffing facilities.”McCartin added: “[Elon Musk’s] Doge has made things only worse. The entire system that federal employees operate under has been terribly destabilized. The FAA exists in a world where this entire project of the federal government is teetering.”Robert W Mann Jr, an aviation industry analyst, said that for 40 years there have been FAA reauthorizations approved by Congress, but they haven’t fixed the problems. “Unless you do it right, it doesn’t make a difference what you spend,” he said. “You won’t have solved the root causes.”Nonetheless, Mann said he remained confident about airline safety. He said: “There’s a primacy in this business. Whether you’re working at airlines or the FAA, safety is the first thing.”Mann said that days when an airport faces severe understaffing of air traffic controllers or a crush of airplanes eager to take off as bad weather lifts, there will often be delays to ensure safety. “I’m not worried about safety,” Mann said, “but I might be worried that my flight will be four hours’ late.”Nelson, the flight attendants’ president, said that the US should be thankful to air traffic controllers because their job is so hard, stressful and important. “They should be commended for working in a system that’s crumbling,” she said. “They’re the ones we all need to applaud right now. They’re like the nurses during Covid, when everyone came out at 6 o’clock to bang pots and pans.”A big question now is whether Congress will approve the money for Duffy’s ambitious modernization plan. Nelson said: “I hate to say we’re a canary in the coalmine, but those of us in the airline industry have known for a long time that a lot of this [the air traffic control equipment] has been a problem. What happened in Newark is a sign of what will come in other airports if we don’t get the budget we need.” More

    • 175 Shares131 Views

      in US Politics

      Protecting democracy is not enough: five things Americans must fight for | Huck Gutman

      by

      A recent dinner was peaceable until it was just about over, when a friend’s son spoke up in praise of a middle-of-the-road columnist and how his opposition to Donald Trump’s attack on democracy revealed that we were all on the progressive left now.“Not true,” I responded with more vehemence than I expected. “Wanting democratic norms is not sufficient; it is merely a precondition for meaningful change.” Making sure the US’s plumbing was secure did not mean that anything of importance would pass through the pipes.There has been a great outcry about the erosion of democratic practices during these first hundred days of the second Trump presidency. Many Americans, probably a solid majority, are appalled at the attack on our courts and judges, at the willful ignoring of habeas corpus, at the intrusion of unelected figures – not just Elon Musk, but his whole “department of government efficiency” (Doge) team – into the privacy of American lives, at the undoing of the independence of agencies intended to protect the public.But protecting democracy is not enough. It is a rearguard action, one that fights against incursions that would transform the United States into an oligarchic state serving special interests. It does not address the needs of the larger public. Fighting for procedures and not substance is insufficient.Those who fight for the future of our nation need to fight not just against threats, but for a just and equitable future. Too often the well-deserved plaudits for those who fight against do not extend to articulating a program of what the American nation needs, in addition to democratic institutions.Here are five specific suggestions for what we should be fighting for. Without these reforms, defenses of democracy ring hollow, elevating a defense of form while denying any attention to substance.First, the nation needs a new minimum wage, a living wage, not the residue of 1938 legislation called the Fair Labor Standards Act. No one can live on $7.25 an hour, which translates to about $15,000 a year.Second, Americans deserve healthcare as a right. A Medicare for All system would extend healthcare to every person. Its cost would be more than offset by eliminating the 25% of healthcare spending that goes for overhead in our private-insurance-dominated system. Cutting $1tn of needless bureaucratic expenses and bill-keeping would ensure that we have the money to provide healthcare to everyone.Third, Americans should find it easy to join unions if they wish. The decline in unionization is a major reason why, as the wealthy get ever wealthier, wages have been flat or declining for almost 50 years. As it stands, the table is tilted toward management. Corporations regulate all employee concerns, from wages to healthcare to retirement benefits, leaving workers little to no chance to say what they actually want. We must level that playing field so that workers together can fight for their needs.Fourth, we need to increase taxes on the wealthy. There is no reason that Warren Buffett, as he has said, should pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Increasing the marginal tax rate for the highest earners, limiting the exorbitant pass-throughs of the inheritance tax, and ending the unhealthy practice of taxing paper gains in wealth, or capital gains, less than the money earned by workers would diminish the federal deficit and at the same time fund many needed services to Americans. Removing the cap on income subject to social security taxes would ensure the solvency of the nation’s pension program for generations.Fifth, we should reverse the deeply damaging Citizens United decision, which enabled the wealthy and their special interests to buy elections. Currently, money and not votes determines the priorities of the United States. If the supreme court does not reverse this decision, a constitutional amendment limiting contributions – one person, one vote, with a low limit on individual contributions and no contributions by corporations – would fix this loophole, which has corrupted all of American politics.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThere is, rightly, much concern about the undemocratic moves made by the Trump administration. But unless we demand changes in what the United States does, unless we do more than just defending the practices of democracy, our society will remain dysfunctional. Those who focus only on the process of maintaining the pipes required for quenching our thirst, without giving us actual water to drink, are fighting only a small part of the battle.What’s giving me hope nowWe need to fight for democracy, but we also need to fight for the achievable goals democracy can bring us, particularly economic justice for all Americans. Raising wages, providing healthcare to all, fostering unions, taxing the wealthy and corporations, preventing big money from buying elections: these are the things the renewal of democracy can and should bring us.

