In a New York Times op-ed, history prof Erik Loomis questions why, in the face of Trump’s massive termination of federally unionized labor, unions have been neither seen nor heard.
This is a most unfortunate Labor Day for labor. The labor movement has taken it on the chin repeatedly in the last several decades, but President Trump is the most ruthlessly antilabor president since before the Great Depression.
If the labor movement does not fight harder than it has since Mr. Trump regained the presidency, its future will be dire.
What goes unmentioned is that Loomis speaks to public sector unionism, which is a breed apart from private sector unions. He’s not wrong that unions have been bizarrely silent in the face of mass firings with neither cause nor reason. There is a huge distinction between the question of whether the government, via Must and the DOGE muskrats, was sound policy (it wasn’t) and whether the workers had a right to their jobs (they didn’t).
But this Labor Day is a good time to consider why public sector unions have largely stood silent while this happened.
Despite this assault on their very existence, we have barely heard a peep from unions. Where is organized labor in the public fight to maintain union jobs, stop the stripping of the safety net and lead the fight for democracy? Other than some statements and angry speeches, the movement has been muted.
If the labor movement wants to fight for its survival, it must return to mass mobilization tactics, reminding Americans that their rights come through working together — not through supporting a president who talks about helping American workers while slashing worker safety regulations, supporting tariffs that raise the cost of consumer goods and stripping workers of their legal rights to contracts.
The disconnect between Trump’s claims and reality, a pervasive theme of this administration, is one thing, but Loomis’ argument fails to take into account another disconnect. What’s good for public sector unions and what’s good for American workers is not the same thing either. The labor movement doesn’t exist for the sake of union presidents and shop stewards getting paid and perks. It exists to represent the collective bargaining unit get better wages and terms and conditions of employment. When was the last time federal public sector unions did anything to help federal workers? When was the last time federal workers wanted to pay their union dues because their unions served them?
Loomis’ theory is that big labor, such as Sean O’Brien of the Teamsters, support Trump, who says he’s bringing back factory jobs to America and ridding the nation of “illegals” who take away American jobs.
Organized labor, for all its talk about solidarity, remains deeply divided on how best to approach organizing, politics and Mr. Trump. Certain labor leaders, particularly Sean O’Brien, president of the Teamsters, have embraced Mr. Trump and his brand of Republicans, particularly around immigration restrictions. Other unions with memberships that are heavily white and male also lean toward Republicans. But they still represent a minority of union members.
The Teamsters, however, is not a federal public sector union. It’s not Teamsters members getting canned at the VA, and so O’Brien’s outlier views on Trump really have little to do with the problem Loomis seeks to address. Why have the unions representing federal workers failed to stand up for their members who are losing jobs without justification or recourse? And that may well hold the answer.
Unions have the internal support, structure and organizing capacity to support the fight against Mr. Trump. Yet no one in the labor movement has taken the public role of countering Mr. O’Brien and making it clear to the American public that most unions are strongly opposed to Mr. Trump.
The problem isn’t that unions can’t organize, raise their voices, fight in court and on the streets for their members. The problem is they aren’t and they don’t. Unions only matter if they are fulfilling the purposes for which workers join them, pay their dues, work together to achieve the common goals of their workers. These unions are doing nothing, and their members, the federal workers, get nothing from union membership other than the duty to pay and the taint of having union president spew political rhetoric that fails to reflect workers’ views.
Most of America thinks of unions the way they existed 100 years ago, fighting the Pinkertons to get the right to organize against robber barons forcing them to work in sweat shops and the Triangle Shirt factory. These days are long gone, despite our romantic attachment to the great songs of the Wobblies.
The question today isn’t whether unions, including public sector unions, have any need to exist, but whether the unions that do exist fulfill any positive purpose for the workers of America. Based upon the efforts of the unions representing federal workers, the answer is that they are now a miserable failure, no matter how much unions once served their members. If unions do their jobs, workers will support them. If they do not, workers should not. Happy labor day, 2025.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Because I’m not only old I’m also poor, I work part time in a large Unionized retail store in the Midwest ( Michigan)
My foremost concern is pay. I want to union to negotiate pay increases. Not unreasonable unrealistic pay but pay that reflects some of the skills ( not me) performed by co workers….. it’s the pay. I don’t care what my union uppers thing politically.
