Connect with us

Business

Trump faces federal employee unions in government efficiency battle

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to drastically cut government and clean out inefficiencies, but he faces an entrenched power in Washington, D.C. that may throw a wrench in his plans: federal government public employee unions.

“For president-elect Trump to succeed at making the federal bureaucracy more efficient and accountable to the American people, he’ll have to once again do battle with federal unions,” Max Nelsen, a labor policy expert at the Freedom Foundation, told The Center Square.

Trump has tapped top businessmen Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency effort. Musk has claimed he can cut $2 trillion in federal spending.

In a November joint editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy pledged “mass head-count reductions” in the federal government.

Firing federal workers is notoriously rare and difficult, but Ramaswamy has publicly said that mass, indiscriminate firings may allow for circumventing the usual bureaucratic holdups for firing a federal employee.

Trump himself recently pledged to cut “hundreds of billions” in federal spending.

“Government unions are hands down the single most significant defenders of the administrative state,” Nelsen said. “Their interests are always served by bigger, more expensive, less accountable government, and their partisan allegiance to the radical Left leads them to both overtly and covertly undermine conservative policy changes across the federal government…”

The first battle with unions in the DOGE war may be federal work from home policies, where unions have already threatened legal action to protect their pre-arranged deals with the Biden administration.

Trump threatened to fire federal employees who are not willing to report to the office, a clear shot at federal work-from-home policies, something Musk has also blasted in recent weeks.

“If people don’t come back to work, come back into the office, they’re going to be dismissed,” Trump told reporters during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago.

The largest federal employee union quickly shot back after Trump made the comments and threatened legal action.

Trump’s comments are likely at least in part reacting to a Biden administration official negotiating a deal with a union that extends until 2029, after Trump is scheduled to leave office.

As The Center Square previously reported, Social Security Administrator Martin O’Malley negotiated a deal with union leaders to codify work-from-home policies, keeping telework in place for his 42,000 employees until 2029.

Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, pointed out that these contracts are legally binding.

“Collective bargaining agreements entered into by the federal government are binding and enforceable under the law,” Kelley said. “We trust the incoming administration will abide by their obligations to honor lawful union contracts. If they fail to do so, we will be prepared to enforce our rights.”

Trump’s backers may have an ace in the hole, though, in the form of new Supreme Court precedent.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in a landmark case to overturn Chevron deference, the longstanding legal practice of giving federal agencies broad power to interpret and practically change and expand federal laws as they deemed fit, citing their expertise.

Now, Musk and Ramaswamy will likely have more leeway in cutting rules from the books and workers from the payroll.

Nelsen said Trump should limit the amount of federal dollars that go toward unions, and that he should increase union transparency.

“Additionally, President Trump will need a cadre of energetic appointees at the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and in labor relations departments government wide to aggressively implement his directives,” Nelsen said. “Finally, to truly have a long-term impact, President Trump will need a successor in four years committed to continuing the fight.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Canada’s ‘supply management’ system makes milk twice as expensive and favours affluent dairy farms

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Fred McMahon

While the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations continue, with much speculation about potential deals, one thing is certain: Canada’s agricultural marketing boards remain a barrier to success.

A White House official said as much: “[Canada] has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of seriousness in trade discussions as it relates to removing trade barriers.” That’s a clear reference to agricultural marketing boards, our Iron Curtain trade barrier. International trade lawyer Lawrence L. Herman aptly described boards as “Canada’s Soviet-style supply management system.”

Agricultural marketing boards are as Canadian as maple syrup, but more so. Maple syrup is international. Supply management is uniquely Canadian. No other country has such a system. And for good reason. It’s odious policy, favouring an affluent few, burdening the poorest, and creating needless friction with allies and trading partners.

President Trump’s distaste for the boards is well known. But, it’s not just Donald. The European Union, the United Kingdom, the World Trade Organization (effectively all of Canada’s trading partners)—and, wait for it, the majority Canadian farmers—all oppose the boards.

Canada claims to support free trade, except when we don’t. Canada seals off a large portion of its agricultural market with the system, but gets irritable when another country closes part of its market—say for autos, aluminum or steel.

Marketing boards employ a variety of tools, including quotas and tariffs, and a large bureaucracy to block international and interprovincial trade and deprive Canadians of choice in dairy, eggs and poultry. Without competition, productivity stagnates and prices soar.

The cost of living in the United States is 8.4 per cent higher than in the Canada, rent 14.9 per cent higher. But, thanks to our marketing boards, milk is twice as expensive—C$3.07 a litre on average in Canada versus C$1.47 in the United States. The most recent estimate of the cost of the system revealed, using 2015 data, that the average Canadian household pays an extra $300 to $433 annually because of marketing boards, hitting hard poorer Canadians, who spend a higher portion of their income on food than affluent Canadians.

Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal MP and leadership contender, now director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, wrote with outrage, “The average Canadian dairy farm’s net worth is almost $4 million…. This archaic [supply-management] system forces a single mother on welfare to pay hundreds of dollars more per year than she needs to, just so we can continue to enrich a small number of cartel millionaires… members of the oft-vilified ‘one-percent’.”

Don’t expect meaningful negotiations. Canada’s Parliament, endorsed by the Senate, recently unanimously passed Bill C-202, which prohibits the foreign affairs minister from negotiating increased quotas or reduced tariffs for imports of supply-managed products.

The dairy industry, particularly in Quebec, is the big player. To protect this mighty lobby, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet proposed C-202, backed by all parties, fearing a Quebec backlash if they stood up for Canadians, including for Quebecers who lack the privilege of owning one of province’s 4,200 multi-million-dollar dairy farms of Canada’s 9,400.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA), Grain Growers of Canada (GGC), and other farm groups oppose C-202. Scott Hepworth, acting chair of GGC, said, “Parliament chose to prioritize one group of farmers over another. As a grain producer, I know firsthand how important international trade is to my family’s livelihood. Without reliable access to global markets, farmers like me are left behind.”

Canada has 65,000 grain farms and 53,000 pig and beef farms, compared to 14,700 supply-managed farms, less than one per cent of the total of 190,000 farms in Canada.

Marketing boards benefit a tiny minority of Canadian farmers while damaging the majority and increasing prices for all Canadians. One benefit of Donald Trump’s trade war against Canada has been the resolve on all levels of government to reduce home-grown obstacles to growth, including iron trade curtains between provinces.

The spineless response to C-202 reveals the weakness of that resolve and politician’s willingness to bend the knee to rich lobbies, toss other farmers under the bus, and carelessly pile on costs for Canadians, particularly low-income ones.

Fred McMahon

Senior Fellow, Dr. Michael A. Walker Chair in Economic Freedom
Continue Reading

Business

Conservative MPs denounce Liberal plan to strip charitable status of pro-life, Christian groups

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservative MPs presented a petition in Parliament defending pro-life charities and religious organizations against a Liberal proposal to strip their charitable tax status.

Conservative MPs presented a petition calling for the rejection of the Liberals’ plan to strip pro-life charities and places of worship of their charitable status.

During the September 16 session, Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) Andrew Lawton, Jacob Mantle, and Garnett Genuis defended pro-life charities and places of worship against Liberal recommendations to remove the institutions’ charitable status for tax purposes.

“I have received from houses of worship across this country so much concern, reflected in this petition, that these recommendations are fundamentally anti-free speech and anti-religious freedom,” Lawton told Parliament. “The petitioners, and I on their behalf, advocate for the complete protection of charitable status regardless of these ideological litmus tests.”

Similarly, Mantle, a newly elected MP, added that Canadians “lament that some members opposite are so blinded by their animus towards charitable organizations that they would seek to undermine the good works that these groups do for the most vulnerable Canadians.”

Finally, Genuis, who officially presented the petition signed by hundreds of Canadians, stressed the importance work accomplished by religious and pro-life organizations.

“(R)eligious charities in Canada provide vital services for society, including food banks, care for seniors, newcomer support, youth programs and mental health outreach, all of which is rooted in their faith tradition, and that singling out or excluding faith charities from the charitable sector based on religious belief undermines the diversity and pluralism foundational to Canadian society,” he explained.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, before last Christmas, a proposal by the all-party Finance Committee suggested legislation that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers and religious groups of their charitable status.

The legislation would amend the Income Tax Act and Income Tax. Section 429 of the proposed legislation recommends the government “no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.”

Similarly, Recommendation 430 aims to “amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.”

Many Canadians have warned that the proposed legislation would wipe out thousands of Christian churches and charities across Canada.

As LifeSiteNews reported in March, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) appealed to the Liberal government to rethink the plan to strip pro-life and religious groups of their tax charity status, stressing the vital work done by those organizations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X