      Huck Gutman is a former chief of staff to Senator Bernie Sanders and an emeritus professor at the University of Vermont More

    • 100 Shares173 Views

      in US Politics

      The case for American reindustrialisation | Dustin Guastella

      by

      A poll from the conservative Cato Institute recently went viral. It found that 80% of Americans think the country would be better off if more people worked in manufacturing. At the same time, only 25% of respondents said they themselves would be better off working in a factory. What should we make of the results?First, there’s nothing contradictory between these figures. It’s easy to see how it would be good for the country to reshore manufacturing jobs, even if it’s not good for you, personally, to work in a factory. Imagine a local pharmacist in an industrial town. He can see how his business would benefit from the expansion of a nearby plant. Yet he could also see that he would personally lose out on a lot of income if he gave up his trade and marched into the factory himself. The same can be said for any number of other workers. The reason so many people find appeals to reindustrialization attractive is because life was undoubtedly better when the old factories in their town were buzzing with activity than it is today, where they sit idle.Second, that 25% figure represents a lot of people. Across the political spectrum, libertarians at Reason Magazine, liberals at the Financial Times, mainstream conservatives, and even some on the far left have misread this figure. They think 25% indicates a woefully low ceiling for appeals to reindustrialization. Yet currently only 8% of Americans are directly employed in manufacturing. If we gave the people what they wanted, we would more than triple the amount of manufacturing jobs in the United States, an increase from about 12.7 million workers to more than 40 million. That is not small, it’s seismic. That a quarter of Americans think they would be personally better off with a factory job – jobs that are often dangerous and difficult – represents a scathing indictment of the so-called “knowledge economy” that promised prosperity but has often delivered devastation instead.Back in 1987, the economists Stephen Cohen and John Zysman warned:“Lose manufacturing and you will lose – not develop – high-wage service jobs.” How prescient they were. Everywhere factories have fled, social rot has followed. Since then, wage growth for most Americans has been stagnant. For those without a college degree it has declined. The promise of a “service economy” was built on the myth that jobs in services could simply replace jobs in manufacturing, without any real trade-off. But, as experience has shown, many service jobs have proved to be stubbornly low-waged. And there is good evidence that, all things being equal, jobs in manufacturing still offer pay advantages over jobs in services. Moreover, as developmental economists have long acknowledged, the health of a nation is tied to the health of its industrial heartlands. Just look at China’s explosive rise to see how important manufacturing is to a nation’s economic strength. Or, alternatively, look at the deindustrialization of the United States, and now Germany, for examples of the equal and opposite effect. A decline, especially a rapid one, in manufacturing is linked to a decline in the social and economic health of the country as a whole.Still, some argue that the only thing special about manufacturing jobs in the US was that the sector was highly unionized and that in a more pro-labor environment, service jobs would make just as much money as factory jobs. For instance, Matt Bruenig notes: “McDonald’s workers in Denmark make more than Honda workers in Alabama.” He’s right. Yet, as he knows, the Danish example doesn’t just show the power of unions, it actually helps make the case for a strong manufacturing sector. For one thing, Danish manufacturing workers make nearly twice the amount that Danish McDonald’s workers do. For another, Denmark employs nearly twice as many (15.7%) workers in manufacturing than does the United States (8%). And, according to the World Bank, manufacturing counts for a significantly larger portion of Denmark’s GDP (about 16%) than it does in the United States (about 10%). Ultimately, a major reason Danish McDonald’s workers can earn high wages is that, thanks to intelligent industrial policy, Denmark has retained its manufacturing sector. It is because blue-collar Danes earn high wages that McDonald’s can afford to pay high wages. The same can’t be said of the United States.While unionized service workers at say, Starbucks, may be able to win significant wage increases through union bargaining, they won’t be able to make anything close to the wages made by union auto workers. And that is not due to a lack of effort or heroism on the part of the baristas. It’s structural. Manufacturing