SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
national treasury employees union
Federal Workers Union Sues Trump Over Attack on Collective Bargaining
The National Treasury Employees Union president called the order "an attempt to silence the voices of our nation's public servants" and part of an effort "to deny the American people the vital services" they provide.
Mar 31, 2025
A union that represents employees across 37 federal agencies and offices on Monday sued U.S. President Donald Trump and various leaders in his administration over an executive order that aims to strip collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of government workers under the guise of protecting national security.
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filed the federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., arguing that the order issued by Trump last week is not only illegal but also motivated by "a policy objective of making federal employees easier to fire and political animus against federal sector unions," many of which have vocally resisted Trump's legally dubious attacks on agencies and key programs.
"The law plainly gives federal employees the right to bargain collectively and the shocking executive order abolishing that right for most of them, under the guise of national security, is an attempt to silence the voices of our nation's public servants," said NTEU national president Doreen Greenwald in a statement.
"It is also a continuation of the administration's efforts to deny the American people the vital services that these talented civil servants provide by making it easier to fire them without any pushback from their union advocates," she declared.
Greenwald vowed that "NTEU intends to protect the ability of frontline federal employees to stand together to improve the conditions under which they serve the American people. Federal workers around the country, through their unions, advocate for the tools and resources they need to do their jobs and help their agencies accomplish important public service missions, and we will not allow the administration to distort the truth."
The complaint filed Monday argues that the new order "plainly punishes NTEU for its legal challenges to this administration's actions, canceling, as relevant here, 12 of NTEU's collective bargaining relationships, including NTEU's largest and longest one" at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The agency's acting commissioner and chief counsel are listed as plaintiffs.
The NTEU is also suing the the U.S. attorney general, the Federal Communications Commission chair, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service commissioner, the acting comptroller of the currency, the acting directors of the Bureau of Land Management and the Office of Personnel Management, the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, and the energy secretary, treasury, and health and human services secretaries.
As The Hillreported Monday:
The suit, filed in Washington, D.C., comes as the Trump administration took the unusual move of filing its own legal action in Texas last week, making the first move in litigation by asking a judge to declare as legal its plans to terminate the contracts.
That suit was filed in a single-judge district in Texas, possibly setting the stage for a square-off in the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration's filing in Texas targets another key union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).
According toFederal News Network, during a Friday press conference, AFGE national president Everett Kelley called the executive order "plainly retaliatory" and pledged to keep challenging the administration.
"The executive order says plainly that they are taking this action because AFGE is standing up for our members," Kelley said. "But I want to assure everybody that AFGE will always stand up for its members."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Temporarily Blocks Musk-Led 'Fork' Offer to Purge Federal Workers
"Proceed with caution," Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley urged federal workers. "Talk to your union reps. Know your rights."
Feb 06, 2025
A U.S. judge in Massachusetts on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's widely decried deferred resignation program intended to help the Republican administration dramatically reduce the federal workforce—a move that came just hours away from a midnight application deadline for workers.
Boston-based District Judge George O'Toole Jr., an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, "did not express an opinion on the legality of the program," according toThe Associated Press. "He scheduled a hearing for Monday at 2:00 pm EST and told the administration to extend the application deadline until after that."
The judge's intervention was prompted by labor unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), that filed suit on Tuesday, arguing the program is "an arbitrary, unlawful, short-fused ultimatum," and on Wednesday asked O'Toole to pause implementation and extend the deadline.
Despite warnings from unions and congressional Democrats not to trust the Trump administration's deal, multiple journalists reported Thursday at least 50,000 federal workers—or about 2% of the government's 2.3 million workforce—had taken it.
"Deferred resignation is designed to tempt you, but there are major reasons for concern."
The program was unveiled last month in a "Fork in the Road" email that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the government's human resources agency, sent federal workers. It resembles—including the verbatim wording of the subject line—an email that billionaire Elon Musk, chair of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), sent Twitter employees in 2022, when he took over the social media platform.
