To Do For All That Which No One Can Do For Oneself
Header

Executive Order Busting Unions 03-27-2025

March 28th, 2025 | Posted by admin in DOGE | Executive Orders | JOIN AFGE - (0 Comments)

Members,

The White House issued an executive order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/exclusions-from-federal-labor-management-relations-programs/ ) declaring many federal agencies as excluded from collective bargaining per an overly broad application of the national security exclusions of the federal service labor management relations statute, 5 USC 7103(b)(1). Most of the Social Security Administration is not listed in or affected by the new EO, except for the Office of Chief Information Officer. 

The related OPM guidance (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/guidance-on-executive-order-exclusions-from-federal-labor-management-programs.pdf )  also issued also indicates that SSA (except OCIO) is not covered by the new EO. The OPM guidance further states that certain actions to change performance rules, abandon grievance procedures, etc. cannot be done until a CBA expires or is terminated in connection with the EO. As such, our CBA remains in force, and if it is violated, we will respond accordingly.

AFGE has emailed all members encouraging them to convert to eDues. Our locals should strongly consider doing so, especially given proposed legislation to eliminate payroll deduction. 

AFGE will be responding to this unprecedented attack on union and employee rights. Now more than ever, we need solidarity among ourselves here at SSA, and with our union siblings across AFGE and the rest of the civil service. We must remain vigilant and speak out to protect our rights and against the attacks on our siblings. Everyone needs to be active legislatively, in organizing our workplaces and our communities, and in rallying for our rights- to tell our story and to inform the public how these actions will impact their services and their lives.

In solidarity,

General Committee Spokesperson

JOIN IN THE FIGHT

February 17th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Budget | Did you know? | Executive Orders | JOIN AFGE | MAKE THE CALL | National Updates - (0 Comments)

AFGE Membership Highest in History as Government Workers Join in Droves to Stand Up for Public Service

February 10, 2025

President Trump’s illegal directives keep coming, but federal workers who take the oath to uphold the Constitution are not taking it lying down. Their courage and commitment to public service have led to skyrocketing membership at AFGE. As of this writing, the number of dues-paying members went up rapidly to stand at 321,000, the highest in the union’s history. 

Federal workers are joining to have a voice at work and fight efforts to undermine the federal government and democracy.  

Here’s a summary of what we did together this week and how you can join us. 

Feb. 7: In response to AFGE and allies’ lawsuit, a federal judge paused the Trump administration’s effort to put more than 2,000 employees at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on administrative leave and to recall overseas USAID employees to the U.S.  

Feb. 6: In a victory for government employees, a federal judge suspended the Trump administration’s implementation of its deferred resignation program in response to AFGE and allies’ lawsuit seeking suspension of this illegal program. The judge has set a Monday hearing to hear further arguments.  

Feb. 6: A federal judge partially blocked Elon Musk’s access to the Treasury Department’s payment systems in response to a lawsuit filed by AFGE and allies. Two DOGE-connected employees are granted “read only” access to the systems. No one else will get access, including Musk himself. 

Feb. 5: AFGE and allies filed a lawsuit challenging DOGE’s authority to access highly sensitive information systems at the Department of Labor and restructure multiple federal agencies unilaterally. 

Feb. 3: AFGE vowed to challenge any efforts to defy signed contracts after the Trump administration told agencies to ignore collective bargaining agreements. AFGE maintains that union contracts are enforceable by law, and the president does not have the authority to make unilateral changes to the agreements.  

For more details about our efforts protecting the public service and workers’ rights, click here. 

Want to join in the fight? 

Here are 2 easy steps you can take. 

Q & A on deferred Resignation Program Email

February 5th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Did you know? | Executive Orders | JOIN AFGE | National Updates - (0 Comments)

Dear AFGE Activist,

We know this is a difficult moment for public servants. You are being asked to make a decision about resigning from the federal service on a short timeline and without enough information. That’s why, yesterday, AFGE and our allies filed a lawsuit against the Deferred Resignation Program seeking to prevent AFGE members from being misled.

In the meantime, we have updated some frequently asked questions we previously sent to provide you with the best guidance we can given the current uncertainty. You can also click here to view this guidance online.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on OPM’s Deferred Resignation Program Email

  1. What is the Deferred Resignation Program?

The Deferred Resignation Program (“Program”) was introduced by an email sent to federal employees on January 28, 2025. Preceded by threats to modify and downsize the federal workforce, the Program purports to allow federal employees to submit a resignation letter that will become effective on September 30, 2025. In exchange, the Program claims that employees will be exempt from “Return to Office” requirements and will maintain their current compensation and benefits until the effective date of their resignation.

Employees should not take the Program at face value. The Program documentation, including the introductory email, an associated guidance memorandum issued by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) on January 28, 2025, and OPM-issued FAQs, is riddled with inconsistencies and uncertainties. It is also unclear whether OPM has the legal authority to support the Program or its alleged benefits, and the eligibility criteria are vague.

  1. Is the Program a buyout?

No, the Program is not a buyout nor is it a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (“VISP”) program. Instead, it purports to offer employees the ability to submit a deferred resignation and claims that employees who do so will continue to receive pay, while still possibly working, until September 30, 2025.

Notably, however, the Program contains no guarantee that an employee’s resignation will be accepted. Nor does the Program guarantee that an employee whose resignation is accepted will receive the benefits that the Program purports to offer.

  1. If an employee chooses to accept the program, are they required to work during the deferred resignation period?

They may be. OPM’s statements are conflicting on this point. According to the OPM email and letter, employees will not be required to work in person but may be assigned remote work duties. The OPMFAQ page also suggests that employees will not be required to work except in “rare cases,” without defining what constitutes “rare cases.” At the same time, the FAQ’s describe the deferred resignation period as a “nice vacation” and the Program states that employees may be placed on “paid administrative leave.”

  1. Can an employee take another job during the deferred resignation period?

The FAQ states that the resignation letter does not explicitly prohibit outside employment. However, other existing policies, such as agency-specific regulations requiring prior authorization for outside work, are likely to apply.

  1. Are all federal employees eligible for the program?

No. Employees in positions related to immigration enforcement and national security, as well as those in any positions specifically excluded by their employing agency, are not eligible. USPS employees and military personnel are also excluded. There is no guidance on how employees can confirm their eligibility or if their agency has specific exclusions.

  1. Will employees who opt-in be protected from termination before their resignation date?

Nothing in the Program documentation prohibits the termination or separation of an employee who accepts deferred resignation. While the OPM email suggests that employees will maintain their compensation and benefits until the effective date of their resignation, it does not explicitly state that employees are shielded from layoffs or other adverse actions before September 30, 2025. There is no guarantee that employees opting in to the Program will not be targeted by such actions.

The Program also does not indicate what may occur in the event of a lapse in congressional appropriations. At present, many agencies of the federal government are only funded through March 14, 2025.

  1. What happens if an agency requires an employee to continue working despite OPM’s FAQ stating that continued work should be rare?

While OPM’s FAQ states that work will only be required in “rare cases,” the Program’s details vary across the different OPM documents. If an agency insists on continued work, employees may not have a clear administrative remedy, as the enforceability of the promises and statements in OPM’s FAQ is uncertain.

  1. What legal recourse do employees have if the government does not honor the terms of deferred resignation?

It is unclear what recourse, if any, employees might have if the government fails to honor the terms of their deferred resignation. There is no certainty that the statements made in the OPM Program documents will be legally enforceable. Even if the email and FAQ page are interpreted as an implied contract or offer, there is no guarantee that such a claim would be enforceable. For example, while each case will be fact-specific, resignation is generally considered to be a voluntary action. It is therefore unclear whether violations of the policy would be appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board, through the grievance process, or any other forum.