jobs simply have greater wage potential than many jobs in services because they have more room for productivity growth and a higher degree of leverage to win wage demands.Increases in productivity, the amount of work accomplished by each worker in a set period of time, make firms more efficient and more profitable. As productivity increases, so do profits, which can translate to higher wages through bargaining. But service firms and factories have very different productivity curves. A Starbucks store can introduce more efficient espresso machines but ultimately the potential for increased productivity is limited by the nature of the business itself. Starbucks is selling a service, a consumer experience, and it’s hard to increase the per-worker output of an experience. This is a problem across the service sector where the rate of productivity growth remains low. By contrast, manufacturing firms can rapidly increase the output of each worker by introducing new techniques and technologies.As a result, these workers have a regular claim to corresponding wage increases – each year they get more productive, they make the company more money, and therefore the company can afford to pay their wage demands. Still, whether they can win those demands depends on leverage. Here too manufacturing workers have the advantage. A strike in a key auto plant can shut down all downstream operations, resulting in windfall losses quickly. Yet no strike at any given Starbucks store could have the same effect. Productivity and worker-leverage give manufacturing its unique high-wage potential, and for these reasons, a strong manufacturing sector has a salutary effect on the entire economy.Even for union baristas, manufacturing matters.Besides the pay advantages, there are other good reasons for reshoring manufacturing. As John Maynard Keynes argued, national self-sufficiency, the ability of a nation to provide its own industrial necessities, has all sorts of benefits. Including increased leverage in trade negotiations, more sovereignty over economic policy, and greater potential for robust social programs (remember, none of the famously generous Nordic states allowed their major industries to shrivel and die the way that Britain and the United States have). Put simply, if we want more social equality, we need a better economic balance. Consider that in 1960 almost 95% of the clothing worn by Americans was made in the US – today it is 2%. And unionized American garment workers made more then than Bangladeshi garment workers make now.Finally, reindustrialization is great politics. With the left struggling to reach working-class voters, an economic appeal that reaches some 80% of the country is a good way to win back favor. Donald Trump’s chaotic and contradictory policies won’t yield an industrial renaissance, and his fumbling of the economy could make it yet harder to do so, but while we are in the political wilderness the left should figure out the right mix of industrial policies that can bring back manufacturing jobs. We need to figure out an exit path from neoliberal globalization and that involves a wholesale rethinking of trade and industrial policy; immigration and labor market policies; monetary and fiscal policies.The good news is there is hope. As UAW’s president, Shawn Fain, notes, even a modest reorganization of economic policy can result in an instant boost in new manufacturing employment. By the union’s calculations more than 50,000 new jobs could be reshored simply by filling out the capacity of existing plants. That may not sound like a lot, and it’s far short of the 25% figure, but if you’re among those newly employed it could mean the difference between scraping by in a post-industrial town and having a living wage with union rights.Beyond the short term, US deindustrialization, ironically, could be an advantage for its industrial rebirth. After the second world war, Europe saw the most fantastic industrial turnaround ever recorded. Decimated economies such as France and Germany, where industrial towns were bombed to smithereens, suddenly emerged as manufacturing powerhouses. How? The destruction of their old factories gave them a fresh start. Industrial policy-makers didn’t have to deal with stubborn institutional inertia or outmoded infrastructure. While British firms struggled after the war, unwilling to build new plants, French and German manufacturers, with a clean slate upon which to build, surged ahead.Walking through America’s deindustrialized zones is a bit like walking through Dresden after 1945. Maybe then, with a clean slate, we can rebuild better than before.

      Dustin Guastella is a research associate at the Center for Working Class Politics and the director of operations for Teamsters Local 623 More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats in Congress warn cuts at top US labor watchdog will be ‘catastrophic’