In the email, OPM told federal workers that "we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency," and gave them until Thursday to decide whether to leave their jobs, claiming that "if you resign under this program, you will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025 (or earlier if you choose to accelerate your resignation for any reason)."
A subsequently published OPM webpage answering frequently asked questions claims that workers who take the deal are not expected to work during the deferred resignation period and encourages them to seek private sector employment in that time. It also states that the offer applies to all full-time federal employees except those in the military; U.S. Postal Service; positions related to immigration enforcement, national security, or public safety; and jobs specifically excluded by federal agencies.
Although the Internal Revenue Service does not appear on that list, Federal News Networkreported Wednesday that some IRS employees who accepted the resignation offer "are now being told they must stay on the job through May 15, because the agency has deemed their work 'essential' to this year's tax filing season." Axiosobtained the relevant email sent to IRS workers.
"Not only is this a clear case of bait-and-switch—they were originally told they would be paid to not work through September 30—but it proves that the terms of OPM's so-called offer are unreliable and cannot be trusted," said Doreen Greenwald, president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents IRS workers, in a statement to the media outlets.
"We do welcome the admission, however, that IRS employees are vital to the agency mission," she added. "By requiring IRS employees to stay on the job longer than promised, the administration is proving what NTEU has been saying all along: IRS employees are essential and without them, the jobs that the American people depend upon will not get done. In the case of the IRS, it's answering taxpayer questions during filing season, processing tax returns, and issuing refunds. But this holds true for frontline federal employees across government who safeguard the public health, promote economic growth, and secure the nation. If their jobs are arbitrarily eliminated, those services are in jeopardy."
NTEU and the AFGE have cautioned members against taking the offer. The latter union is circulating an FAQ sheet for federal workers, which notes that "it is unclear what recourse, if any, employees might have if the government fails to honor the terms of their deferred resignation."
Reutersspoke with multiple federal employees weighing what to do ahead of the deadline:
Employees at the General Services Administration, which manages federal properties, have been bracing for mass layoffs after officials said they plan to slash spending by half.
"It's just chaos, no one is able to do any real work now," said one employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Colleagues were deleting personal documents from their work computers, the person said.
Another worker at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who also asked not to be named, said the mood inside the agency was one of fear and confusion. Staff believe they will likely lose their jobs whether or not they accept the offer, the person said.
An unnamed but defiant Department of Agriculture employee told the news agency: "I am scared about losing my job, but I am not going to give in. They need to push me out."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), whose congressional district is home to many members of the civilian workforce, wrote in an open letter to them on Thursday: "I am not a lawyer, financial planner, or career adviser, and cannot tell you what to do. But I can offer my empathy and perspective on the choice that faces you. As someone who grew up in a family of civil servants, pursued public service, and represents over 70,000 federal employees, I respect and value your service to the country."
"You can see what Elon Musk and Donald Trump are doing. The hiring freeze, Schedule F, the mass firings, the cancellation of work arrangements and collective bargaining agreements, and the emails and statements insulting you and your work—all are designed to demoralize you, fill your workplace with chaos and fear, and get you to quit," he continued. "Deferred resignation is designed to tempt you, but there are major reasons for concern."
"First, the administration says they can rescind this offer after it is accepted and stop paying you, which would leave you with little or no recourse. Next, the legality of these offers is dubious," Beyer stressed. "Finally, to accept this offer, you must trust that Elon Musk and Donald Trump will keep their word. They both have extensive track records of dishonesty."
"Only you know what is the best choice for you. If you are concerned about your job security and think taking this offer is the lesser evil, there is no shame in that," he concluded. "I will not stop fighting for you and for the federal employees who choose to serve the American people, and there are many others who will have your back. You are not alone, and America needs you more than ever."
Sharing resources for workers on social media Thursday, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) similarly said: "If you're a federal employee who received Trump's 'Fork in the Road' memo, proceed with caution. This is not a man who keeps his word to workers on anything. Talk to your union reps. Know your rights."
