13 unions now suing President Trump

As of June 13, there were 13 unions representing federal employees a part of a lawsuit seeking an injunction from the court to block implementation of three executive orders issued by President Trump last month.

“Federal employees have rights under the law, and with this lawsuit, we are asserting those rights,” National Federation of Federal Employees National President Randy Erwin said in a press release.

“We believe his executive orders violate the law in many areas, and we are asking the courts to step in and block Trump’s unauthorized directives,” he added.

On May 25, President Trump signed three EOs that will 1) limit the amount of time an employee can be under investigation for misconduct and encourages firings for underperformers, 2) states that employees who conduct union activities while on the job must spend at least 75 percent of their time doing government work and 3) calls for the Office of Personnel Management to renegotiate contracts with unions regarding the reporting of official time instead of working directly with individual agencies.

The lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and lead by NFFE with 12 other unions from across that country that represent 110,000 federal employees.

The unions contend that if implemented, the executive orders “would wreck the system of collective bargaining in the federal sector, eliminate meaningful due process for federal employees that is essential to American democracy, and make it all but impossible for federal employee unions to offer federal workers the representation that unions in the federal sector are required by law to provide,” the press release states.

“Together, these executive orders represent the front line of the assault on unions and working people. We view an attack on one as an attack on all. We will stop at nothing to resist these mean-spirited and unauthorized executive actions,” Erwin said.

Reader comments

Wed, Jul 11, 2018

To all of you folks, let me remind you that all the employees in Federal Unions are also taxpayers.

Wed, Jun 27, 2018 Renee U. Jacksonville

30 days is too short of a period to evaluate an employee who has received a PIP. The President is asking that managers get the right to fire that employee after just 30 days, not 30 working days. That is not enough time to evaluate, especially for an employee who has had outstanding evaluations for many years and who experienced some minor slip up....like their performance went down the drain during the first evaluation period because their mom died and they got a divorce. It doesn't mean they will always be a bad employee.

Tue, Jun 19, 2018 Ronald R.

"1) limit the amount of time an employee can be under investigation for misconduct and encourages firings for underperformers" My response = I am not opposed to this, but Trump's proposal is awful and unfair. It allows managers to fire bad employees 30 days (not 30 WORKING DAYS) after receiving their PIP. That is not enough time to evaluate someone after a PIP notice. Wonder if someone gets a PIP notice on December 1. There are 31 days in December. 9 days in December are weekend days, and 2 days are national holidays. The average U.S. government worker takes at least 7 days off during the winter holidays, and they schedule that leave and get it signed months before December 1. So let's go back to the person who gets his PIP on December 1. 9 weekend days and 2 holidays equals 11 days. Add 7 more days of leave, so that's now 18 days in the month of December that the employee won't be at work. So according to Mr. Trump, a manager has a right to fire that PIP worker after just 13 days of on the job evaluation. This could be a person with 20 years on the job. That's ridiculous and a lawsuit waiting to happen. You have to allow an employee at least 60 WORKING DAYS to improve their performance. People can have perfect performance ratings for 20 years and then get a PIP because the new manager has a petty personality conflict with the worker. I understand making it easier for managers to fire chronically bad employees, but this is going to the utter extreme. The truth is that giving managers more power to can inept employees is not going to effect me at all except to give me more work. My place of work won't fill those vacancies because Trump wants to cut down on the government work force. No one has given me a raise to cover the $800 in rent increases I've had to deal with in the past 10 years. The government has a set labor budget. Even if we are all outstanding performers, the federal government is not like google. There is not enough money to pay back people what they deserve, much less what they deserve in the future.

Fri, Jun 15, 2018

IF the Unions were more prone to TRULY helping the employee and not the Supervisor, then I would tend to support these actions for the Union. I currently don't support these actions, because I've witnessed Union Representatives who are in these positions for him/herself. He/She sides with the Supervisors and then all of a sudden, the Union REP gets promoted. This happens a lot in the Shipyard. I can't get out of the Union, because if you are not a Supervisor, you are required to be in an Union. I'm a STRONG supporter of employees providing input on Supervisors' performance appraisals.

Fri, Jun 15, 2018

In reply to "The Federal Government guarantees due process..." - That Federal Employees are guaranteed due process is already the case without the intervention of Union representatives who, more often than not, provided little if any added benefit to the employee. I agree wholeheartedly with the executive orders. (a) Investigations into Federal Employee wrongdoing should be a ticket to ensure an open ended process that can be drawn out for years on end, as has been the case for many years. (b) I don't see any issue with ensuring that government employees who are union representatives spend at least 75% of their time doing their actual job, not the Union job. (c) Why must it be that management at the federal level must spend so much time and so many resources bargaining with individual agencies when the unions who represent these groups can do the job once instead of having to the same job hundreds of times separately? Tell me, what's wrong with any of that?

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Contributors

Edward A. Zurndorfer Certified Financial Planner
Mike Causey Columnist
Tom Fox VP for Leadership and Innovation, Partnership for Public Service
Mathew B. Tully Legal Analyst

Free E-Newsletter

FederalDAILY

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.

Stay Connected

Latest Forum Posts

Ask the Expert

Have a question regarding your federal employee benefits or retirement?

Submit a question