      by

      Democrats have warned that cuts to the US’s top labor watchdog threaten to render the organization “basically ineffectual” and will be “catastrophic” for workers’ rights.The so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) has targeted the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for cuts and ended its leases in several states.Representatives Bobby Scott, Mark DeSaulnier and Greg Casar have written to NLRB’s chair, Marvin Kaplan, and the acting general counsel, William Cowen, requesting answers on the cuts.“If the NLRB reduces its workforce and closes a number of regional offices, it will render the NLRB’s enforcement mechanism basically ineffectual, thereby chilling workers from exercising their rights to engage in union organizing and protected concerted activities,” they wrote.The letter noted the NLRB has already been suffering from drastic understaffing and budget constraints, while caseloads have increased. NLRB field staffing has declined by one-third in the last decade, while case intake per employee at the agency grew by 46%.“The harm to America’s workers by potential directives to reduce this independent agency’s workforce cannot be overstated,” the letter added. “Any NLRB reduction in force (RIF) or office closures would be catastrophic for workers’ rights.”The representatives also requested all information related to Doge’s role at the NLRB, including all communications Doge had with employees at the NLRB or regarding the NLRB with other agencies.Doge is led by billionaire Trump donor Elon Musk. Musk’s SpaceX has challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB. A whistleblower at the NLRB told NPR earlier this month that Doge accessed sensitive data at the agency and took steps to cover their tracks in doing so.The National Labor Relations Board Union, representing workers at the agency, reported last week that Doge cancelled the NLRB regional office’s lease a year early in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ending it in August 2025.In March 2025, Doge terminated the lease for the NLRB regional office in Memphis, Tennessee. In February 2025, Doge terminated the leases for NLRB offices in Buffalo, New York; Puerto Rico; Los Angeles, California; Overland Park, Kansas; and Birmingham, Alabama.“The NLRB is an agency that has been starved of funding and resources for over a decade. We have seen massive staffing cuts simply from attrition. There is no need for any austerity measures with our operations; Congress has already done that to us.” the NLRB Union stated on social media.The NLRB declined to comment. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      USPS workers sound alarm over Trump efforts to dismantle service: ‘The hounds are at the door

