Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Trump faces federal employee unions in government efficiency battle

Published

11 months ago

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.”

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Artificial Intelligence / 7 hours ago

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Crime / 9 hours ago

‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer

Alberta / 13 hours ago

Carney government’s anti-oil sentiment no longer in doubt

Artificial Intelligence

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Published on November 19, 2025

By

logo

By Ken Macon

Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.

When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.
Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.
Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.
The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.
It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”
The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”
Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.
Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.
The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”
This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.
There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.
They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.
The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.
Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”
In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.
The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.
The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”
The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.
Google is yet to comment on the filing.
Reclaim The Net is reader-supported. Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Continue Reading

Business

Nearly One-Quarter of Consumer-Goods Firms Preparing to Exit Canada, Industry CEO Warns Parliament

Published on November 18, 2025

By

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Standing Committee on Industry and Technology hears stark testimony that rising costs and stalled investment are pushing companies out of the Canadian market.

There’s a number that should stop this country cold: twenty-three percent. That is the share of companies in one of Canada’s essential manufacturing and consumer-goods sectors now preparing to withdraw products from the Canadian market or exit entirely within the next two years. And this wasn’t whispered at a business luncheon or buried in a consultancy memo. It was delivered straight to Parliament, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, during its study on Canada’s underlying productivity gaps and capital outflow.

Michael Graydon, the CEO of Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada, didn’t hedge or soften the message. He told MPs, “23% of our members expect to exit products from the Canadian marketplace within the next two years, because the cost of doing business here has just become unsustainable.”

Unsustainable. That’s the word he used. And when the people who actually make things in this country start using that word, you should pay attention. These aren’t fringe players or hypothetical startups. These are firms that supply the goods Canadians buy every single day, and they’re looking at their balance sheets, their regulatory burdens, the delays in getting anything approved or built, and concluding that Canada simply doesn’t work for them anymore.

What makes this more troubling is the timing. Canada’s investment levels have been falling for years, even as the United States and other competitors race ahead. Businesses aren’t reinvesting in machinery or technology at the rate they once did. They’re not modernizing their operations here. They’re putting expansion plans on hold or shifting them to jurisdictions that move faster, cost less and offer clearer rules. That’s not ideology; it’s arithmetic. If it costs more to operate here, if it takes longer to get a permit, and if supply chains back up because ports and rail lines are jammed, investors will choose the place that doesn’t make growth a bureaucratic mountain climb.

Graydon raised another point that ought to concern anyone who cares about domestic production. Canada’s agrifood sector recorded a sixty-billion-dollar trade surplus last year, one of the brightest spots in the national economy, but according to him that potential is being “diluted by fragmented interprovincial trade and logistics bottlenecks.” The ports, the rail corridors, the entire transport network—choke points everywhere. And you can’t build a productive economy on choke points. Companies can’t scale, can’t guarantee delivery, can’t justify the costs. So they leave.

This twenty-three percent figure is the clearest evidence yet that the problem isn’t theoretical. It’s not something for think-tank panels or academic papers. It is happening at the level that matters most: the decision whether to continue doing business in Canada or move operations somewhere more predictable. And once those decisions are made, they’re very hard to reverse. Capital doesn’t boomerang back out of patriotism. It goes where it can earn a return.

For years, Canadian policymakers have talked about productivity as if it were a moral failing of workers or a mystical national characteristic. It’s neither. Productivity comes from investment—real money poured into equipment, technology, training and expansion. When investment stalls, productivity collapses. And when a quarter of firms in a major sector are already planning their exit, you are not looking at a temporary dip. You are looking at a structural rejection of the business environment itself.

The fact that executives are now openly warning Parliament that they cannot afford to stay is a moment of clarity. It is also a test. Either this country becomes a place where people can build things again—quickly, affordably, competitively—or it continues down the path that leads to empty factories, hollowed-out supply chains and consumers who wonder why the shelves look thinner every year.

Twenty-three percent is not just a statistic. It’s the sound of a warning bell ringing at full volume. The only question now is whether anyone in charge hears it.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X