Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

No Collective Bargaining For You - EO

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Mar 27, 2025 at 11:35 PM.

  1. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,215
    12,510
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    National security. I said so. 1978 law. bite it unions

    carved out an exception for police and fire because some animals are more equal than others

    stephen miller is really scouring the archives looking for anything that grants more executive authority over anything. it's almost like they aren't concerned about the opposition ever having that power:confused:

    Trump signs executive order to end collective bargaining at agencies involved with national security

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump moved Thursday to end collective bargaining with federal labor unions in agencies with national security missions across the federal government, citing authority granted him under a 1978 law.

    The order, signed without public fanfare and announced late Thursday, appears to touch most of the federal government. Affected agencies include the Departments of State, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Energy, Health and Human Services, Treasury, Justice and Commerce and the part of Homeland Security responsible for border security.

    Police and firefighters will continue to collectively bargain.

    Trump said the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 gives him the authority to end collective bargaining with federal unions in these agencies because of their role in safeguarding national security.
     
  2. vaxcardinal

    vaxcardinal GC Hall of Fame

    8,877
    1,276
    2,543
    Apr 8, 2007
    I’m wondering how many of those people belong to a union. Where I work, nobody is covered by a union.
     
  3. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    9,703
    1,218
    3,218
    Apr 3, 2007
    My brother is part of one in the energy sector.
     
  4. GratefulGator

    GratefulGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,900
    610
    2,013
    Oct 15, 2016
    Boulder Colorado
    I hate that this erodes Union power, but also see how this EO makes sense, given that this is in the interest of national security.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    31,579
    2,053
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    I'm not sure how having disgruntled TSA workers helps me or national security
     
  6. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    9,703
    1,218
    3,218
    Apr 3, 2007
    You know who else are union workers? ATCs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,215
    12,510
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    It isn’t a national security issue. More lies. Cast everything as national security or fraud and hope the cult will continue to swallow whatever swill they are given
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  8. GratefulGator

    GratefulGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,900
    610
    2,013
    Oct 15, 2016
    Boulder Colorado
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but you stated that Greenland isn't a national security issue. I'm just curious as to why you believe Greenland isn't strategic for national security?
     
  9. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,215
    12,510
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    What isn't strategic for national security. Very subjective. Keeping European allies is 100x more important than taking control of Greenland.