      by

      US postal workers – and many who depend on them – may have sighed in relief when the Trump-appointed postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, resigned last month. Now, postal workers and others fear the worst is to come.Many feared DeJoy, a prolific Trump donor and trucking logistics executive who pushed a 10-year consolidation plan at the agency, would be the man who would finally dismantle the United States Postal Service (USPS). Now the service is facing off with an empowered Trump and Elon Musk, his billionaire backer and chainsaw-wielding leader of his government job-cutting “department of government efficiency” (Doge).At stake, supporters argue, is the very existence of a service woven into US society, which can be traced back to 1775. “These are real threats. The hounds are at the door,” said Don Maston, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association, the union representing more than 130,000 mail carriers in rural America.Workers and labor unions at the USPS are sounding the alarm and calling for public awareness of the threats of dismantling and privatizing the agency by the Trump administration.In March, the USPS reached an agreement with Doge to cut billions of dollars from its budget and finalize a voluntary retirement buyout program announced under the Biden administration to cut 10,000 employees. The Washington Post has reported industry executives are preparing for government efforts to outsource mail and package handling and long-haul trucking routes, and offload leases for unprofitable post offices.“There are other organizations on the chopping block right now, and it is just an amount of time before they get to us. So we just need to get the message out and get ahead of them to say ‘hands off the post office’,” said Tameka Brown, a rural letter carrier in Louisiana and president of the Louisiana Rural Letter Carriers’ Association. “We are the lifeline for a lot of American people, so to feel that your job is being threatened, it’s heart-wrenching.”View image in fullscreenDeJoy’s cuts are already affecting service, especially in rural areas and states. Wyoming, for example, looks set to lose all afternoon mail pickup.Brown warned that if the postal service is privatized, the services it provides would be eliminated or offered at much higher prices by private companies.“We touch American lives every day,” added Brown. “You’re linked to us throughout your whole life in one way or the other. They need to keep their hands off the post office. Through the rain, sleet, snow and through Covid, we were there. We didn’t miss a day.”Doge was even too much for DeJoy, who reportedly left after clashing with its staff over access to the agency.Last month, Musk voiced support for privatizing the USPS. The idea has been praised on the right, including by staff at the Heritage Foundation, which organized Project 2025, and by Trump: “It’s an idea that a lot of people have liked for a long time. We’re looking at it,” he said last year.Maston of the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association said Trump had been “floating balloons, seeing what he can get away with and what the reaction is going to be” over his interest in privatizing the USPS. But Trump also seems cautious. The postal service is popular with Americans, and especially rural Americans.“It’s not the US Postal Business, it’s the US Postal Service,” said Maston. “It’s owned by we, the people, you and I and every other American.“The postal service is the No 2 most trusted and loved government agency. The threats and the attacks by the current administration and Elon Musk, it’s all just for a bottom line and to make something that they can make a profit off of, another piece of the pie.”Marc Mancini, a letter carrier in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and shop steward with the National Association of Letter Carriers, said the USPS was already under intense strain. “The way I feel they’re going about it is they’re trying to save money by squeezing more and more out of workers. So you’re getting a lot more pressure from management, upper management, to have the carriers run faster and move quicker,” he said.He noted any changes to the independence of the USPS must be made by Congress, but he said he was worried that the Trump administration might try to skirt around the proper channels.“I think a lot of people cling to the hope that because of that, Trump and Doge cannot fully implement a full privatization of the post office, but I don’t think Trump really cares much for what the constitution says or what the laws are,” Mancini added. “He’s already making threats that if judges rule against them, he’s going to remove them. So I think the threat of privatization should be taken a lot more seriously.”No permanent replacement has yet been named for DeJoy. The Washington Post reported in February 2025 that Trump was considering dissolving the leadership of the USPS by executive order and absorbing the agency into the US Department of Commerce.The White House rejected the report of a planned executive order, though the president said it was being looked into it. Trump claimed during the swearing-in ceremony of US Department of Commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, that the USPS was a“tremendous loser for this country”.View image in fullscreenThe merger proposal was characterized by unions representing USPS workers as an attack on the workers, postal services and the people who rely on them.Brian Renfroe, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, said the USPS was far from being a “loser”. “It is a public service that does not operate on taxpayer dollars. It’s self-sustaining. It is paid for. It’s funded solely by revenue from people that mail things,” he said.The USPS lost $9.5bn in fiscal year 2024. Indisputably, it faces huge challenges, although 80% of its continued net losses are due to factors outside management’s control. Revenue losses by the agency are not entirely due to operation costs, but from liabilities for pensions and retirements that require policy changes to alleviate, such as enabling better pension investments.“It’s challenging during a period of modernization where they’re trying to change and improve their network, but you have to still provide service every day. It’s almost like rebuilding a ship while you’re crossing the ocean,” said Renfroe. “Maintaining that network and public service where everyone, no matter where they live, receives the same postal services for the same price is ultra important, and that is really where the problem comes in with privatization. That would be virtually impossible to maintain in a privatized model.”Postal workers have held rallies around the US in recent weeks, including those organized by the National Association of Letter Carriers, the American Postal Workers Union, the National Postal Mailhandlers Union and the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association. Of the 640,000 workers at the USPS, about 91% are union members.Legislation has also recently been introduced in the House and Senate with Democratic and Republican support to oppose privatization of the USPS.Tim Thomason, vice-president of the West Virginia chapter of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association and a retired mail carrier of 33 years who served out of the Princeton, West Virginia, post office, argued that rural communities rely on the postal service even more as many private mail services do not serve them because doing so is not profitable.“Those folks rely on us. I took medicine to disabled people. I pulled cars out of ditches. I changed flat tires. It wasn’t just about being the mailman. I felt like I was part of our community,” he said. “If it is torn apart, then we lose the universal service and and I think that the people that I delivered mail to are the ones that are hurt.”The USPS did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A senior White House official claimed “the Trump administration is not considering privatization of the USPS”.The official added in an email: “Doge is actively assessing ways to cut waste, fraud and abuse while eliminating the presence of DEI in the USPS. The president is committed to ensuring no disruptions to the critical mission of the USPS.” More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Trump and Musk are setting the example’: how companies are becoming emboldened to be more anti-union