Federal union dues are voluntary. Most employees choose to pay them. I suppose they see value where you, clearly, do not. Happy Labor Day.
[Ed. Note: Since the Janus decision, union membership is voluntary. According to BLS, 25.1% of federal employees are union members (32.2% of all public sector employees were union members).]
NTEU and AFGE have filed over 20 lawsuits on various matters including the exclusion orders, mass termination of probationary employees and the RIFs. As you know, due to channeling unions are unable to sue in court regarding the vast majority of the contract violations. However, the unions have filed hundreds of grievances and arbitrations related to these violations which is the administrative remedy available to them. Unfortunately, Trump has eviscerated the administrative bodies that are part of this process (MSPB, FLRA) so most of these actions won’t be resolved until after Trump’s term.
As you know, federal unions cannot get better wages for their members because congress sets federal pay levels (with a few small exceptions at the FIRREA agencies) and raising pay for federal employees isn’t popular with either party, FEPCA notwithstanding, so we are where we are (1% raise next year FWIW). Also, federal union stewards do not get any special pay or perks beyond their salary as a federal employee.
Federal labor law was written with the idea that both parties would act in good faith. The most powerful remedy available to most private sector unions, striking, is prohibited by statute for federal employees so they are largely left with the administrative options above. Even then, the remedy is largely unsatisfying because it generally consists of a prominently posted note that the agency violated the labor laws which is little comfort for people that had to endure the violations for years. Perhaps one could say that the labor laws are too weak and maybe they should be stronger but things seemed to be working ok before Trump/Vought came along.
You unintentionally make the point that federal employee unions provide little value to workers and, to the extent they can do anything, have been woefully ineffective. Why would federal workers want to pay dues to a union that accomplishes nothing for them?
The unions were able to negotiate the removal of (i) higher pension contributions and (ii) higher healthcare costs from the BBB. Either of these wins individually far exceeds the annual dues a member would pay.
Even if the unions end up losing the RIF cases, the extra time they bought the members through the preliminary injunctions (i.e. pay and benefits during this period) will also far exceed the annual dues a member would pay. If they end up winning the cases the members will be reinstated with back pay and benefits. Were a member to fight these cases on their own 1 hour of attorney time would exceed the annual dues they pay.
The reason a lot of people don’t join is because they get the same benefits even if they don’t pay dues. I suppose in that sense you’re right that there isn’t value to any one person but if everyone took that view the unions wouldn’t exist. It would be an interesting case study whether more people would join if they only get the benefits of the CBA if they pay dues.
When I worked for the Federal govt, I was “unpromoted” from a position because of a technical error in the promotion process. I could not file a grievance because I was not a member of the union – only dues-paying union members could file grievances.
So I joined the union for one year, filed the grievance, was subsequently re- promoted, and promptly quit the union as soon as I could.
The technical error had been identified by an employee who was head of the union local and had applied for one of the promotions but was not selected. It affected 4 other people for 2 years, and I think he was eventually promoted as well. He did absolutely nothing to help me file and pursue my grievance against a union-created event that unpromoted 5 people. I don’t think he helped any of the other people, either.
Overall, the union in my agency was completely useless, and a PITA. I don’t see any reason for ANY governmental agencies to have to deal with unions. It is a true abomination.
Didn’t FDR question whether public sector unions were even a good idea?
Asking for a friend.
PS: Interesting site posting changes – my last driveby was in June and I try not to pester our Benevolent Host during summer break…
Mr. Loomis argues that the Trump Administration is anti-labor because it has slashed worker safety regulations. But that should be an opening for unions. They can use their ability to negotiate terms and conditions of employment to restore the protection given by the former regulations as part of contract.
One of the reasons unions don’t provide as much value as they used to is that government has largely taken over areas where unions used to act. Worker safety is now an OSHA matter. Because of Title VII and other laws, most worker firings are not arbitrary but are actually for some level of cause. Overtime and other laws somewhat regulate wages and hours.
I always wondered why union leaders pushed for employment legislation when much of it reduced the advantage of having a union representing you.