Tyrants despise labor unions; the feeling is mutual
There's a reason 'labor unions' are included in that poem about standing up to fascism
The furor over the House Republicans’ bill seems to be ebbing like the ocean at low tide. Just a few days after Mike Johnson’s Republican caucus approved a massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans while ripping away about $1 trillion worth of health care and food assistance for everyone else, much of the mainstream corporate media has moved on to the next “big” story.
The bill moves on to the U.S. Senate next. Perhaps we’ll hear more about it then.
(Tennessee protesters at a 50501 rally earlier this year letting Washington know they’re not interested in an American king.)
But for those few journalists who are still digging, there is plenty of additional destruction awaiting their discovery. And one of the greatest seems not to be a funding or spending issue at all, but rather the virtual destruction of most labor protections for the federal work force.
It’s hidden in a provision that is written in that fancy legal and political language meant to obscure the true objective of a government action. Crafted to sound like a cost “savings” — a measly $400 million over 10 years, by the way, in a bill that would add trillions to the national debt — it provides a vehicle to reduce the amount of money the government pays to defend itself from workers challenging their firings. How? By elminiating their right to fight.
In the first days of his presidency, Donald Trump and his buddy Elon Musk’s DOGE (that imaginary government agency never given approval to perform any of the “duties” it’s been performing) have made it Mission #1 to purge the federal work force. Tens of thousands of federal employees have had their jobs eliminated.
Now you may ask yourself, why were the jobs eliminated instead of the people in them just being fired or laid off? Because most federal workers have protections under regulations known as Civil Service. These rules prevent the federal government from firing them unjustly (among other protections).
Tucked into the so-called Big Beautiful Budget bill, is a change to the conditions under which new federal workers would be hired. Instead of being granted the job protections that others have, new hires would be required to choose these protections. No big deal, you say? It’s a very big deal. Because those protections would cost them 5 percent of their annual compensation.
Dr. Everett B. Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, called the budget bill, and this provision in particular, un-American, anti-union, and morally bankrupt.
So, that’s roughly $3,500 a year withheld in order to receive protections that would have been theirs by right before the bill’s passage. The folks in this class of employee typically earn a starting salary of about $70,000. Between this new charge and existing mandatory contributions, a new employee’s salary would be closer to $60,000 than $70,000 on Day One.
If they forego the protections to keep that $3,500? They become “at will” employees. And as anyone who works outside the government and is not represented by a union knows all too well, “at will” means the employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all, with very narrow protections that are virtually impossible (and ususally very expensive) to prove.
Kelley said the Congressional Budget Office, tasked with calculating the real-life effects of budgetary bills, estimates this one provision would force 75 percent of new federal employees into at-will status by virtue of being unable to afford the surcharge.
If it survives in the Senate, the provision will realize less than $500 million a year, the CBO said.
“If enacted, this change will lead to the eventual extinction of the merit-based, nonpartisan civil service, which is certainly its true purpose,” Kelley said, while charging workers a fee for “exercising their basic rights.”
The Labor Party notes that federal workers’ unions are already prevented by law to negotiate for wages and financial benefits. Their job security is essential, especially given the nature of the political whims of the leadership each time the reins of government change hands.
This provision moves the United States that much closer to the president’s autocratic, all-powerful executive branch vision in which Trump places himself on a throne as America’s king.
He has been especially intent on weakening the power of labor unions since taking office for the second time. And it’s no surprise. Authoritarians hate unions. Why? Because a union is basically a democracy. Authoritarians believe in power being held by an individual. Labor unions operate on the belief that power comes from unity. That there is strength in numbers. That when people come together to look out for each other’s interests, everyone benefits.
Kelley ended his letter with this plea:
“The bill’s … provisions will compromise the civil service and drive out experienced and dedicated federal workers who deliver vital services to your constituents, while contributing almost nothing to reducing the bill’s cost. Please vote NO …”
They didn’t listen.
No Kings Countdown
30 days: Colonists’ breakup letter to King George defines our rights
29 days: Tyranny masquerades as immigration reform
28 days: “No kings, just men.” Labor Party member’s TikTok video
27 days: The Boss says ‘You’re not the boss of me’
26 days: America is not a theocracy
23 days (today): Labor unions despise tyranny
(Until June 14, the day of Donald Trump’s planned authoritarian military parade and (not coincidentally) nationwide protests against tyranny, The Labor Party plans to talk about how un-American it is to aspire to be a king. The Labor Party is built by and for working people. We fight for policies that put people over profits. Ours is a grassroots movement fighting for real change. Today’s post was written by a member who chooses to remain anonymous. For inquiries, contact Labor Party Media Secretary Neel Sawicky at media@votelabor.org.)