      by

      Donald Trump’s aggressive wave of anti-union actions is already spurring some US employers to take a more hostile stance toward unions, as labor leaders voice fears that the president’s moves will embolden more and more companies to fight harder against unions and slow their recent progress.Indeed, some worker advocates worry that unions will be walloped during Trump’s second term the way they were under Ronald Reagan after he crushed the 1981 air traffic controllers’ strike and inspired many corporations to fight harder against unions. As Trump and Elon Musk carry out their anti-union agenda in Washington DC, Utah passed a law that prohibits collective bargaining by public sector workers, and a Michigan company refused to move forward with a union election.“If history is any indicator on this – and I think it is – when you see a president’s administration basically declaring war on unions, that’s going to certainly embolden private sector employers,” said Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University and author of the definitive book about the disastrous 1981 strike by the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (Patco).Labor experts point to several Trump administration actions that show a huge hostility toward unions, including Trump’s order to end collective bargaining by 50,000 airport screeners and then a far-reaching order to rip up union contracts and prohibit bargaining for over a million federal employees at more than a dozen agencies, including the state department, the treasury and health and human services. Trump and Musk have also fired tens of thousands of federal workers while disregarding protections in their union contracts. Moreover, Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, who was the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) acting chair. Wilcox insists her dismissal was illegal, but on 28 March a federal appeals court declined to reinstate her, at least for now.“What we’re seeing is Patco on steroids,” Sara Nelson, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said in an interview. “This is the president saying even the idea of having a union contract and having something in black and white to protect workers and having collective bargaining – he’s saying none of this should exist.”Trump’s anti-union and anti-worker actions have been piling up. He rescinded the $17.75-an-hour minimum wage that federal contractors must pay their workers. He issued an order to kill the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which seeks to settle potentially disastrous labor disputes. He nominated a management-side lawyer, Crystal Carey, to be the NLRB’s general counsel; her law firm represents anti-union employers, including Amazon, SpaceX and Tesla. Even the Teamsters’ president, Sean O’Brien, who has sought good relations with Trump, condemned that appointment, saying: “Carey has spent her entire professional career backing Big Business to the detriment of working people … [S]he wants to decimate labor unions.” (O’Brien did praise Trump’s choice of labor secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer.)Beyond that, Trump has repeatedly insulted the nation’s 2 million federal workers, saying: “Many of them don’t work at all. Many of them never showed up to work.”Eric Blanc, a labor studies professor at Rutgers University, said these actions have “demonstrated that Trump’s rhetoric about being pro-worker and pro-union was just that: pure rhetoric. This is an administration that is pushing the limits on how far you can go to destroy the labor movement and people’s labor standards.”Blanc said Trump’s replacing of the pro-union Joe Biden as president, has “certainly emboldened the big corporations that were already stonewalling their unions: Starbucks, Amazon, REI, where we saw the most emblematic union successes of the past few years”.In February, Utah’s governor signed a law that prohibits unions representing teachers, firefighters, police officers and other government employees from bargaining for better pay and working conditions. In a move directly inspired by Trump’s actions, a Michigan amusement and water park refused to move forward with a union election, believing that the NLRB was paralyzed after Wilcox was fired, leaving it without a quorum.“Companies could definitely get more anti-union because Trump and Musk are setting the example,” said Thomas Kochan, a longtime professor of industrial relations at MIT. “They’re firing workers who are unionized. They’re ignoring their labor contracts.”Kochan said he fears the consequences for unions if the supreme court upholds the firing of federal workers despite their contract protections or upholds Trump’s dismissal of Wilcox, leaving the NLRB without a quorum. “Then I think we will see companies come out of the woodwork to be more anti-union because there’s so little risk,” Kochan said. “We’ll see companies like SpaceX and Tesla just ignore the law because there will be no consequences. That’s the big risk now.”In his high-profile role, taking a figurative chainsaw to federal agencies and firing tens of thousands of workers, the fiercely anti-union Musk could inspire corporate executives to follow in his anti-union footsteps. SpaceX is even seeking to have the NLRB declared unconstitutional. “Musk is sort of the praetorian guard of the anti-union movement,” McCartin said. “He’s the tip of the spear.”But Blanc said corporate executives might hesitate about following Musk. “He is extremely unpopular, and his policies are not popular,” Blanc said. “Corporate America is not blind to that, and they’ll think twice about unleashing a backlash like the one Musk has unleashed.”Labor experts said it could take a few years before many companies become visibly more hostile toward unions. That was the case after the Patco strike. It was not until two or three years after that strike that several prominent employers –International Paper, Greyhound and Phelps Dodge – showed a harder attitude toward unions. They broke their unions’ strikes by hiring large numbers of replacement workers – an unusual move at the time.That tougher behavior under former president Ronald Reagan sped the decline of private sector unions. Today, just 6% of private sector workers are in unions, while 32% of public sector workers are. Anti-union ideologues are increasingly targeting public sector unions, which often support Democrats.“Because almost half of the labor movement is now in the public sector, the assault that we’re seeing now is really focused on the public sector,” McCartin said. “That really threatens to break the spine of the labor movement.”The flight attendants’ Nelson said it’s imperative for the labor movement to stand up and stand together to resist Trump’s and Musk’s anti-union actions: “It’s on all of us to use the power we have to stop this before everything is broken and every safety net is stolen by the oligarchs,” including Musk. Nelson said the labor movement has very few options at this point except to mobilize for a general strike.

      This article was amended on 7 April 2025 to clarify the timing of an order to rip up union contracts and an appeals court declining to reinstate Gwynne Wilcox. More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump claimed he was pro-worker. His new order shows how absurd that was | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      If any workers are still holding on to the notion that Donald Trump is pro-worker or pro-union, his move last week to terminate union bargaining rights for 1 million federal workers should disabuse them of that notion. As a candidate Trump often wooed workers by promising to fight for them, but ever since he returned to the White House, he has taken dozens of anti-worker and anti-union actions.In an unprecedented anti-union action last Thursday, the president moved to end collective bargaining for a million federal employees and scrap union contracts nearly that number, while attacking their unions as “hostile” merely because they were doing what unions are supposed to do: battling to save the jobs of tens of thousands of union members whom Trump and Elon Musk had summarily fired.In an era when many workers are demanding respect, Trump keeps showing disrespect toward the country’s 2.3 million federal workers. He and Musk have cavalierly fired more than 50,000 federal employees, ignoring contractual protections saying they could only be terminated for poor performance. Then Trump blamed the victims, saying, without evidence: “Many of them don’t work at all. Many of them never showed up to work.” Trump views federal employees not as dedicated workers who serve the nation’s 340 million people, but as deplorables who work for the detested deep state.Not stopping there, Trump has named several vehemently anti-union figures to be his right-hand men. Russell Vought, head of Trump’s office of management and budget, has shown true sadism toward workers. “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” Vought said in a video disclosed by ProPublica and the research group Documented. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains … We want to put them in trauma.”Would anyone who cared an iota about workers name such a callous, anti-worker person to a top position?Then there’s the aggressively anti-union Mr Musk. Trump praised Musk over the idea of firing striking workers, an action that is illegal and would go far to cripple labor’s most powerful weapon: the strike. Musk has become a pariah in Scandinavia for his extreme anti-union animus: Tesla has refused to recognize a union there – something that virtually all Scandinavian corporations do. Like Trump, Musk has a penchant for disrespecting workers, repeatedly tarring federal employees as being guilty of “waste, fraud and abuse”. Last week on Fox News, Musk insulted the intelligence of federal workers by falsely saying: “Basically almost no one [no federal employee] has gotten fired.”Again, would anyone who cared a whit about workers and unions tap Musk for such a powerful position?Trump’s first two months back in office have been filled with anti-worker and anti-union actions. In an unseemly move, the Trump administration called on federal workers to snitch on each other, to report on co-workers who promote diversity and inclusion. Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, the acting chair of the National Labor Relations Board – a move she says is illegal – leaving the board without a quorum to penalize employers that break the law when fighting against unionization. Trump also fired the NLRB’s vigorously pro-union general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, and wants to replace her with a management-side lawyer whose firm represents many anti-union companies, including Tesla and SpaceX.Trump, the supposed champion of workers, has done little to raise workers’ wages. As in his first term, he’s done zilch to increase the federal minimum wage, which has been stuck at a shockingly low $7.25 an hour for 15 years. He also rescinded Joe Biden’s order securing a $17.75-an-hour minimum wage for federal contractors. As a candidate Trump wooed tipped workers by vowing to end the income tax on employee tips, but he has failed to get the House budget bill to end that tax, although that bill tentatively includes Trump’s idea not to tax overtime pay.Labor leaders have denounced Trump’s order to gut union bargaining for 1 million workers. Randy Erwin, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, called Trump’s actions “the biggest assault on collective bargaining rights we have ever seen in this country”. Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said Trump’s order was “a disgraceful and retaliatory attack on the rights of hundreds of thousands of patriotic American civil servants – nearly one-third of whom are veterans – simply because they are members of a union that stands up to his harmful policies”.Anti-union CEOs and ideologues will no doubt applaud Trump’s order. By targeting unionization among 1 million workers, Trump aims to weaken the nation’s 14-million-member labor movement. If successful, his move would end bargaining for those 1 million workers, holding down employee pay and thereby making more money available for Trump’s tax cuts for the rich.Republican lawmakers will love Trump’s move because it undermines a key financial pillar for the Democrats. Half of US union members are government employees, and their unions are often major funders of Democratic candidates. Trump certainly knows that – 10 minutes after the supreme court issued its Janus decision in 2018, ruling that no federal, state or local government employee can be required to pay union dues, Trump tweeted “big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!” Trump’s new executive order will further skew a huge imbalance: Open Secrets, a research group that tracks political contributions, found that in the 2024 election cycle, business out-donated unions by 16 to one. Corporations donated $6.1bn to unions’ $264m, which is less than the gazillionaire Musk gave all by himself.Trump also won over many workers by vowing to cut prices. Not only did he vow to cut egg prices, he boldly said he’d cut auto insurance prices and energy prices in half. But Trump has totally failed to do any of that. Moreover, his 25% auto tariff will cause auto prices to soar.One has to strain to think of even one or two pro-worker or pro-union moves that Trump has taken. The White House says his tariffs are pro-worker and pro-union, insisting they will bring back manufacturing jobs. But many economists say Trump’s tariffs will hurt myriad industries and workers. His auto tariffs, for instance, will increase car prices and as a result, auto sales, auto production and auto jobs will decline, at least short-term. Not only that, other countries’ retaliation will pummel various US industries and trigger additional layoffs. Moreover, Trump’s tariffs will undermine GDP growth and perhaps push the US into recession. Bottom line: Trump remains obsessed with tariffs, even though they’re likely to result in more pain than gain for US workers.When it comes to worker issues, Trump resembles the emperor in the famous fairytale: he sees himself wearing magnificent union-made clothes covered with buttons containing pro-worker slogans. But more and more Americans realize that when it comes to helping workers, Trump is like Hans Christian Andersen’s emperor: his nakedness is showing.

