Posts tagged collective bargaining negotiations
Vernuccio Op-ed: Trump Reveals True Cost of Federal Collective Bargaining
February 23, 2026 // Bottom line: Taxpayers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, not on core government functions, but simply dealing with federal labor unions. What, exactly, are they bargaining over? For the most part, federal unions can’t bargain over wages or benefits. Instead, as my organization has found, taxpayers are funding negotiations that neither benefit federal workers nor have anything to do with serving the public. Case in point: One federal union bargained with the government over whether employees could wear spandex to work. The union argued that wearing spandex was a fundamental right. Taxpayers covered the cost of such absurd discussions.
NLRB Acting General Counsel Cowen Directs Regions to Prosecute Secret Recordings of Collective Bargaining Sessions as Per Se Violations of the NLRA
July 15, 2025 // NLRB Acting General Counsel Cowen Directs Regions to Prosecute Secret Recordings of Collective Bargaining Sessions as Per Se Violations of the NLRA
House Oversight Republicans open Congress with rants against telework, unions
January 17, 2025 // Rachel Greszler, a visiting fellow at the conservative Economic Policy Innovation Center and a former Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 contributor, described actions like the Social Security-AFGE telework contract update as an effort to “Trump-proof” agency workforces and suggested Congress should pass legislation allowing presidents to reopen collective bargaining agreements upon assuming office. And they should ban official time, the practice by which agencies agree to pay union officials their normal salary for time spent on representational duties, like in collective bargaining negotiations or representing employees during grievances or disciplinary hearings.
Economic Costs of the PRO Act: Update
March 8, 2023 // The PRO Act would reclassify independent contractors, broaden the joint employer standard, repeal right-to-work laws, and eliminate employers’ ability to replace striking workers. While the intent of the bill is to increase worker protections, many of the provisions ignore stated worker preferences and have the potential to harm the labor market through increased costs that small businesses, franchisees, and entrepreneurs likely cannot afford. This paper estimates that the bill could increase employment costs by anywhere from $18–$61 billion and put up to $2.3 trillion of gross domestic product at risk