By Greg Penglis, May 19, 2025.
There is all the difference in the world between a private union and a government union. Private sector unions, such as the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters, all operate in a closed system. There is a company, with a finite amount of money, which means the union bargaining on behalf of labor can’t ask for too much, or the company could go broke and all the union members lose their jobs, or ask for too little, or the union members may quit or decertify the union. So there are natural controls and limitations on a collective bargaining agreement between labor, represented by a union, and management, represented by a company. Available money for the company is dependent on labor, but also technology, reinvestment, marketing, training, innovation, good management, best practices, and other factors. So better companies make for more profitable companies, which makes for better labor agreements. Win – Win. Just look at UPS. They are a huge and successful worldwide company with collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the Teamsters, and the workers under those contracts do very well.
However, in the case of a government union, this is a completely open system with no limitations or controls, and actually enhances and promotes corruption and deals between the two parties. So it’s not an adversarial system between labor and management, the adversarial relationship is between government workers and legislators, and the taxpayers, where the taxpayers have little to no influence or impact on the negotiations or their outcome yet have to pay the full costs. This system inherently integrates corruption into the negotiations because the legislators want the votes of the government union workers. To get those votes legislators give the government unions outrageous contracts, way out of proportion or reason when compared to a private union contract. And the legislators, different from a private company which pays for labor out of company money, legislators pay for government union contracts out of taxpayers money. So taxpayers fund the system, but have no ability to have any part in the negotiations and contracts. And legislators can always raise taxes or increase spending and borrowing to give government union workers more money in exchange for votes. This is actually a government criminal syndicate, and for all the reasons above we must return to a time before there were government unions, and only private unions.
I asked Grok AI to document where this started, with JFK’s executive order first allowing government employees to bargain collectively with other government employees. Here is what it said.
“JFK’s Executive Order on Collective Bargaining for Federal Employees:
President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, titled “Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Service,” on January 17, 1962. This executive order granted federal employees the right to engage in collective bargaining through labor organizations, marking a significant step in recognizing federal unionism. It established a framework for employee-management cooperation, allowing federal employees to organize and negotiate over certain working conditions, though it imposed limitations, such as prohibiting strikes and excluding intelligence agencies. The order was a breakthrough for public sector workers, who were not covered by the 1935 Wagner Act, and it set the stage for subsequent labor relations developments in the federal sector.
Key provisions of Executive Order 10988 include:
Recognition of Employee Organizations: Federal agencies were directed to recognize lawful employee organizations (unions) that aimed to improve working conditions, provided they did not advocate strikes, support overthrowing the government, or discriminate based on race, color, creed, or national origin.
Collective Bargaining Rights: Employees gained the right to join unions and negotiate over personnel policies and working conditions, though the scope was narrower than in the private sector (e.g., no negotiations on wages or benefits).
Limitations: The order did not require “good faith negotiations” as in the private sector, prohibited strikes (reinforcing the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act), and allowed agency heads to suspend its rules for operations outside the U.S.”
So the first thing our Act does is to repeal Executive Order 10988.
I asked Grok AI to summarize the arguments against government unions and collective bargaining by one of the strongest opponents of government unionization, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Here is what I got.
“The Case Against Government Unions, with Emphasis on FDR’s Views:
Before President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10988 in 1962, federal government employee unions were effectively illegal in the United States, lacking legal recognition and the right to engage in collective bargaining. This stemmed from a longstanding view, notably articulated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), that unions for public sector employees posed unique risks to governance and public interest. Below, I outline the case against government unions, emphasizing FDR’s perspective and other arguments that have been historically and contemporarily raised.
FDR’s Position Against Government Unions:
FDR, a strong supporter of private sector unions under the 1935 Wagner Act, was firmly opposed to unionization and collective bargaining for federal employees. His views were rooted in the distinct nature of public sector work and the potential conflicts it posed to democratic governance. Key points from FDR’s stance, particularly drawn from his 1937 letter to Luther C. Steward, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, include:
Government Service vs. Private Employment: FDR argued that government employment differs fundamentally from private sector work. In his letter, he stated, “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” He believed public employees serve the public interest, not private profit motives, and thus their conditions of employment should be determined by elected officials accountable to citizens, not through adversarial negotiations.
Threat to Democratic Authority: FDR emphasized that government functions are determined by the people through their elected representatives. He wrote, “The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.” Allowing unions to negotiate with government officials could undermine the sovereignty of elected leaders, as unelected union leaders might exert undue influence over public policy.
