Organized Labor

Latest story

113 Shares99 Views

Inside a Union’s Fight Against Trump’s Federal Job Cuts

by

Leaders of the union representing government workers say their battle is galvanizing but also alarming. “It’s insulting to say,” one said, “that we are lazy.”On a warm, still evening this month, Corey Trammel, a counselor at the Oakdale Federal Correctional Institution in central Louisiana, was at his 11-year-old son’s baseball game when the calls and emails started pouring in from dozens of his colleagues, worried about the latest threat to their union.Mr. Trammel is the president of Local 3957 of the American Federation of Government Employees, the country’s largest union of federal workers. Until recently, Local 3957 had nearly 200 dues-paying members, all at Oakdale, including officers, teachers, case managers and food service workers.Many, if not most, supported President Trump in the 2024 election, said Mr. Trammel, a registered Republican. And many were “in denial,” he said, as the new administration, with tacit support from a Republican Congress, moved quickly to slash and reshape the federal government.The union, which represents some 800,000 workers across more than a dozen federal agencies, has been at the forefront of resistance to that effort. At a moment of peril for the civil service, the union has tried to assert itself as a countervailing force. In doing so, it has also become a target.With his son on the pitcher’s mound, Mr. Trammel was figuring out how to deal with the Trump administration’s latest challenge: The Bureau of Prisons would no longer allow union dues to be deducted from paychecks. Within days, Local 3957 shrank to fewer than 50 paying members, who had signed up to use an online portal to pay their dues — $19.40 every two weeks.“They keep kicking us when we are down,” Mr. Trammel said.In interviews, more than a dozen union leaders and lawyers across the country described their current work as galvanizing, but also alarming and relentless. Some said the crisis had laid bare the challenges of a union that is, by its nature, decentralized and diverse. It is really a federation of many unions, including Border Patrol agents in heavily Republican states, environmental researchers in liberal ones and an array of political inclinations in between.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Unions Form Pro Bono Legal Network for Federal Workers Targeted by Trump

    by

    The nation’s largest federation of unions has put together a pro bono legal network that aims to help federal employees whose jobs have been lost or threatened under the Trump administration.More than 1,000 lawyers in 42 states have completed training in order to offer their services, organizers said. The new pro bono group — Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network, which was formally introduced on Wednesday — was formed by the A.F.L.-C.I.O. along with several other unions and civil rights groups, including We The Action, a network that connects lawyers with nonprofits, Democracy Forward, which has been leading legal action against the Trump administration, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.Unions that represent federal workers — such as the American Federation of Government Employees, which is also involved in the legal network — have been at the forefront of efforts to push back against President Trump’s efforts to significantly downsize the civil service. But lawsuits challenging mass firings and other moves by Elon Musk’s cost-cutting initiative, known as the Department of Government Efficiency, have had mixed success. And litigation takes time.With dismissals expected to accelerate in the coming months, the unions decided to add a new dimension to their legal efforts. The new group aims to provide guidance and legal support to individual workers — regardless of whether they are union members — to challenge their employment status through the agencies that they work for, as well as various administrative boards.“We knew there would be a lot of quick and valiant legal work in the federal courts, but we knew there was a chance you’d have to go to the employee agencies to protect the workers’ rights,” Deborah Greenfield, the network’s executive director, said in an interview. One challenge for the network and their potential clients is that some of these bodies, like the National Labor Relations Board, are themselves in a state of limbo as courts weigh whether Mr. Trump has the power to fire appointed board members.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Order Could Cripple Federal Worker Unions Fighting DOGE Cuts

    by

    The move added to the list of actions by President Trump that use the powers of his office to weaken perceived enemies.Federal worker unions have sought over the past two months to lead the resistance to President Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency, filing lawsuits, organizing protests and signing up new members by the thousands.This week, Mr. Trump struck back with a potentially crippling blow.In a sweeping executive order denouncing the unions as “hostile” to his agenda, the president cited national security concerns to remove some one million civil servants across more than a dozen agencies from the reach of organized labor, eliminating the unions’ power to represent those workers at the bargaining table or in court.A lawsuit accompanying the executive order, filed by the administration in federal court in Texas, asks a judge to give the president permission to rescind collective bargaining agreements, citing national security interests and saying the agreements had “hamstrung” executive authority.Labor leaders vowed on Friday to challenge the Trump actions in court. But, barring a legal intervention, the moves could kneecap federal unions and protections for many civil service employees just as workers brace for a new round of job cuts across the government.“They are hobbling the union, ripping up collective bargaining agreements, and then they will come for the workers,” said Brian Kelly, a Michigan-based employee of the Environmental Protection Agency who heads a local of the American Federation of Government Employees, the country’s largest federal employee union. “So, it’s a worst-case scenario.”The move added to the list of actions by Mr. Trump to use the levers of the presidency to weaken perceived enemies, in this case seeking to neutralize groups that represent civil servants who make up the “deep state” he is trying to dismantle. In issuing the order, Mr. Trump said he was using congressionally granted powers to designate certain sectors of the federal work force central to “national security missions,” and exempt from collective-bargaining requirements. Employees of some agencies, like the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., are already excluded from collective bargaining for these reasons.Are you a federal worker? We want to hear from you.The Times would like to hear about your experience as a federal worker under the second Trump administration. We may reach out about your submission, but we will not publish any part of your response without contacting you first.

    @media (max-width: 768px) {
    [data-testid=”region”]:has(#federal-workers) {
    margin: 20px;
    }
    }

    We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Tariffs Leave Automakers With Tough, Expensive Choices

    by

    Carmakers are likely to face higher costs regardless of how they respond to President Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on cars and auto parts.Automakers can respond to President Trump’s new 25 percent tariffs on imported cars and parts in several ways. But all of them cost money and will lead to higher car prices, analysts say.Manufacturers can try to move production from countries like Mexico to the United States. They can try to increase the number of cars they already make here. They can stop selling imported models, especially ones that are less profitable.But whatever carmakers decide, car buyers can expect to pay more for new and used vehicles. Estimates vary widely and depend on the model, but the increase could range from around $3,000 for a car made in the United States to well over $10,000 for imported models.Those figures do not take into account additional tariffs that Mr. Trump said he would announce next week to punish countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods. He has also said he would increase tariffs further if trading partners like Canada and the European Union raise tariffs in response to his auto tariffs, leading to an escalating tit-for-tat trade war.“It’s going to be disruptive and expensive for American consumers for several years,” said Michael Cusumano, professor of management at the MIT Sloan School of Management.Mr. Trump has long brandished tariffs. But many auto executives had hoped that his threats were a negotiating tool. Mr. Trump dashed those hopes on Wednesday when he said at the White House that the tariffs were “100 percent” permanent.Where Popular Cars (and Their Parts) Come FromHere is a selection of well-known models and where their components come from, as well as where the vehicle is ultimately assembled.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Share of parts by origin country
    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Labor Nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer Faces Pressure at Senate Hearing

    by

    Asked for her views on pro-labor legislation she backed as a House Republican, Lori Chavez-DeRemer said she would simply serve the president’s agenda.President Trump’s pick as labor secretary faced pointed questions from both parties at her Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday over her past support for pro-union legislation, an issue that could complicate her nomination.The nominee, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a former Republican congresswoman, was pressed repeatedly about her stand on the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, known as the PRO Act — a sweeping labor bill that sought to strengthen collective bargaining rights. She was a co-sponsor of the measure, a top Democratic priority that has yet to win passage, and one of few Republicans to back it.Asked if she continued to support it, Ms. Chavez-DeRemer demurred, saying she was no longer in Congress and would support Mr. Trump’s agenda.“I do not believe that the secretary of labor should write the laws,” she told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which conducted the hearing. “It will be up to the Congress to write those laws and to work together. What I believe is that the American worker deserves to be paid attention to.”But in response to questions from Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of several Republican senators who have expressed opposition to her confirmation, she said she no longer backed a portion of the legislation that Mr. Paul said undermined “right to work” states, where unionization efforts face stiff legal and political barriers.The unusual nature of Ms. Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination was apparent in the makeup of the audience in the committee room, which was packed with members of the Teamsters union, identifiable by their logo-emblazoned fleeces and jackets. The nominee played up her personal connection to the union on Wednesday, saying in her opening statement, “My journey is rooted in the values instilled by my father, a proud Teamster who worked tirelessly for over 30 years.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Union Push Falls Short at North Carolina Warehouse

    by

    The outcome was a setback for workers trying to score a second election success at an Amazon facility. The union vowed to keep trying to organize.Amazon workers voted overwhelmingly against a bid to unionize their North Carolina warehouse, the National Labor Relations Board said on Saturday, the latest setback in labor organizing efforts at the e-commerce giant.Workers at the RDU1 fulfillment center in Garner, outside of Raleigh, voted 2,447 to 829 against unionizing with Carolina Amazonians United for Solidarity and Empowerment, or CAUSE, an upstart union founded by warehouse workers in 2022.Organizers at the warehouse, which employs more than 4,000 people, sought starting wages of $30 an hour. The current pay range is about $18 to $24, Amazon said. The union also demanded longer lunch breaks and increased vacation time. In a statement, leaders of CAUSE said the election outcome was the result of Amazon’s “relentless and illegal efforts to intimidate us.” They did not say whether they would challenge the outcome, but vowed to keep trying to organize. Eileen Hards, a spokeswoman for Amazon, wrote: “We’re glad that our team in Garner was able to have their voices heard, and that they chose to keep a direct relationship with Amazon.” Leading up to the election, the worker-led union filed charges with the labor relations board accusing Amazon of interfering with employees’ protected union activity. The company gave preferential treatment to workers who did not support the union, according to the charges filed by CAUSE. Amazon also unfairly fired the co-founder of the union one week before workers filed for a union election in December, CAUSE said in a filing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Attacks on DEI Get Approval From Some in the Left Wing

    by

    Many Democrats and activists are rallying to defend diversity programs, but others say they distract from deeper efforts to address inequality.A few days after President Trump issued an order urging the private sector to end “Illegal D.E.I. Discrimination and Preferences,” the Rev. Al Sharpton led about 100 people into a Costco in East Harlem for a so-called buy-cott. The idea was to shop and support the company for maintaining its diversity, equity and inclusion policies amid pressure from the new administration.But the gesture by the civil rights activist did not win universal acclaim on the political left. In interviews, self-identified socialists and other leftists worried that Mr. Sharpton’s action helped bolster the company at a moment when it faced pressure from unionized workers, who had threatened to strike beginning Feb. 1.“Al Sharpton making Costco into a titan of progress that needs mass support days before a potential strike,” Bhaskar Sunkara, the president of the progressive magazine The Nation, grumbled on the platform X.The episode at Costco, which did not respond to a request for comment, illustrates an underappreciated tension on the left at a time when Mr. Trump has targeted diversity initiatives: Some on the left have expressed skepticism of such programs, portraying them as a diversion from attacking economic inequality — and even an obstacle to doing so.“I am definitely happy this stuff is buried for now,” Mr. Sunkara said in an interview. “I hope it doesn’t come back.”Corporate-backed initiatives promoting diversity can take various forms. Starbucks, for instance, pledges to “work hard to ensure our hiring practices are competitive, fair and inclusive” and says it is “committed to consistently achieving 100 percent gender and race pay equity.” It also offers anti-bias training.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Moves to Invalidate Recent Labor Agreements With Federal Workers

    by

    In the latest effort to put his stamp on the federal work force, President Trump on Friday issued a memorandum invalidating government labor contracts finalized in the last 30 days before a presidential inauguration.The policy applies to certain contracts negotiated toward the end of the Biden administration, the memo says. Such “last-minute, lame-duck” agreements, it states, “are purposefully designed to circumvent the will of the people” and “inhibit the President’s authority to manage the executive branch.”Unions at several agencies rushed to negotiate collective bargaining agreements ahead of Mr. Trump’s inauguration to preserve some practices of the previous administration, like remote work, and insulate them from changes that could make it easier to fire civil servants.The memo appears to allude to such practices, which it calls “inefficient and ineffective,” and cites an agreement with the Education Department that attempts to preserve remote work arrangements. The memo says the agreements could be undone if they have not yet been approved by an “applicable” agency head.Other agencies, like the Social Security Administration, approved new collective bargaining agreements outside the 30-day window, presumably leaving them unaffected by the memo.It was unclear if the memo would survive legal pushback initiated by federal employee unions, though it appeared to anticipate legal challenges, noting that it should remain in force if a portion alluding to prohibited bargaining agreements from the Biden administration is found to be invalid.“Federal employees should know that approved union contracts are enforceable by law, and the president does not have the authority to make unilateral changes to those agreements,” Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a statement. “Members will not be intimidated. If our contracts are violated, we will aggressively defend them.” More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon’s Fight With Unions Heads to Whole Foods Market

    by

    Whole Foods workers in Philadelphia are voting on whether to form the first union in the Amazon-owned chain. The company is pushing back.At a sprawling Whole Foods Market in Philadelphia, a battle is brewing. The roughly 300 workers are set to vote on Monday on whether to form the first union in Amazon’s grocery business.Several store employees said they hoped a union could negotiate higher starting wages, above the current rate of $16 an hour. They’re also aiming to secure health insurance for part-time workers and protections against at-will firing.There is a broader goal, too: to inspire a wave of organizing across the grocery chain, adding to union drives among warehouse workers and delivery drivers that Amazon is already combating.“If all the different sectors that make it work can demand a little bit more, have more control, have more of a voice in the workplace — that could be a start of chipping away at the power that Amazon has, or at least putting it in check,” said Ed Dupree, an employee in the produce department. Mr. Dupree has worked at Whole Foods since 2016 and previously worked at an Amazon warehouse.Management sees things differently. “A union is not needed at Whole Foods Market,” the company said in a statement, adding that it recognized employees’ right to “make an informed decision.”Workers said that since they went public with their union drive last fall, store managers had ramped up their monitoring of employees, hung up posters with anti-union messaging in break rooms and held meetings that cast unions in a negative light.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More