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author focusing on labor and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Organizers accuse Trump of trying to silence federal workers with union order

      by

      Union leaders have accused Donald Trump of union-busting in a “blatant” attempt to silence them after the president stepped up his attacks on government unions on Thursday, signing an executive order that attempts to eliminate collective bargaining for hundreds of thousands of federal workers.The order limits the departments and classifications of federal workers who can organize a union and instructs the government to stop engaging in any collective bargaining.The office of personnel management issued a memo following the directive, providing guidance to the departments and subdivisions on the order, which includes terminating their collective bargaining agreements and ending voluntary union dues collection through payrolls.Following the order the Trump administration filed a lawsuit in a Texas court to support its move to end collective bargaining, claiming collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) “significantly constrain” the executive branch.“Plaintiffs wish to rescind or repudiate those CBAs, including so they can protect national security by developing personnel policies that otherwise would be precluded or hindered by the CBAs. But to ensure legal certainty and avoid unnecessary labor strife, they first seek declaratory relief to confirm that they are legally entitled to proceed with doing so,” the lawsuit states.Liz Shuler, the president of the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the US, said the move was “straight out of Project 2025”, the rightwing Heritage Foundation’s manifesto to remake the federal government.“This executive order is the very definition of union-busting. It strips the fundamental right to unionize and collectively bargain from workers across the federal government at more than 30 agencies,” said Shuler. “It’s clear that this order is punishment for unions who are leading the fight against the administration’s illegal actions in court – and a blatant attempt to silence us.”According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 29.9% of federal employees are union members as of 2024, representing more than 1.2 million workers.Unions representing federal workers have criticized the order and vowed to take immediate legal action.“President Trump’s latest executive order is a disgraceful and retaliatory attack on the rights of hundreds of thousands of patriotic American civil servants – nearly one-third of whom are veterans – simply because they are members of a union that stands up to his harmful policies,” said Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest union representing federal workers.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“These threats will not work. Americans will not be intimidated or silenced. AFGE isn’t going anywhere. Our members have bravely served this nation, often putting themselves in harm’s way, and they deserve far better than this blatant attempt at political punishment.”Kelley added: “AFGE is preparing immediate legal action and will fight relentlessly to protect our rights, our members, and all working Americans from these unprecedented attacks.”The union held a press conference with Democratic lawmakers on Friday afternoon at the US Capitol, during which Kelley criticized the invocation of national security to strip federal workers of their union rights and called for support from the public.“This isn’t about safety or security. It’s about silencing workers who are courageously standing up to this non integrity, non accountability in the government,” said Kelley. “We won’t be silenced.”The congressman Jamie Raskin said the Trump order was an attempt to bring “chaos and retaliation” against the US labor movement.“It’s clear as day that they are retaliating against the labor movement for standing up for the rights of workers,” said Raskin. “When rightwing coups and authoritarian takeovers happen all over the world, the first thing they do is they attack the civil service, and then they attack the labor movement.”Unions representing federal workers can only bargain over conditions of employment, with wages, benefits, and classifications set by law and Congress. Bargaining is governed by the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. Federal workers are also barred from conducting strikes.“President Trump’s attempt to unlawfully eliminate the right to collectively bargain for hundreds of thousands of federal workers is blatant retribution,” said Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). “This attack is meant to silence their voices, so Elon Musk and his minions can shred the services that working people depend on the federal government to do.”Sara Nelson, the international president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, warned Trump’s executive order was a warning for more attacks on workers and labor unions to come from this administration.“If we allow this administration to tear up federal union contracts, fire federal workers who stand up for our legal rights and target federal unions and union activists, they won’t stop there,” Nelson said. “An injury to one is an injury to all. It is time for the labor movement and the American workforce to rise up for our rights and fight for our country – whatever it takes.” More