New OPM Memo on RTO Implementation — CBAs

[Anonymous]

You have 10 days to relocate your staff-GO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any decent law firm memos on this that anyone is aware of? I find those the most helpful in summarizing an issue.

Google is your friend

To be honest I don't know anything about that area of law so I wouldn't be able to differentiate a good memo from a sh*tty one so was hoping someone here had more knowledge of this area than me. I saw the one article about CBA breaches being litigated in court, another one somewhere else about them needing to be arbitrated.

Full breach, like ignoring telework for all or a large subset of employees— court

Individual arguing that their specific rights were breached (one person says their PACs was wrongly determined) often goes through grievance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the goal is to tee up a case to SCOTUS so they can either invalidate CBAs or otherwise declare that it’s unconstitutional for federal employees to join a union. We might be allowed to telework under existing CBAs throughout the course of the litigation, but Trump is hoping conservative judges/justices come through for him.

This is what’s happening.

Except there is a specific federal law saying that feds can unionize. SCOTUs should defer to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the CBA is vague, the bargaining history behind a duly bargained and ratified contract between the parties is none of OPM’s f@cking business. Especially since Dump wasn’t even President when this took place.

The problem with this argument is one of the Party's in now Trump. So it is in fact his business.

Presidents are not parties to CBAs.

So who are the parties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the CBA is vague, the bargaining history behind a duly bargained and ratified contract between the parties is none of OPM’s f@cking business. Especially since Dump wasn’t even President when this took place.

The problem with this argument is one of the Party's in now Trump. So it is in fact his business.

Presidents are not parties to CBAs.

So who are the parties?

The agency and the bargaining unit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the CBA is vague, the bargaining history behind a duly bargained and ratified contract between the parties is none of OPM’s f@cking business. Especially since Dump wasn’t even President when this took place.

The problem with this argument is one of the Party's in now Trump. So it is in fact his business.

Presidents are not parties to CBAs.

So who are the parties?

The agencies. The fact that Trump is president doesn’t undo their agreements with the unions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any decent law firm memos on this that anyone is aware of? I find those the most helpful in summarizing an issue.

Google is your friend

To be honest I don't know anything about that area of law so I wouldn't be able to differentiate a good memo from a sh*tty one so was hoping someone here had more knowledge of this area than me. I saw the one article about CBA breaches being litigated in court, another one somewhere else about them needing to be arbitrated.

Full breach, like ignoring telework for all or a large subset of employees— court

Individual arguing that their specific rights were breached (one person says their PACs was wrongly determined) often goes through grievance.

Thank you, that is very helpful.

[Anonymous]

My initial thought was that this memo, like the hiring freeze one, is vastly better written than the rest. The difference? Only those two list the acting OMB Director, a career civil servant, as the co-issuer. Kinda funny under the circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have 10 days to relocate your staff-GO!

Insane

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the CBA is vague, the bargaining history behind a duly bargained and ratified contract between the parties is none of OPM’s f@cking business. Especially since Dump wasn’t even President when this took place.

You’re right, of course. But the Republicans have been teeing up an argument that the SSA telework agreement is an invalid sweetheart deal because O’Malley wanted the union’s support for his DNC run. They’ve argued more broadly that the Biden admin was generous about telework for the same reasons.

That will be totally irrelevant in court, but it’s what they’re going with.

They will lose multiple times in court as hundreds of lawsuits are filed and it will be too much for their pea brains. There is a lot of bravado now to play to the idiot MAGA base, but I don’t think they will ultimately be able to follow through on most of this.

Lol don't be so sure about th courts - they are stacked with Trump appointees now. It's luck of the draw.

[Anonymous]

I think this is all a game of wearing people down. Maybe there is a TRO but your agency will still know who comes in and who doesn’t. You can file a grievance if you feel you are retaliated against but they will wear you down over the next 4 years. The whole point is to reduce the Federal workforce. RTO is just one piece of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is all a game of wearing people down. Maybe there is a TRO but your agency will still know who comes in and who doesn’t. You can file a grievance if you feel you are retaliated against but they will wear you down over the next 4 years. The whole point is to reduce the Federal workforce. RTO is just one piece of that.

The agency isn't going to retaliate if there is a TRO. They will instruct people to revert to their previous schedule. Which is what the agencies are doing now for people with TW in their CBAs.

[Anonymous]

What is TRO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is TRO?

Temporary restraining order. It’s a type of injunction, which is an order from the court telling someone not to do a specific thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My initial thought was that this memo, like the hiring freeze one, is vastly better written than the rest. The difference? Only those two list the acting OMB Director, a career civil servant, as the co-issuer. Kinda funny under the circumstances.

He doesn’t write this stuff. They came in with them all already written and just need them signed by the acting stooge.