Court allows Trump to end union bargaining for federal workers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you haven’t had the windows of your car all smashed by out of town Teamsters that flew in to intimidate people your opinion on unions is null and void.

Let’s base decisions for the whole country on one incident that happened in Boston. Great idea, Jan.

Try to cross a Union picket line and get back to us. Pro tip, wear a helmet with a face mask.

[Anonymous]

The ignorance from so many Americans is incredible. I urge every union hater to just do a simple Google search and they will be surprised how so many of the benefits they enjoy at their jobs in the private sector is the result of unions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal agencies rely on unions to do the management. That’s what I’ve learned—HR loves the union because they can blame the union for their inability to effectively advise managers and set policy.

Take the crutch away and let’s see what happens.

I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying that HR can’t effectively manage the employees and constantly blame the unions for that, and if there were no unions then HR would need to fire people, put them on PIPs etc because there would be no more excuses?

Yeah, pretty much. Except HR isn’t supposed to manage, they’re supposed to support managers. And they don’t. Because they are lazy, or cowardly, and use the union as a scapegoat for their own ineffectiveness. The union isn’t the problem generally.

Contracts are good, they provide certainty, but HR typically doesn’t even try to enforce the agreement with the union or provide managers with clear guidance. The unions just take all the heat when it’s really horrible management that is the problem.

+1. It's actually not that hard to fire an underperformer IF your management chain and HR support you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who are anti union are fundamentally anti democracy. Union workers vote for representation and then their representatives have a voice in how their work lives are run. It’s not a perfect system but neither is democracy — sometimes people pick bad representatives. Or sometimes the people make choices that we aren’t crazy about. But that doesn’t mean we end their right to select reprentatives to have a say in their own lives.

Look what happened with Michelle Rhee and the teachers union a decade ago. She had a great proposal to dramatically increase salary of teachers in DC, bringing in new talent and improving teaching standards in our schools, in return for individual teachers giving up their right to stay in their position long after all of their bosses and colleagues said they were completely ineffective in their role. However, the teachers union felt threatened and literally refused to allow it to go to vote among their members! Why would they refuse a vote? Because they knew the majority of their members would have wanted to accept it. Who lost? Our kids.

You're crazy if you think teachers supported anything Michelle Rhee said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a bunch of office govt workers need a union

Why don’t they? Are you saying that only blue-collar workers need a union?

Not PP but yes. Government workers should not have a union. Never should have been allowed. Nothing wrong with this even if you oppose Trump.

This is one of the things Trump is getting right. Public unions are a scourge.

Sure tell that to the underage factory workers he Project 2025 / or will hire or at Maralago under age girls.

What factories does the government run? Does the government own Mar a lago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a bunch of office govt workers need a union

Why don’t they? Are you saying that only blue-collar workers need a union?

Not PP but yes. Government workers should not have a union. Never should have been allowed. Nothing wrong with this even if you oppose Trump.

This is one of the things Trump is getting right. Public unions are a scourge.

If you enjoy weekends and not working 80 hour weeks, thank a union.

Trump would bring back slavery if he could.

Democrats are trying to keep slavery, where have you been?! “Who is going to clean my toilet and pick the organic strawberries?!?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a bunch of office govt workers need a union

Why don’t they? Are you saying that only blue-collar workers need a union?

Not PP but yes. Government workers should not have a union. Never should have been allowed. Nothing wrong with this even if you oppose Trump.

Why?

Should we get rid of police unions?

You do realize that the thin blue line protectionism is directly linked to their strong unions, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ignorance from so many Americans is incredible. I urge every union hater to just do a simple Google search and they will be surprised how so many of the benefits they enjoy at their jobs in the private sector is the result of unions.

They had a place in history for sure. But that same rationale does not apply to public sector unions. They are a means to shake down the taxpayer and have a lifelong job. Public unions are bankrupting many states and have allowed the bureaucracy of inefficient federal government that we see now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ignorance from so many Americans is incredible. I urge every union hater to just do a simple Google search and they will be surprised how so many of the benefits they enjoy at their jobs in the private sector is the result of unions.

They had a place in history for sure. But that same rationale does not apply to public sector unions. They are a means to shake down the taxpayer and have a lifelong job. Public unions are bankrupting many states and have allowed the bureaucracy of inefficient federal government that we see now.

The funny thing is federal unions have almost no power even if Trump followed the law.

I mean yes agencies would have to bargain over changes to the telework policies but that’s about it.

Leave, salary, promotions, basic working conditions are all beyond the scope of bargaining for feds.

[Anonymous]

Oh and feds can’t strike either of course

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ignorance from so many Americans is incredible. I urge every union hater to just do a simple Google search and they will be surprised how so many of the benefits they enjoy at their jobs in the private sector is the result of unions.

They had a place in history for sure. But that same rationale does not apply to public sector unions. They are a means to shake down the taxpayer and have a lifelong job. Public unions are bankrupting many states and have allowed the bureaucracy of inefficient federal government that we see now.

The funny thing is federal unions have almost no power even if Trump followed the law.

I mean yes agencies would have to bargain over changes to the telework policies but that’s about it.

Leave, salary, promotions, basic working conditions are all beyond the scope of bargaining for feds.

+1. The unions were there to ensure the barest level of due process was followed and apparently even that is too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a bunch of office govt workers need a union

Why don’t they? Are you saying that only blue-collar workers need a union?

Not PP but yes. Government workers should not have a union. Never should have been allowed. Nothing wrong with this even if you oppose Trump.

This is one of the things Trump is getting right. Public unions are a scourge.

If you enjoy weekends and not working 80 hour weeks, thank a union.

Trump would bring back slavery if he could.

Democrats are trying to keep slavery, where have you been?! “Who is going to clean my toilet and pick the organic strawberries?!?”

Interesting spin on deporting immigrants. Sure, it’s to save them from low paying jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump cancelled unions because they were filing lawsuits against him then told the federal court that everyone in the major agencies are too involved with national security to have bargaining rights. The 9th Circuit said Trump is free to declare anyone ineligible for a union and believed that Trump would have gotten rid of the unions even if he didn't violate their 1st amendment rights.

This wasn’t in the article. Was it in the opinion itself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would a bunch of office govt workers need a union

They aren’t all office workers, for one. There are trade unions like IBEW.

Why shouldn’t they be in a union? I’m a defense attorney often on the other side of the v. from unions. But I recognize their work and benefit.

And, let me get this straight. You thing UNION BUSTING makes Trump the party of the working class? Lmfao.

lol, this is priceless. I will never understand why working class people wholeheartedly buy into someone whose only goal is to make things cheaper and easier for the billionaire class. The two things are almost always in opposition.

[Anonymous]

So, no more law enforcement unions?

Can we fire criminals with badges now?