The Union Forever (or not)

[ndrosen]

I am a unionized federal employee, and a citizen who does not much approve of unions for government employees. I have, since shortly after I began work at the Patent Office, chosen to be a dues-paying member of the Patent Office Professional Association. When, many years ago, I was investigated on suspicion of posting things I shouldn’t have, and/or possibly doing other improper things, POPA provided a representative to accompany at my hearing. Some other USPTO employees are represented by the National Treasury Employees Union. This is background. On Thursday, I received an email from the Acting Director of the USPTO, saying in part:

The administration has determined that the Patents business unit the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) have “as a primary function … national security work,” and that the federal labor statute cannot be applied to Patents and OCIO “in a manner consistent with national security requirements and consideration.” As a result, employees in Patents and OCIO are no longer represented by unions (POPA and NTEU 243). These changes are effective immediately, and do not effect employees in other business units.

The executive orders do not effect any employee’s duty station, salary, health and retirement benefits, work hours, award programs, or the like.

On Friday, I received an email from the president of POPA, saying that this would probably be the last email she could send through the USPTO email system, and also that POPA would fight, and we could check out its website for further information, and to make donations.

Whether or not you think that civil service unions should exist, Trump’s executive orders seem bogus. We are not the CIA or the Marine Corps, and POPA has been representing examiners for many decades, under Democratic and Republican presidents, without anyone finding Union representation inconsistent with national security requirements. So I think that this is as much an unlawful power grab as the current administration’s claim that the President can impose tariffs by decree, on the basis of a statute that does not mention tariffs.

Comments

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

If unions cease to be a problem-solving option, then people will go back to solving problems as they did before unions. Which was by bashing each other in alleys.

Re: Well ...

[ndrosen]

I didn’t address the issue of labor unions in general (although I may be less enamored of them that you are), but specifically unions of public employees. It’s one thing if employees of a private sector factory or coal mine want higher wages or safer conditions; their demands had better not be so extreme as to bankrupt the business. I do see problems with government employees unionizing, and engaging in voting, making campaign contributions, and so forth to influence the employer with which they’re negotiating, and get higher wages and benefits at the expense of the taxpayers.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Unions are an imperfect solution, but better than workers getting screwed or people solving problems with brute force. Collectives are often better, like credit unions or food co-ops.

It's not the government employees I most suspect of fleecing taxpayers, it's the politicians who vote themselves raises while cutting programs.

Re: Well ...

[ndrosen]

Sometimes unions solve their problems with brute force, by using violence against non-union businesses, and against workers who don’t want to be dragooned into a union.

Re: Well ...

[selenite0]

Private sector unions are limited because if they squeeze for too much the company goes bankrupt. Public sector ones can keep taking until the taxpayers flee the jurisdiction. Not that I have any opinion on the USPTO union. This comes from school board elections where candidates brag about having spouses, siblings, and other relatives who are members of the union, which would be considered a conflict of interest in other circumstances.