It just keeps getting more and more messy.
3 Likes
I dont see major consequences other than affecting federal workers stay at home provision guaranteed by their bargaining agreements. Federal unions, AFGE, NTEU, IFPTE have long been preparing for this eventuality with a phalanx of attorneys with extensive LMR litigation experience. Secondly, Union contracts, known as CBAs (Collective Bargaining Agreements) are protected by federal statutes that supersede EOs, and my thinking is that the unions will prevail. Add to that the federal governmentâs administrative appeals process that governs internal government LMR contests, the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is already crowded because there are too many vacancies to process them all. All in all, it will be 18 - 24 months before any of this comes close to resolution. Bottom line: this will settle into a waiting game with little to show for all the WH EOs except to put Wall Street in a constant, exhausting three point stance. I dont see this otherwise affecting profits or the market. The wild card, of course, is the Supremes. Fool On.
3 Likes
I have held, for some time, that the entire body of Federal labor law is on pretty shaky ground, constitutionally. All it takes is a new test case, because prescient no longer matters.
Steve
3 Likes
Two audacious, âout thereâ compared to normal, intelligent, and sharply pointed posts. Thanks speakslowly and steve.
A President cancelling a contract that was already negotiated is a major consequence because it halts all the provisions that were enacted in the contract, unless a court rules that they can go forward until the case is resolved. What I suspect is that the contract will be halted until it is resolved in court which will take 2 years. The NLRB is not going to be of help for federal workers since they are covered under the FLRA (Federal labor relations authority) and they will assuredly be in Trumps pocket. The league of lawyers that the unions have are only as good as the courts.
3 Likes
First, OOPS FLRA is correct⌠Second, your position is relatively new or relatively new to most legal commentors and almost exclusively to very conservative groups and is a distinctly minority view. Indeed, the argument of unconstitutionality is a massive Rove-like sledge hammer from the top down to literally decades of administrative holdings and court decisions ruling in the other direction. That doesnât mean that this view wonât be successful when it reaches the Supremes in its current configuration. FLRA appointees, (admittedly I didnât double check) are Biden appointees enroute to the SCOTUS. If successful it would gut federal worker protections literally everywhere. I cling to the hope that we donât see the Roberts Court make law a la the Warren and Burger courts to destabilize the federal workforce. Could it happen? Maybe, and if it does, the economic consequences, i.e., political pressure to leave a low paying but steady job with excellent medical care will affect consumer spending even more than the average private sector employee.
1 Like
My reply is a little far afield from economic considerations but itâs hard to see that the WH would successfully argue a contract will be cancelled. Trump tried this in first administration and he ran out of time before he did any real damage. And it helped cost him the 2020 election. The contract (CBA) will not âhaltedâ per se, but remain in statis which is more than a semantic distinction. The employees will be required to come to the office. Not a big deal other than climate damage, morale loss, costs, and congestion considerations aside. The operative response to all of this is obey the order, then grieve. That will take time, but again, the last time he did it, it swept the Democrats back in. Unless Trump just wants to see everything burn, it wonât happen. Well, maybe he does. Returning to the economic consequences, again, all this will be unsettling to the markets, but how much I have no crystal ball.
2 Likes
The Federal workforce is already being destabilized. The media has reported the buyout offer to some 2M Federal employees, followed by an e-mail from OPM urging employees to go find a more productive job in the private sector.
2 Likes
My view was built upon my years of Union activity, being on many negotiations, being the lead steward in my union, sitting in on many grievances and firings including my own.
I didnât say it wasnât unconstitutional nor that it would succeed. Of course it is and of course it wonât but it will be tied up in courts.
The problem with that, like the inspector generals, they can be fired by the Potus. Another problem is they canât tell the President that what he is doing is illegal. We have never seen a President that is willing to break the law and flout abnormal behaviour. He knows what he is doing is wrong, so do his colleagues, the problem is they donât care. They are without conscious and are not bound by conventional principles. Once you realize that, you can better deal with them.
4 Likes
I have questioned the constitutionality of the body of US labor law, for years. Itâs quite a stretch to say that, if a companyâs business crosses state lines, or does not, the Federal government can regulate the employer/employee relationship, regarding wages, hours, or anything else.
Just like most of the âJCsâ I worked for over the years. The behaviors we are seeing are all very familiar to me.
Steve
1 Like
Exactly, they tell us we have to reside within the laws and bind us by them while they flout the very foundations of the law, all wrapped up in religion and identity politics.
When Trump was elected the first time, I said the chains are off. Once he was elected that told me all the bull that they said they believed in was a farce. Balanced budget, bull, family values, bull, rule of law, bull, back the police, bull, uphold the constitution, bull.
5 Likes
Steve 203,
Yes that is what the media said. But this is just clickbait. First, federal employees know better than to panic. They have seen managerial overstatements for decades. Second, federal employees talk to each other. There are back channels that reach beyond and behind the man behind the curtain. Third, the WH and OMB doesnât have the authority to authorize these payments and everybody within the federal workforce from the lowest GS schedule to GS 18 will check with people they trust, not management, to check their options. Fourth, OMB has already backtracked to eliminate certain jobs from receipt of these so called payments. The WH has also rescinded the original EO regarding frozen payments, and the current administration has lost credibility within its first two weeks. Fifth, only Trump supporters within the federal workforce trusts that Trump will actually pay the money. The WH wants the employees to retire before they get their check. Nope, show me the money. Sixth, even if the WH had cash to hand out, no federal employees are going to take early out except Boomers who were going to leave anyway. If that happens, the institutional memory will evaporate with no money to train new replacement workers, which would slow government services to a dead stop. Finally, remember that the WH is not intending to replace retiring workers. This will create a cyclical down spin in government services and unless the WH intends to lose the midterms on purpose, once the administration sits down and actually thinks this thru - well - ainât gonna happen. Just my Foolish opinion. Nothing more.
| buynholdisdead
February 1 |
- | - |
speakslowly:
First, OOPS FLRA is correct⌠Second, your position is relatively new or relatively new to most legal commentors and almost exclusively to very conservative groups and is a distinctly minority view.
My view was built upon my years of Union activity, being on many negotiations, being the lead steward in my union, sitting in on many grievances and firings including my own.
Indeed, the argument of unconstitutionality is a massive Rove-like sledge hammer from the top down to literally decades of administrative holdings and court decisions ruling in the other direction. That doesnât mean that this view wonât be successful when it reaches the Supremes in its current configuration.
I didnât say it wasnât unconstitutional nor that it would succeed. Of course it is and of course it wonât but it will be tied up in courts.
That doesnât mean that this view wonât be successful when it reaches the Supremes in its current configuration. FLRA appointees, (admittedly I didnât double check) are Biden appointees enroute to the SCOTUS.
The problem with that, like the inspector generals, they can be fired by the Potus. Another problem is they canât tell the President that what he is doing is illegal. We have never seen a President that is willing to break the law and flout abnormal behaviour. He knows what he is doing is wrong, so do his colleagues, the problem is they donât care. They are without conscious and are not bound by conventional principles. Once you realize that, you can better deal with them.
1 Like
Employees placed on leave are receiving full pay and benefits and the memo clarified the leave was not based on disciplinary reasons.
This is a heads up âyour career here is over. better start looking for another job nowâ. So says the thought police.
Steve
1 Like