Former Twitter workers are also speaking out. After interviewing ex-employees and a lawyer who represents thousands of them who took legal action after Musk bought the platform, CNNreported Wednesday:
Within hours of acquiring Twitter, Musk had fired its top executives; within days, he'd laid off around 3,500 employees, around 50% of the company's total staff. Ultimately, he trimmed 80% of Twitter's workforce, demanded everyone return to the office, and often required employees to work far more than 40 hours a week.
Musk's DOGE, with its goal of cutting potentially trillions of dollars out of the federal budget, is making similar cuts throughout government: the United States Agency for International Development appears to be in the process of shutting down; two sources told CNN the Office of Personnel Management was directed to prepare to eventually cut as much as 70% of its workforce; and the General Services Administration was told to present proposals to cut 50% of business expenses, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation.
The network noted that Yao Yue, former principal software engineer at Twitter, recently wrote on X: "As someone who went through an eerily similar episode of hostile takeover that also played out in public in real time, I want to tell all the fed workers, 'I'm so sorry this is happening to you, I know how this feels.' And here are some of my learnings."
"Take care of each other... Record things, safely," she advised. "Stay calm and carry on. Don't comply without question, don't fold over in advance... You will survive if you band together with your trusted coworkers, family, and friends. You are not alone. Tell us what you need. We will get through this together."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Major Public Sector Unions Sue Over Trump's 'Politicization' of Civil Service
The head of a legal group representing the plaintiffs called the Trump administration's effort to "politicize" nonpartisan federal employees "simply and clearly illegal."
Jan 30, 2025
Two unions representing federal employees filed a complaint in federal court on Wednesday arguing that U.S. President Donald Trump "illegally exceeded his authority" by attempting to roll back Biden-era worker protections when he implemented his "Schedule F" executive order, a measure aimed at removing job protections for many career federal employees.
The plaintiffs are the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents some 800,000 federal civilian employees, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which represents some 1.4 million public employees, including federal workers.
The unions argue that Schedule F, which creates a new category of federal employees and makes it easier for a president to remove career civil servants not normally impacted by a presidential transition, is a scheme that put politics over professionalism.
"Despite this long-standing recognition of the importance of our professional civil service and protections against its politicization, the recently issued Schedule F order announces President Trump's intent to reclassify many career civil servants into a new category of federal employees and strip away their civil service protections so that they can be more easily fired," the plaintiffs argued.
Another union representing federal employees, National Treasury Employees Union, also filed a lawsuit challenging Schedule F last week.
The order, signed on Trump's first day in office, is a redux of an executive order that he implemented at the tail end of his first term, which was later reversed by former President Joe Biden.
In a statement Wednesday, AFSCME president Lee Saunders said that Schedule F "is a shameless attempt to politicize the federal workforce by replacing thousands of dedicated, qualified civil servants with political cronies."
"Our union was born in the fight for a professional, nonpartisan civil service, and our communities will pay the price if these anti-union extremists are allowed to undo decades of progress by stripping these workers of their freedoms. Together, we are fighting back," he said.
On Monday, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued guidance for the heads of departments and agencies to determine which workers are subject to Trump's Schedule F order.
The memo from OPM is "broadly worded; just about anyone in the civil service could be swept up into this category," Alan Lescht, a Washington, D.C.-based employment lawyer who represents federal workers, told the outlet Axios.
OPM, acting OPM Director Charles Ezell, and Trump are all listed as defendants in the lawsuit, which alleges that Trump overstepped his legal authority when he issued Schedule F and rendered parts of a preexisting OPM rule that reinforced civil service protections and merit system principles "inoperative and without effect."
The suit argues that OPM failed to adhere to the "notice-and-comment process" under Administrative Procedure Act when it rendered those regulatory provisions inoperative.
"In just the nine days since Trump took office, his administration has repeatedly demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law in service of its political objectives," said Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman, whose firm is serving as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, in a Wednesday statement.
The Trump administration's effort "to politicize the nonpartisan, independent federal employees who protect our national and domestic security, ensure our food and medications are safe, deliver essential services to people and communities everywhere, and much more is simply and clearly illegal," Perryman said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular