Connect with us

Business

Trump faces federal employee unions in government efficiency battle

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to drastically cut government and clean out inefficiencies, but he faces an entrenched power in Washington, D.C. that may throw a wrench in his plans: federal government public employee unions.

“For president-elect Trump to succeed at making the federal bureaucracy more efficient and accountable to the American people, he’ll have to once again do battle with federal unions,” Max Nelsen, a labor policy expert at the Freedom Foundation, told The Center Square.

Trump has tapped top businessmen Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency effort. Musk has claimed he can cut $2 trillion in federal spending.

In a November joint editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy pledged “mass head-count reductions” in the federal government.

Firing federal workers is notoriously rare and difficult, but Ramaswamy has publicly said that mass, indiscriminate firings may allow for circumventing the usual bureaucratic holdups for firing a federal employee.

Trump himself recently pledged to cut “hundreds of billions” in federal spending.

“Government unions are hands down the single most significant defenders of the administrative state,” Nelsen said. “Their interests are always served by bigger, more expensive, less accountable government, and their partisan allegiance to the radical Left leads them to both overtly and covertly undermine conservative policy changes across the federal government…”

The first battle with unions in the DOGE war may be federal work from home policies, where unions have already threatened legal action to protect their pre-arranged deals with the Biden administration.

Trump threatened to fire federal employees who are not willing to report to the office, a clear shot at federal work-from-home policies, something Musk has also blasted in recent weeks.

“If people don’t come back to work, come back into the office, they’re going to be dismissed,” Trump told reporters during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago.

The largest federal employee union quickly shot back after Trump made the comments and threatened legal action.

Trump’s comments are likely at least in part reacting to a Biden administration official negotiating a deal with a union that extends until 2029, after Trump is scheduled to leave office.

As The Center Square previously reported, Social Security Administrator Martin O’Malley negotiated a deal with union leaders to codify work-from-home policies, keeping telework in place for his 42,000 employees until 2029.

Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, pointed out that these contracts are legally binding.

“Collective bargaining agreements entered into by the federal government are binding and enforceable under the law,” Kelley said. “We trust the incoming administration will abide by their obligations to honor lawful union contracts. If they fail to do so, we will be prepared to enforce our rights.”

Trump’s backers may have an ace in the hole, though, in the form of new Supreme Court precedent.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in a landmark case to overturn Chevron deference, the longstanding legal practice of giving federal agencies broad power to interpret and practically change and expand federal laws as they deemed fit, citing their expertise.

Now, Musk and Ramaswamy will likely have more leeway in cutting rules from the books and workers from the payroll.

Nelsen said Trump should limit the amount of federal dollars that go toward unions, and that he should increase union transparency.

“Additionally, President Trump will need a cadre of energetic appointees at the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and in labor relations departments government wide to aggressively implement his directives,” Nelsen said. “Finally, to truly have a long-term impact, President Trump will need a successor in four years committed to continuing the fight.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Essential goods shouldn’t be taxed

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Jay Goldberg 

The Trudeau government’s two-month GST holiday on certain items has been called many things.

Former finance minister Chrystia Freeland resignation letter suggests she thinks it’s a “gimmick.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called it a “tax trick.”

But here’s a more fundamental question: If the government thinks Canadians needs a sales tax holiday on certain items, why are those basics taxed in the first place?

Items like car seats, diapers, and pre-prepared foods are all taxed by the feds. They’re all also subject to the federal government’s sales tax holiday, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says was triggered because Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.

“Our government can’t set prices, but we can give Canadians, and especially working Canadians, more money back in their pocket,” said Trudeau at his GST holiday announcement.

At least Trudeau seems to know it’s bad for governments to set prices. But the government does raise prices by adding sales tax on top of goods Canadians have to buy.

And you don’t need to be a parent to know that car seats and diapers are among the most essential goods on a parent’s shopping list.

Take a car seat. A mid-tier car seat costs around $250. The federal sales tax, which is currently at five per cent, adds $12.50 to the final cost of that car seat.

Parents across the country are no doubt asking why things like car seats and diapers were taxed by the feds in November, will be taxed again by the feds in March, but aren’t being taxed right now.

What justification can the government possibly give to parents on Feb. 16, 2025 – the day this sales tax holiday ends – for once again taxing things like car seats and diapers?

The same goes for pre-prepared meals. Many Canadians buy pre-prepared food at grocery stores to bring to work for lunch or to eat on the go. Why are the ingredients for that pre-prepared meal not taxed but the final meal is? And why take the tax off a grocery store deli sandwich now but not a few months from now?

There’s even more of an argument to be made on this front because many provinces don’t tax a lot of the items that are part of the feds’ sales tax holiday.

Take Ontario as an example.

Canada’s most populous province doesn’t tax things like books, children’s clothing, car seats, and diapers. Some pre-prepared foods aren’t taxed either.

If provinces don’t tax these items, why do the feds?

The Trudeau government took inspiration from the NDP when it comes to the GST break. It ought to also take inspiration from the party’s call to make relief permanent.

Trudeau’s GST announcement came just days after NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh called for the permanent removal of the federal sales tax on items like pre-prepared meals, diapers, and car seats. Singh’s proposal actually went much further, and included ending the GST on home heating, as well as internet and phone bills.

In touting his proposal, Singh argued that “those taxes never should have been there in the first place.”

Singh is right. Essential goods shouldn’t be subject to the GST. Period.

Just days after Singh’s announcement, Trudeau played copycat with one of his own.

But a two-month reprieve pales in comparison to permanent relief.

If the Trudeau government wants to deliver real relief to struggling Canadian families, essential items that most provinces already don’t tax, such as diapers, car seats, and pre-prepared meals, should be permanently exempt from the GST.

Permanent sales tax relief is more than doable. The feds could deliver on it without hiking the deficit by taking a sledgehammer to the more than $40 billion a year they hand out in corporate welfare.

Anything less than a permanent sales tax break simply won’t cut it when it comes to cutting costs for Canadians.

Continue Reading

Business

US Expands Biometric Technology in Airports Despite Privacy Concerns

Published on

 

 

By

Biometric systems promise efficiency at airports, but concerns over data security and transparency persist.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Biometric technology is being rolled out at US airports at an unprecedented pace, with plans to extend these systems to hundreds more locations in the coming years. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is driving a significant push toward facial recognition and other biometric tools, claiming improved efficiency and security. However, the expansion has sparked growing concerns, with privacy advocates and lawmakers voicing concerns about data security, transparency, and the potential for misuse of such technology.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has already implemented its Biometric Facial Comparison system at 238 airports, including 14 international locations. This includes all CBP Preclearance sites and several major departure hubs. CBP says its Biometric Exit program is rapidly gaining traction, with new airport partners joining monthly and positive feedback reported from passengers.

Meanwhile, the TSA has equipped nearly 84 airports with its next-generation Credential Authentication Technology (CAT-2) scanners, which incorporate facial recognition. This rollout is part of a broader effort to bring biometrics to over 400 airports nationwide. These advancements are detailed in a TSA fact sheet aimed at building public awareness of the initiative.

Opposition and Privacy Concerns

Despite assurances from TSA and CBP, critics remain skeptical. Some lawmakers, led by Senator Jeff Merkley, argue that the TSA has yet to justify the need for biometric systems when previous technologies already authenticated IDs effectively. Privacy advocates warn that the widespread use of facial recognition could set a dangerous precedent, normalizing surveillance and threatening individual freedoms.

The debate is closely tied to the federal REAL ID Act, introduced two decades ago to standardize identification requirements for air travel. As of now, many states have failed to fully implement REAL ID standards, and only a portion of Americans have acquired compliant credentials. Reports indicate that fewer than half of Ohio residents and just 32 percent of Kentuckians have updated their IDs, even as the May 7, 2025, deadline approaches.

Biometric Adoption on the Global Stage

Beyond the US, biometric systems are gaining momentum worldwide. India’s Digi Yatra program has attracted 9 million active users, adding 30,000 new downloads daily. The program processes millions of flights while emphasizing privacy by storing data on users’ mobile devices rather than centralized databases. Plans are underway to expand the program further, including international pilots scheduled for mid-2025.

While biometric technology offers alleged benefits, such as faster boarding and enhanced security, it also poses serious risks. Privacy advocates caution against unchecked implementation, especially since, one day, this form of check-in is likely to be mandatory.

The TSA’s aggressive push for biometrics places the United States at the forefront of this global shift.

Continue Reading

Trending

X