Anonymous wrote:The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back. Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid. Unions will sue. In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.

lol. No, the obvious is that Amanda and Russel are hacks and had no idea of how the federal workforce actually operates.

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.

Anonymous wrote:The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back. Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid. Unions will sue. In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.

THat's a big no to your "in the meantime." My agency has room for several thousand employees (something like 3000) and we have more than 12,000 employees, the vast majority who are remote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back. Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid. Unions will sue. In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.

Wouldn’t the status quo mean honoring the CBAs since they were lawfully negotiated? In a normal legal setting (a huge assumption right now), a TRO would preserve the status quo unless the judge thought the administration would prevail.

This is correct. The person you are responding to is wrong. A TRO would be sought and most likely granted in a case like this, especially in the DC Circuit.

Go ahead and try. No way CBAs will be breached. But threatening it may delay my RTO so I welcome them to give it a go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back. Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid. Unions will sue. In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.

+1

+2 And they likely know that litigation will have some positive effects on restoring telework for BU's, and they'll use it as ammunition in the next election.

Anonymous wrote:The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back. Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid. Unions will sue. In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Meh all these EOs are paralyzing Agencies so nothing is getting communicated down to employees. I have heard nothing about any EO.

This is what I could expect. Flooding the field. They could have a success expectation of zero, but when the dust settles after months/years - the effects remain.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-return-to-office-federal-workers-bb0ea89d

Ignoring a CBA is a breach of contract claim at the US Court of Federal Claims (or Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit).

Why wouldn’t the Court issue a TRO? The law is on the side of the CBAs being enforceable.

Anonymous wrote:The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back. Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid. Unions will sue. [/b]In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.[b]

I took Labor Law, but wow! 25 years ago. So, I’m very rusty. I’m full telework, Bargaining Unit and am “assigned” to the only office for our component in DC (our HQ is not in DC)— which can hold our managers/NBUs twice a week. And that’s it. And they would be looking at a couple thousand people returning to a building already at 100% usage. So, that’s not happening.

If they let our agency break the CBA, they would need to rent space, outfit it, disrupt a couple thousand employees, etc. I had always assumed there would be an injection that keep our CBA in place during litigation. Especially as ours is very tightly written— no manager discretion to decrease telework, no “up to X days language” only “temporary” decreases allowed for specific reasons and limited time, etc.

So, given the standard to issue a TRO, why wouldn’t a balance of equities if they try to break a well written CBA be issuing a TRO maintain the status quo (not have to find space, pay to rent and outfit it, bring people in, possibly causing them irreparable harm), especially since there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the CBA. CBAs are actually hard to invalidate. Ours is new, doesn’t have midterm reopening, has no wiggle room for management to decrease days or have a long term “business need”, doesn’t have a termination clause, etc.

Help me out. Everyone is assuming there would not be a TROs maintaining CBAs in place during litigation. Why not? (And, as I said, my Labor Law is old, I freely admit I could be missing something and am glad to be *nicely* educated).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back. Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid. Unions will sue. In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.

Wouldn’t the status quo mean honoring the CBAs since they were lawfully negotiated? In a normal legal setting (a huge assumption right now), a TRO would preserve the status quo unless the judge thought the administration would prevail.

I think grievances are arbitrated. I think there is a measure by which the arbitrated can issue something like a preliminary injunction. I don't know how that would play out in practice. Probably granted if the agency makes a dumb argument like the CBA is invalid. Maybe not granted if the agency says something like TW is not secure or they have have a documented business/operational case for now allowing it.

Thing is even if the agency loses I bet at least some people will quit while the matter is pending.

Meh all these EOs are paralyzing Agencies so nothing is getting communicated down to employees. I have heard nothing about any EO.

Anonymous wrote:The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back. Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid. Unions will sue. In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.

Wouldn’t the status quo mean honoring the CBAs since they were lawfully negotiated? In a normal legal setting (a huge assumption right now), a TRO would preserve the status quo unless the judge thought the administration would prevail.

The obvious: OPM is not going to let agencies hide behind CBAs to resist bringing bargaining unit staff back. Agencies will be pushed to renegotiate/break the CBAs, and the language on reviewing how they were "entered into" in the last 4 years implies they will try to say the existing agreements are somehow invalid. Unions will sue. In the meantime, workers will be left in limbo, which means returning to office.

What do folks think about this?

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/agency-return-to-office-implementation-plans.pdf