OPM has told agencies affected by the order—which invokes national security to deny union representation to about two-thirds of federal employees now in union bargaining units—that they can ignore those provisions. Image: Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Shutterstock
By: FEDweek StaffWith the April 14 deadline for agencies to have drafted specific RIF plans to present to OMB and OPM fast arriving, the dispute over President Trump’s order against federal unions continues to grow in both the federal courts and on Capitol Hill.
In recent days, early indications from several agencies are that personnel cuts will be deep, at least in some functions, with closings of field and regional offices and many employees to be faced with a choice of relocating or resigning. Several agencies also have reopened—although only for a short time—deferred resignation windows, with traditional buyouts and early retirement also being offered in a bid to increase voluntary turnover.
The status of contracts is a key issue to carrying out those plans, since contracts commonly contain provisions meant to give employees additional protections, such as additional advance notice before implementing a RIF, giving hiring preferences to qualified employees, providing training to help impacted employees meet requirements of a new position, and granting preference for a return to specific locations or positions.
OPM has told agencies affected by the order—which invokes national security to deny union representation to about two-thirds of federal employees now in union bargaining units—that they can ignore those provisions.
That order quickly became the subject of opposing lawsuits, one from the AFGE union seeking to invalidate it and one from the Trump administration seeking a court’s declaratory judgment that it was proper. More recently, another pair of lawsuits along the same lines, one from the NTEU union and another from the administration, have been filed.
The suits add to a long list of legal disputes over Trump administration federal personnel policies; federal unions have had some success in getting judges to issue orders blocking them, at least initially. Unions are pushing for a similar order in advance of agencies putting those restructuring plans into high gear.
Meanwhile, a bill has been offered in the House (HR-2550) with 64 co-sponsors, five of them Republicans, to invalidate the order by preventing funds from being spent to carry it out, and stating that any existing contracts “shall have full force and effect” through their duration.
“Improving government efficiency is essential — but sweeping exclusions from collective bargaining are a blunt instrument that risk weakening the very stability and performance we aim to strengthen,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, the primary Republican sponsor.
With unanimous support of Democrats and that number of Republicans, the bill could pass the House, although House GOP leaders control which bills get votes.
Meanwhile, all Senate Democrats have joined in a letter to the White House saying that “There is no evidence that the long-standing collective bargaining agreements at these agencies have jeopardized our nation’s security in any way; to the contrary, the protection collective bargaining has provided for employees allows them to conduct their work on behalf of the American people—including blowing the whistle on fraud or abuse—without political interference.”
Key Bills Advancing, but No Path to Avoid Shutdown Apparent
TSP Adds Detail to Upcoming Roth Conversion Feature
White House to Issue Rules on RIF, Disciplinary Policy Changes
DoD Announces Civilian Volunteer Detail in Support of Immigration Enforcement
See also,
How Do Age and Years of Service Impact My Federal Retirement
The Best Ages for Federal Employees to Retire
How to Challenge a Federal Reduction in Force (RIF) in 2025
Should I be Shooting for a $1M TSP Balance? Depends…