Prohibition on Strikes: FDR was particularly adamant that strikes by public employees were unacceptable. He stated, “Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.” He viewed strikes as a direct challenge to government authority, potentially paralyzing essential public services and holding the public hostage. This concern was later codified in laws like the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act and the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act (5 U.S.C. § 7116(b)(7)), which prohibit federal employee strikes.
Risk of Special Interest Domination: FDR worried that government unions could become powerful interest groups, prioritizing their members’ interests over the broader public good. He believed that public employees should serve as “agents of the people,” and unionization might shift their loyalty to union leaders, creating conflicts of interest.
FDR’s views were influential in maintaining the status quo before 1962, where federal employees could form associations (e.g., the National Federation of Federal Employees, founded in 1917) but lacked legal rights to bargain collectively or negotiate binding agreements. His stance reflected a broader consensus that public sector unionism could disrupt the chain of democratic accountability.
Broader Arguments Against Government Unions:
Beyond FDR’s perspective, other historical and contemporary arguments against government unions include:
Monopoly Power of Government: Unlike private sector employers, the government is a monopoly provider of many services (e.g., defense, postal services, regulatory enforcement). Critics argue that government unions exploit this monopoly, as there is no competitive market to discipline their demands. This can lead to inflated costs or inefficiencies, as taxpayers, not a private company, bear the burden. For example, studies from the Heritage Foundation (2020) have argued that federal union contracts sometimes protect underperforming employees, hindering government efficiency.
Political Influence and Conflict of Interest: Government unions often engage in political activities, endorsing candidates or lobbying for policies that align with their interests. Critics contend this creates a feedback loop where unions support politicians who, once elected, grant favorable labor concessions, potentially at the expense of fiscal responsibility. The Manhattan Institute (2018) has cited examples where public sector unions’ political contributions correlate with generous pension benefits, straining public budgets.
Fiscal Implications: Public sector unions can negotiate benefits (e.g., pensions, healthcare) that create long-term financial liabilities. Unlike private sector firms, governments cannot go bankrupt, so these obligations fall on taxpayers. The Cato Institute (2021) estimated that unfunded federal employee pension liabilities exceed $3 trillion, partly attributed to union-negotiated benefits.
Inequity with Private Sector Workers: Opponents argue that public sector employees, who often enjoy greater job security and benefits than private sector workers, do not need unions to the same extent. Before EO 10988, federal employees already had civil service protections (e.g., under the Pendleton Act of 1883), which guarded against arbitrary dismissal and ensured merit-based employment, reducing the need for collective bargaining.
Potential for Disruption: Even without strikes, government unions can engage in work slowdowns or other tactics that disrupt public services. Historical examples, like the 1981 PATCO (air traffic controllers) strike, illustrate the chaos that can ensue when public sector workers halt operations, reinforcing FDR’s concerns about “militant tactics.”
I couldn’t have laid out a better case against government union and government collective bargaining.
Grok AI then explained how Congress put into law, JFK’s executive order 10988.
“U.S. Code Laws Making the Executive Order Permanent:
Executive Order 10988 itself was not a permanent law, as executive orders are subject to modification or revocation by subsequent presidents. However, its framework for federal employee collective bargaining was codified and made permanent through the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), which established a statutory basis for federal labor-management relations. The CSRA incorporated and expanded upon the principles of EO 10988, ensuring that federal employees’ rights to organize and bargain collectively were enshrined in law. Specifically, Title VII of the CSRA, known as the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), is the primary legal framework that made these rights permanent.
The FSLMRS (5 U.S.C. Chapter 71) is the cornerstone of federal labor relations, codifying the collective bargaining rights initially granted by EO 10988 and making them permanent by embedding them in federal law. Unlike an executive order, which can be rescinded, these statutory provisions require congressional action to amend or repeal. The CSRA was enacted after extensive debate and built on the experiences of EO 10988 and subsequent orders (e.g., EO 11491 by President Nixon in 1969), which refined and expanded federal labor policies.”
So in order to fix this, all we need do is go back to a time in law before JFK’s order and the subsequent legislation. So we have a very short bill.
Text of our Act:
Executive Order 10988 and 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 are hereby abolished. Government employees are prohibited from union membership and collective bargaining in any form.
Endorsements:
Bill Status:
Comments: