02-14-2025

Limiting Lame-Duck Collective Bargaining Agreements That Improperly Attempt To Constrain the New President

MemorandumView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: A Presidential Memorandum that prohibits federal agencies from entering into new or modified collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with employee unions during the final 30 days of an outgoing presidential administration.

Money: There is no official CBO score. Proponents argue the policy will save money by preventing last-minute agreements that lock in what they term "wasteful" practices, such as expansive telework. Opponents argue it could create costs through litigation and lower morale without producing significant savings.

Your Impact: If you are a federal employee (excluding most law enforcement), this memorandum could invalidate or prevent new workplace terms concerning issues like telework, scheduling, and other conditions of employment if they are negotiated right before a new president takes office. For the general public, the impact is indirect, potentially affecting the delivery of government services depending on how federal employee work environments are managed.

Status: The Presidential Memorandum was signed on January 31, 2025, and published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2025, giving it the force of an executive directive.

What's Actually in the Bill

This Presidential Memorandum establishes a new rule for labor-management relations in the executive branch. Its primary function is to create a 30-day "blackout" period for collective bargaining agreements ahead of a presidential inauguration. The memo asserts that last-minute agreements are an effort by an outgoing administration to improperly bind the incoming one to its policies.

Core Provisions:

  • 30-Day Prohibition: No executive agency can create new CBAs, make substantive changes to existing ones, or extend their duration in the 30 days prior to a presidential inauguration.
  • Disapproval Authority: Agency heads are required to disapprove any agreements made at a lower level that violate this 30-day rule.
  • Exemption for Law Enforcement: The policy does not apply to CBAs that primarily cover law enforcement officers.
  • Example Cited: The memo specifically calls out a CBA negotiated at the Department of Education on January 17, 2025, which it claims improperly restricts the agency from recalling remote employees to the office.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The memorandum states its purpose is to prevent an outgoing administration from using "lame-duck CBAs" to circumvent the democratic will of the people and harm the new administration.

  1. To stop the extension of "wasteful and failing policies" beyond an administration's term.
  2. To preserve the incoming President's authority to manage the executive branch effectively and efficiently.
  3. To uphold the principle that one President "cannot choose to bind his successors by diminishing their powers."

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: All federal government agencies and departments with unionized employees, except those in law enforcement.
Timeline: The policy is effective immediately as of its signing on January 31, 2025.
Scope: The rule is government-wide for all non-exempted federal employees in bargaining units.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Dawn of Federal Unions (1960s-1970s):

  • 1962: President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10988 grants federal employees the right to form unions and engage in limited collective bargaining, though it banned strikes and did not allow bargaining over wages.
  • 1978: The Civil Service Reform Act, signed by President Jimmy Carter, established the modern framework for federal labor relations. It created the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) and codified the duty for agencies to bargain in good faith with employee unions over conditions of employment. This law, however, maintained the ban on negotiating over pay, benefits, and other core economic issues set by Congress.

The Pendulum of Power (1980s-2020s):

The power and scope of federal unions have often shifted depending on the party in the White House. Republican administrations have frequently sought to curtail union influence through executive orders, while Democratic administrations have tended to expand it. This has created a dynamic where labor-management policies are a key area of contention during presidential transitions. The period after the COVID-19 pandemic saw a major increase in federal telework, which became a central issue in CBA negotiations and a focal point for political debate over government efficiency.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Post-Transition Pivot: The memorandum was issued just 11 days after the 2025 presidential inauguration, signaling a top priority for the new administration to assert control over the federal bureaucracy.
  • Clash Over Telework: The memo's specific mention of the Department of Education's telework agreement highlights the ongoing battle over "return-to-office" policies. The new administration views expansive telework as inefficient, while unions and many employees see it as a critical modern workplace condition.
  • "Deep State" Confrontation: This action aligns with a broader political strategy aimed at dismantling what some conservatives call the "administrative state." By preventing unions from locking in workplace rules, the administration gains more flexibility to reorganize agencies and reassign personnel, a key goal of initiatives like "Project 2025."

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This memorandum directly affects hundreds of thousands of federal civil service employees and their unions, with potential downstream consequences for anyone who relies on federal government services.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Supporters argue that taxpayers may benefit from a more efficient and responsive government if a president can more easily change workplace rules to meet new priorities.
  • A streamlined ability to manage the workforce could, in theory, lead to better implementation of the administration's policy agenda.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • Federal employees may face uncertainty as recently negotiated contract terms could be nullified, leading to labor disputes and litigation.
  • Agency operations could be disrupted as management and employees contend with abrupt changes to workplace policies like scheduling and telework.

Long-term:

  • The stability of federal labor-management relations may be weakened, as unions may be less able to secure long-term agreements that survive a change in administration.
  • This could create a more politicized federal workforce, where conditions of employment are subject to change every four to eight years.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Federal employees in bargaining units (represented by unions like AFGE and NFFE) and the agencies they work for, such as the Social Security Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Environmental Protection Agency.
Secondary Groups: The general public who interacts with federal agencies, particularly those where service delivery is affected by staffing and workplace policies (e.g., processing of benefits, environmental permits, or passports).
Regional Impact: The Washington, D.C. metro area has the highest concentration of federal workers, but the impact is national, as federal employees work in every state.

Bottom Line: This memorandum weakens the ability of federal employee unions to secure binding agreements during a presidential transition, giving a new President more immediate power to dictate workplace conditions for the federal government's civilian workforce.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Restoring Accountability, Preventing Entrenchment"

Core Stance: The President must have the authority to manage the federal workforce to implement the agenda the American people elected them to enact.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Outgoing administrations should not be able to use last-minute union contracts to tie the hands of a new President.
  • ✓ Limiting "lame-duck" agreements promotes efficiency and prevents wasteful spending on policies like excessive telework.
  • ✗ Federal employee unions have too much power and often work to obstruct the policies of Republican administrations.

Legislative Strategy: Use executive authority to roll back union protections and increase presidential control over the civil service, consistent with conservative reform proposals like Project 2025.

Democratic Position: "An Attack on Workers' Rights"

Core Stance: This is an illegal and politically motivated attack on federal workers that undermines rights protected by federal law.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Collective bargaining is a legal right that promotes stable and fair workplaces, which benefits both employees and the public.
  • ✓ The claim of "national security" is a pretext to bust unions and punish federal employees for political reasons.
  • ✗ Stripping away negotiated agreements creates chaos and hurts morale, making it harder for the government to function and serve the American people effectively.

Legislative Strategy: Challenge the memorandum in court as a violation of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, and introduce legislation to nullify the executive order and strengthen collective bargaining rights.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The memorandum cites the President's authority under the Constitution and 5 U.S.C. § 7301.

5 U.S.C. § 7301: Presidential regulations: "The President may prescribe regulations for the conduct of employees in the executive branch."

The administration's argument rests on the President's constitutional role as Chief Executive (Article II) to supervise the executive branch. The memo also implicitly relies on a Supreme Court finding that a President cannot use official acts to diminish the powers of their successors.

Constitutional Implications:

[Statutory Conflict]: The core legal question is whether this presidential directive unlawfully overrides the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS). That statute requires federal agencies to bargain "in good faith" over conditions of employment. Unions will argue that a blanket refusal to approve contracts in a 30-day window is a failure to bargain in good faith and therefore violates the statute passed by Congress.
[Precedent]: While the Supreme Court has affirmed a president's broad power over the executive branch, it has also recognized that this power can be limited by acts of Congress. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Court established that presidential power is at its lowest when a president takes actions incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.
[Federalism]: This issue does not significantly impact the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Federal employee unions, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), are virtually certain to file lawsuits. They will likely argue that the memorandum constitutes an unfair labor practice under the FSLMRS and ask the courts to issue an injunction to block its enforcement. The case would likely center on whether the President's general authority to regulate employee conduct can override a specific statutory scheme for collective bargaining created by Congress.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS MEMORANDUM

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's memorandum to limit last-minute federal union contracts and increase accountability."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to express support for executive branch reform.
  • Join an Organization: Groups that advocate for limited government and executive branch reform include The Heritage Foundation, the Foundation for Government Accountability, and Club for Growth.

TO OPPOSE THIS MEMORANDUM

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: [Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121] "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose the President's memorandum attacking federal employee collective bargaining rights."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that experienced civil servants and stable workplace rules are essential for government services that benefit your community.
  • Join an Organization: The largest federal employee unions leading the opposition are the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).