Trump Admin Files Lawsuit in Waco Federal Court Seeking to End Union Created CBAs & Adding New HR/Payroll Policies for Federal Employees

army judge

Super Moderator
This lawsuit has instantly piqued by curiosity.

If the Federal Gubmint prevails, the verdict will reverberate throughout the nation for years, if not decades.


(==============================)


WACO, Texas (KXXV) — The Trump Administration filed a lawsuit in a Waco court on March 27 against a union representing federal workers, known as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).

The lawsuit, filed in the Waco Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, focuses on the power of federal agencies to terminate collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) under an Executive Order issued by the President.

AFGE District 10 is based in Killeen, TX and represents over 90,000 federal workers.

According to the lawsuit, terminating the CBAs would allow agencies to develop personnel policies without the limitations imposed by existing agreements under the union.

AFGE is the largest union representing federal employees in the United States.



<....................................>
 
I'm not surprised that Trump would take this approach and I don't have any objections to it. Testing it in federal court should give the administration, unions, and union members clarity on what federal agencies may do with respect to the role of unions in the federal government. When I worked for IRS there was (and still is) a union representing non management employees. It was not compulsory for employees to join the union or pay the union dues as some states require of employers. Overall I found the union to be largely ineffective. My guess is that in most other agencies the unions similarly don't deliver a whole lot for their members. That said, it would not bother me if the current system remained in place. Since union membership is completely voluntary for federal employees if someone wants to be a member of union and believes they will get a benefit from it I don't see any harm in giving employees that choice.
 
Lots of people saying the key to a Trump third term would be to tank the economy, kill employee protections, raise inflation, kill the middle class. He envisions himself on Mt. Rushmore while the people envision him in prison.

His minions are wanting to kill entitlements and take away peoples fundamental rights as citizens.

Not good to be in America or an American these days. I fully expect all pauses to be placed upon the DOW as the massive sell off continues.
 
I can't see Trump or any congressional Republican thinking that tanking the economy would somehow be good for reelection chances. What would be the logic in that? IMO they are thinking the economic pain we are having now will be just temporary and by 2026 the economy will bounce back even stronger for which take credit for as a brilliant economic plan. The problem is that once you start a trade war and actions that disrupt the economy you lose control of it as a lot of things happen that the nation that started it never took into account.

History shows that few trade wars end well for any of the countries affected by it. Trade wars were one of the main triggers for the Great Depression almost a century ago. That's why after the Great Depression ended no major nation went down that same path. The closest thing that I can recall in the nature of a serious trade war involving the U.S. in my lifetime was the OPEC oil embargos of the 1970s. The OPEC nations did that to boost up the price of the oil they sold in the wake of the Yom Kippur war. It didn't quite work out as they planned. Initially it did boost oil prices for OPEC in the short term but long term it resulted in OPEC's market share declining as nations diversified away from OPEC to other energy sources.
 

Ask a Question

Back
Top