  1. How can employees ensure the administration will follow through on the Program?

Given the inconsistencies among the Program’s documents issued by OPM, as well as the ambiguous and conflicting language regarding work obligations and exclusions, there is no guarantee that the claims in the Program will be honored by the Government. The Program may also face legal challenges that could alter the terms of all or portions of the Program. Employees who opt-in to the Program will be at the mercy of the administrators of the Program, whose claims contain inconsistencies and lack stated legal underpinning.

  1. Is there an assurance that the promised continued salary will be funded?

No. Nothing in the OPM documentation contains such an assurance. Moreover, because current appropriations for most civilian agencies are set to expire March 14, 2025, it is not guaranteed that agencies subject to the current appropriations bill will continue to have adequate funding for the promised salary beyond the bill’s expiration.

  1. Why did AFGE file a lawsuit challenging the Program?

AFGE’s lawsuit aims to protect its members and force OPM to produce information supporting the legitimacy of the offers as stated in the Program. It is critical for employees to ensure that any offer from OPM is legally supported and that any participation in the Program will be honored and is enforceable. Based on the current terms of the Program, and the manner in which it has been implemented, government claims of its legitimacy are specious.

  1. What is AFGE asking for as relief in the lawsuit?

AFGE is seeking that the Program be declared a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and remanded to OPM to provide the reasoned basis and support for the Program as required by law. AFGE is also seeking to enjoin OPM from implementing the Program until such time as Defendants can provide justification for the legitimacy of the Program and assurance of its terms.

  1. Does AFGE’s lawsuit affect my ability to accept the offer?

Not directly or immediately. Unless and until the court issues an injunction or similar order, there is no change to the Program as presented by OPM. If the court does issue an injunction or otherwise grant the relief sought in the lawsuit, that could preclude employees from enrolling in the Program.

  1. I have received an agreement from my agency. Should I sign it?

Even if you have received an agreement or form regarding the Program from your agency, AFGE continues to advise its members not to participate in the Program or sign any related documents. Employees should carefully review the terms presented in the Program and pay special attention to the inconsistencies, vagueness, and lack of legal support.

  1. What would I be waiving by signing the agreement?

The updated language in the Program and accompanying distributed agreements contain language that waives employees’ rights to appeal or challenge any claims arising from their employment or participation in the Program in any judicial or administrative forum. OPM states that employees who enroll cannot rescind their choice and that the agency head has the sole discretion to unilaterally rescind enrollment in the Program. OPM further asserts that the agency head’s decision to rescind an employee’s enrollment is not subject to review by the Merit Systems Protection Board or any other forum. These waivers are troubling, to say the least.

  1. What actions can Locals and Councils take to protect bargaining unit employees from the Program?

Locals and councils may:

  • Consider filing requests for information under 5 U.S.C. § 7114(b)(4).
  • Consider filing a demand to bargain over the Program.
  • Consider grievances alleging the Program violates terms of their collective bargaining agreement or regulations (e.g. regulations concerning administrative leave).
  • Locals and councils may also have a basis for a grievance or unfair labor practice charge alleging, among other things, a bypass of the Union with respect to communications about the Program directly to employees.

Please Note: This is for informational purposes only and does not guarantee any particular result in a specific case. The information provided is not, nor is it intended to be, a substitute for individualized legal or professional advice.

In Solidarity,

AFGE

LINK TO ARTICLE ON LAWSUIT: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/federal-worker-union-sues-trump-over-fork-in-the-road-offer?fbclid=IwY2xjawIQ0rxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRi9oSxhy68paVKrMPkmLwbuxCHrmxrS_xhQYDeATrRopKrZ5vFOkgmBSA_aem_jUa4CBCx_Luo9aYh2z3l9w

AFGE Analysis of Executive Orders (EO)

January 23rd, 2025 | Posted by admin in Contract | Did you know? | Events | Executive Orders | KNOW YOUR CONTRACT | National Updates - (0 Comments)

Trump 2.0 EO Breakdown

Schedule Political/Career (PC) Executive Order

Soundbites:

  1. “This action will transform the professional civil service into an army of political appointees loyal to Trump, not their mission.”
  2. “It dismantles the merit-based civil service, jeopardizing professionalism and impartiality.”

Key Details:

  • Creates a hiring authority in the excepted service (Schedule PC) for policy-influencing decisions.
  • Could make hundreds of thousands of non-partisan roles into at-will positions.
  • Purports to remove due process protections and collective bargaining rights.

Legal Analysis:
Nothing in this Executive Order, as written, should abrogate existing collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), which remain in full force and effect. If agencies attempt to violate CBAs, unions should notify their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National. Members are encouraged to comply and grieve to ensure rights are upheld.

President Kelley:
“This order is a blatant attempt to corrupt the federal government by removing protections for workers, making them answerable only to one man.”

Return to Worksite Directive

Soundbites:

  1. “Telework isn’t new—over half of federal employees never worked remotely, even during the pandemic.”
  2. “Smart telework enhances productivity, recruitment, and retention. Rolling it back disrupts operations and progress.”

Key Details:

  • Directive allows agencies discretion in implementation, with no specific timeline.
  • Hybrid schedules negotiated in contracts remain binding.

Legal Analysis:
This directive does not, as written, violate collective bargaining agreements. Hybrid telework schedules detailed in CBAs remain legally binding. Should agencies implement policies contrary to CBAs, unions must notify their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, comply, and grieve.

President Kelley:
“This directive undoes decades of workplace progress. Rather than regressing, we urge the administration to focus on improving government programs for the public.”

Federal Hiring Freeze Memorandum

Soundbites:

  1. “The federal workforce hasn’t grown since the 1970s, while the U.S. population has skyrocketed.”
  2. “Freezing hiring worsens workforce shortages and skills gaps, undermining vital services.”

Key Details:

  • Freezes civilian hiring for up to 90 days, with exceptions for national security and public safety roles.
  • Prohibits outsourcing to circumvent the freeze.

Legal Analysis:
The hiring freeze does not, on its face, abrogate CBAs. However, agencies’ implementation must align with negotiated agreements. If violations occur, unions should escalate to their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, ensuring compliance and filing grievances as necessary.

President Kelley:
“This isn’t about efficiency—it’s about chaos and targeting patriotic Americans. These actions only harm the services the public relies on.”

Targeting DEI Programs

Soundbites:

  1. “Merit-based systems require fairness for all, ensuring opportunity regardless of background.”
  2. “Federal agencies have the lowest gender and racial pay gaps because hiring decisions are based on ability, not bias.”

Key Details:

  • Ends all DEI initiatives and reviews federal employment practices for compliance with the EO.
  • Risks undermining workplace equity and military readiness, as per defense leaders.

Legal Analysis:
The EO’s directive to review employment practices must comply with existing CBAs. If agencies attempt to implement changes that conflict with CBAs, unions should notify their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, comply, and grieve to uphold the negotiated terms.

President Kelley:
“DEI programs promote fairness and build a workforce that mirrors America’s diversity. Their elimination jeopardizes progress and inclusivity.”

Lawsuit Against DOGE

Soundbites:

  1. “Fairness, accountability, and transparency—these are at the heart of our lawsuit.”
  2. “Federal employees aren’t the problem; they are the solution. Excluding them threatens good governance.”

Key Details:

  • DOGE’s composition excludes federal employees’ voices, violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
  • AFGE and partners demand fair representation and transparency in government decision-making.

Legal Analysis:
While this lawsuit focuses on transparency and accountability, it is also critical for agencies to honor CBAs. If DOGE-led initiatives infringe on CBA terms, unions should escalate issues to their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, comply, and grieve.

President Kelley:
“This fight is about fairness and integrity. Federal employees’ voices are crucial to decisions affecting their work and public service.”

Reforming Federal Hiring

Soundbites:

  1. “Replacing objective criteria with vague ideals is a path to cronyism. Federal jobs should go to the most qualified, not the most connected.”
  2. “Merit-based hiring ensures federal employees serve the public, not political interests.”

Key Details:

  • Proposes subjective hiring criteria tied to “American ideals” and “efficiency,” undermining the current merit-based system.

Legal Analysis:
This EO, as written, does not eliminate protections afforded under CBAs. Should agencies adopt hiring practices inconsistent with CBAs, unions must escalate issues to their Districts, Councils, and AFGE National, comply, and grieve to protect merit-based hiring systems.

President Kelley:
“The federal government already hires and promotes exclusively on the basis of merit. The results are clear: a diverse federal workforce that looks like the nation it serves, with the lowest gender and racial pay gaps in the country. We should all be proud of that.”

Contract Bargaining Update

January 3rd, 2019 | Posted by admin in Contract | Executive Orders | KNOW YOUR CONTRACT - (0 Comments)

CONTRACT UPDATE- DECEMBER 26, 2018

BACKGROUND

Over the last few months, AFGE has been fighting an uphill battle with the Administration and the Agency. In July, the Agency unilaterally implemented the terms of three Executive Orders designed to shut down the Union and eliminate important workplace protections for all employees. The Agency unilaterally changed our ground rules for contract bargaining, intended to undermine our ability to negotiate on level ground by reducing bargaining sessions and refusing to cover certain negotiation costs. The Union lost significant preparation time and had to enter negotiations with a smaller team. Further, SSA’s initial contract proposals mirrored the terms of the Executive Orders, which made its anti-employee and anti-union position clear.

AFGE sued the Administration over the Executive Orders and won. On August 25, 2018, a U.S. district court judge invalidated much of the Executive Orders as unlawful. SSA rescinded the Executive Order terms it had already implemented and reverted back to the negotiate ground rules, though damage was done. The Union returned to the bargaining table demanding that SSA revise its contract proposals to reflect the court decision. When SSA finally provided revised proposals in September 2018, SSA maintained its most egregious proposals to dramatically slash representational time, eliminate space for representational work, and eliminate employee rights to challenge unfair appraisals, unfair award decisions, and unfair removals through the grievance and arbitration procedure. In response, the Union filed a grievance over the Agency’s continued adherence to invalidated provisions of the Executive Orders. In addition, the Agency proposed to strip negotiated telework rights and leave decisions on telework policy entirely to the discretion of management. Despite the severe anti-employee and anti-union environment, the Union nonetheless went to the bargaining table to secure employee rights and protections.

In October and November, the Union and the Agency agreed on Articles 3 (Employee Rights), 16 (Training), and 31 (Leave). Importantly, the Union saved the language in Article 3, Section 2.A which requires management to treat employees fairly and equitably in all aspects of personnel management, and without regard to protected class status. As the parties began to focus on Article 9 in November, the Agency abruptly changed its behavior with the Union. Despite the progress that the parties had made in October and November, the Agency alleged that the Union was not bargaining fast enough. The Union retorted that the ground rules give the parties until March 1, 2019 to bargain, and that the parties had just reached agreement on three articles, in addition to numerous articles in prior months. Regardless, the Agency showed no interest in the Union’s proposals the rest of the week, and demanded the mediator release the parties to the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP). The Union opposed this request based on the ground rules and the Agency’s bargaining behavior.

(more…)

Attacks on Government Employees – Round II

September 25th, 2018 | Posted by admin in Court Ruling | Did you know? | Executive Orders - (0 Comments)

Trump Administration Appeals Court Ruling On Workforce EOs

  • By Erich Wagner  (Government Executive) 
  • 5:55 PM ET- September 25, 2018

The Justice Department on Tuesday filed a notice that it would appeal a recent court decision that struck down three controversial workforce executive orders President Trump signed earlier this year to make it easier to fire federal workers and reduce the influence of federal employee unions. 

The case will go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In a notice filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt said  the administration will seek to overturn the August decision by U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, which found that the key provisions of the executive orders were unlawful.

 

(more…)