203
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

Trump is nullifying federal employee union contracts negotiated in Biden’s final days.

Affected contracts include one with the Education Department ratified just before his inauguration. Trump cited a 2010 Supreme Court decision to justify his stance but did not provide a clear legal basis.

Federal employee unions, representing 800,000 workers, vowed legal action, calling Trump’s move unlawful intimidation.

This continues Trump’s prior efforts to weaken job protections, with additional plans to reclassify and lay off civil servants.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] teft@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Get up and get to it folks. Get sabotage manuals etc while you can, and try to do so using Tor.

[-] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago

Ignore contracts you don't like, 100% on brand

[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 50 points 1 month ago

I don’t think that is how contacts work.

[-] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 month ago

It is if you own the courts.

[-] ubergeek@lemmy.today 8 points 1 month ago

It is for Trump. He routinely ignores contractually responsibilities on his part.

[-] d00phy@lemmy.world 45 points 1 month ago

All I have to say, and I said it on that day of the RNC, but fuck that union guy for actually thinking the GOP gave 2 shots about unions after generations of fighting like Hell to gut them. Also fuck him for not endorsing the candidate who, while not necessarily a friend of unions, certainly wouldn’t have been actively working against them.

[-] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

I mean I can understand him not wanting to endorse Kamala when she directly told him we can win with or without you. That doesn't exactly sound like the kind of person you would want to endorse if they don't even seem to really care about you or the people you represent. But yeah endorsing Trump was a stupid move, he really should have just not endorsed either of them.

[-] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago

At least in hindsight, it proves her wrong and that they can’t win without the unions?

So like, maybe the DNC will be self-aware enough to reflect upon this and pivot back towards more progressive, worker-friendly policies rather than the neo-liberal garbage they’ve been espousing for the better part of the 2000s?

I almost burst out laughing at the absurdity of the above, but in the words of Jim Carey’s character from Dumb and Dumber: “So you’re saying there’s a chance?”

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago

maybe the DNC will be self-aware

Lol

[-] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Yup, pretty much!

[-] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah that would be nice but the only way I see that happening is if a Bernie like politician manages to win the primary and the election and reshapes the party like what Trump did. But reshaping it in that way is gonna face a lot more pushback from donors than compared to what Trump did. So there's always a chance but it feels pretty unlikely without changes to election and campaign finance laws.

[-] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Finance laws, especially those related to the Citizens United case, are a massive hurdle.

Until the Supreme Court can be reigned back to sanity - things will likely remain terrible, as a majority will be needed there to re-rule on Citizens United - along with Roe, restoring the Voting Rights Act and a whole heap of others!

Just listing out those three made me physically ill; don’t let anyone who voted GOP, voted 3rd party, or refused to vote off the hook. They are all equally culpable for the slow death of democracy in the US. They are the ones that granted Trump THREE Supreme Court nominations in one term, and who knows how many more. The man is on track to likely appoint a MAJORITY to that court BY HIMSELF.

He could very well declare himself King at that point, and the court would likely rubber stamp it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] d00phy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

I thought Harris’ tone-deaf moment was in response to him deciding not to endorse a candidate rather than the other way around. Maybe I’m confusing union bosses, but I didn’t think the guy who spoke at the RNC endorsed either ticket in the end.

[-] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

You're right there after looking into it, he didn't endorse either but he did speak at the RNC which for a lot of people looked like an endorsement but is a little different. The quote of we can win with or without you was from a meeting the teamster's president had with Kamala. Even if it was in response to him speaking at the RNC or showing some support to Trump that's definitely not how you get someone to back you and in my opinion shows the attitude the Dems had to a lot of people this cycle. This idea of either you vote for us or we'll win without you cause you have no other good choice. That attitude is not one that makes people excited to go out and stand in a 3 hour line to vote for you in a swing state. And if they keep relying on this you either vote for us or you get stuck with the bad option of Trump they're only gonna win whenever Trump is in office and actively doing really really bad things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ubergeek@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Also fuck him for not endorsing the candidate who, while not necessarily a friend of unions, certainly wouldn’t have been actively working against them.

Biden, however, was actively working against the union workers... And Harris said she would have done the same thing.

It goes back to while Trump was lying about intent to solve the problems, he at least stated publicly the problems were real.

