Trump’s NASA Union Battle: Collective Bargaining Rights Clash

Union sues Trump admin over stripping collective bargaining rights from NASA workers, alleging retaliation for opposing anti-union actions. Claims NASA not related to national security.

The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers has actually submitted its 2nd lawsuit looking for to obstruct Head of state Trump’s initiative to strip cumulative bargaining civil liberties from two-thirds of the government labor force, this moment on behalf of NASA workers.

A federal staff member union recently filed its second legal action against the Trump management over its initiatives to disallow collective bargaining at many government agencies, saying that the White House targeted National Aeronautics and Space Administration employees in action to the labor group’s pledge to fight anti-union actions at other government companies.

IFPTE’s Legal Challenge to Executive Order

In IFPTE’s latest lawsuit, filed recently in the united state District Court for the District of Columbia, the union suggests that NASA’s workforce was targeted in the 2nd executive order due to the fact that the national union was publicly opposed to the preliminary executive order, and its NASA affiliate had filed more than 20 grievances against the firm and asked for to bargain over work environment policy adjustments 17 times because March.

In March, President Trump authorized an executive order citing a seldom-used stipulation of the 1978 Public Service Reform Act to strip two-thirds of government employees of their cumulative bargaining rights, on the grounds of national safety.
Kevin Carter/Getty Images

IFPTE’s legal action comes much less than two weeks after united state District Court Paul Friedman released an initial order recovering union rights at the union’s bargaining devices that were targeted under the March executive order. The most recent legal action has been designated to U.S. District Court Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, it likely will be reassigned to Friedman, as he has actually handled all instances submitted in Washington, D.C., associated to the 2 union ordinances.

National Security Claims Debunked

And, like other legal actions challenging the August executive order, IFPTE suggested that the president’s statement that NASA is participated in nationwide security work is belied by the company’s own licensing law, as well as Trump’s establishment of the united state Area Pressure in 2019.

In March, President Trump signed an exec order pointing out a seldom-used arrangement of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act to remove two-thirds of government employees of their cumulative bargaining legal rights, on the premises of nationwide safety. The International Federation of Specialist and Technical Engineers in July challenged that commandment in support of its negotiating systems within the Protection Division, declaring First and Fifth Amendment violations stemming in part from Protection Assistant Pete Hegseth’s exemption of 4 small independent negotiating systems from the labor restriction.

Then, in August, Trump signed another executive order modifying the March act to state around half a dozen extra agencies as having mainly nationwide security work and in a similar way ban unions, including NASA, the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the National Weather Condition Service.

NASA’s Mandate: Peaceful Space Activities

“Indeed, the National Aeronautics and Room Act, which was initial enacted in 1958 and modified most recently in 2017, developed and developed NASA and supplies especially that ‘it is the policy of the United States that tasks in space should be committed to tranquil objectives for the advantage of all humankind,” the union created.” [Significantly], not just is NASA’s objective unassociated to national safety and security, the National Aeronautics and Area Act clearly gets rid of key nationwide safety and defense functions from NASA, mentioning that: ‘tasks strange to or primarily associated with development of weapons systems, army operations, or the protection of the USA … shall be the obligation of, and shall be routed by the Division of Defense.”