Earlier this month, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) released a report indicating that federal taxpayers spent $181 million in 2024 on collective bargaining activities for unions representing federal employees. This amount was calculated based on data provided by federal agencies responding to OPM’s request.
The practice of government-worker collective bargaining has long been debated. In a historical context, then-Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge questioned its legitimacy during the 1919 Boston Police Strike. President Franklin Roosevelt, despite his support for private-sector unions, told the National Federation of Federal Employees that “the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” The AFL-CIO also once maintained that government workers’ rights should not extend beyond petitioning Congress.
However, in 1962 President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988 authorizing federal employee collective bargaining. Subsequent administrations expanded or affirmed these powers through additional executive orders and legislation such as the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which established formal rules for labor-management relations in federal employment.
Despite these changes over time, critics argue that taxpayers see little return from funding union negotiations at this level. As noted by Molly Conway, former Chief of Staff to the Department of Labor under President Trump: “Management rights and any matters ‘specifically provided for by Federal statute’ are not bargainable. This includes pay, health insurance, retirement, and certain workplace insurance (e.g., workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance), among others.”
U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), then chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, wrote to the Biden administration in 2024: “Moreover, federal agencies and unions negotiate over issues most taxpayers would consider a waste of time and attention. While it would be impossible to list all instances of negotiations over federal workplace minutia, examples include the addition of 14 inches in the height of cubicle desk panels (and ‘modesty panels’ extending below the desk); designated smoking areas on an otherwise tobacco-free campus; and federal employees’ right to wear shorts, sweatpants, and spandex at work.”
A particular area drawing criticism is “official time,” or taxpayer-funded union time (TFUT). According to OPM data cited in its recent report, total personnel compensation—including both TFUT and management-side costs—for collective bargaining reached $131 million in 2024.
Trey Kovacs from Capital Research Center explained that official time has even been authorized for lobbying activities: “The Federal Labor Relations Authority…has authorized the use of official time for lobbying activities. In a 2001 case, a court ordered that the Department of Defense award official time to the Association of Civilian Technicians (ACT) for union duties including ‘visiting, phoning and writing to Congress in support of legislation which would impact the working conditions of employees represented by ACT.’”
In light of these practices and their associated costs within an overall multi-trillion dollar government budget with significant deficits and debt levels, some commentators have called for ending government worker collective bargaining altogether.
Congressional action appears unlikely; earlier this year legislation expanding federal unions passed in the House but stalled in the Senate.
Under current law—the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute—presidents retain authority to exclude certain agencies involved primarily with national security from collective bargaining coverage if deemed necessary. The Trump administration exercised this authority through executive orders EO 14241 and EO 14343 excluding several agencies or granting agency heads exclusion powers based on national security considerations.
Editorial commentary from National Review stated: “While Trump should use the CSRA’s power on areas that are truly related to national security…[his] order follows a pattern…by stretching the definition…beyond any reasonable bounds.” The editorial further noted perceived inconsistencies such as excluding environmental agencies while leaving out Customs and Border Protection whose union had endorsed Trump.
Federal-worker unions have responded with lawsuits challenging these exclusions while encouraging legislative overrides; however OPM continues implementing them as directed by executive order—resulting in more than half of all federal workers being excluded from collective bargaining eligibility.
Critics maintain there are minimal public benefits derived from current forms of federal worker bargaining since essential issues like pay remain outside negotiation parameters.