And it goes back to Dems thinking people owe them their votes, rather than working hard to earn the votes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 month ago

Unions have a long and violent history of not wanting to be fucked with, we'll see how well this plays out for the orange Cunt

[-] Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago
[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago

These are a bunch of civil servants, not tradespeople. Trade unions are the ones you don't fuck with.

[-] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago

Piss enough people off and it don't matter the flavor of union

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 month ago

I suspect trades unions might join with them in solidarity. The civil servants would have to put themselves on the line, but I think they would have support.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago

Just a friendly reminder that multiple Roman emperors were killed by bureaucrats.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 37 points 1 month ago

Throw out the Union contact? Then union members need to... go on strike. That's the power they have, and the only reason we've been able to get some worker protections.

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 month ago

That's also pretty damn close to what Trump genuinely wants - for everyone currently doing the work to quit. That way he can install lackeys across the board.

Strikes normally work because the other side wants something - usually the business owner wants labor to create a product. That isn't the case here.

I'm not saying it's pointless, but the classic strategies will need to be rethought.

[-] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 month ago

unions around the country need to join in sympathy strikes

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

Trump, and the Republicans in general, seriously underestimate just how much stuff the US government actually does, and how much institutional knowledge is required to do it. A widespread federal worker strike would be disastrous for them, and trying to replace all of those people with lackeys would be even more disastrous, because none of them would have the slightest clue what they are doing. And yes, I'm well aware that the Republicans are trying to sabotage the government, but going about it this way would have the opposite effect; everything coming crashing to a halt overnight would drive home to voters, in a really big way, just how much it is that the government actually does for people.

[-] sudo42@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

That’s also pretty damn close to what Trump genuinely wants - for everyone currently doing the work to quit. That way he can install lackeys across the board.

This plan only works if employees are indeed replaceable cogs. The thought is, "If employees quit, then we can simply replace them all". "Unskilled labor" as it were. This assumption is common in management circles.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Are there enough lackeys? If quality falls through the floor as well, won't it just further cement how dumb this whole strategy is? We may be taking lessons that it'll take a few years to learn but...

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] yeather@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

Federal workers are usually barred from striking by law, see Reagan and the ATC union of any police union.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

According to US history and labor unrest, the police will side with politicians and wealthy. I wonder how many workers will continue to wave around the thin blue line flags after they get asses kicked.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 month ago

Seriously...how long before someone finds a way to put one in his brain pan? Every day he pisses a new group off...it's gotta happen sooner or later.

[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

After he finishes off the federal employee unions, he will pursue the destruction of the private unions creating 4th World working conditions for the US labor force. For those union members who guzzle down the Orange Kool-Aid, go piss in the wind and you fucked yourselves.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Etterra@discuss.online 17 points 1 month ago

Of course he does. He's a bastard.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I wonder whether this is his play book:

  1. Be shitbag to workers
  2. Force general strike
  3. Demonize victims who've resorted to only leverage to get fair working conditions (back)

I further bet it's the one translated from Russian.

[-] hedhoncho@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

I plan to throw trumps face on the ground

[-] HailSeitan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

contracts involving federal law enforcement would be exempted

So Biden’s contracts are still legitimate if saying otherwise would upset the thug class

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] riskable@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago

Hah! The presidency sure does provide a lot of power but he's about to find out just where that ends. If 800,000 workers go on strike he and his cronies won't be able to exist in their rich person bubbles.

The runways will be closed. The borders won't let them in or out. Public transport everywhere will stop functioning. The banks will be forced to stop letting them send money due to laws regarding transaction reporting that go through Federal union employees (I mean, I guess they could try to live their rich person lives with nothing but transactions under $10,000 🤷).

Just about everything going on in the US from a logistics and economic perspective relies on the work of Federal union employees. They don't even need to go on strike (which would technically be illegal but if Trump doesn't need to follow the law why should federal employees‽). They could just reduce everything to a crawl and it would have the same effect.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

I'm so tired of people proclaiming that NOW finally, Trump will see the consequences of his chaotic stupidity and petulant egocentrism!

No, he's not going to "find out" anything, because he does not give a fuck who suffers and his supporters will gargle his balls no matter what he does.

You're absolutely right about the consequences of this latest crime, except for the part where Trump in any way feels anything negative about the experience.

[-] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

No, he does care who suffers. It's his entire goal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Trump is immune to consequences and loves to make it our problem.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2025
203 points (99.0% liked)

News

27043 readers
1894 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS