January, 26 2020, 11:00pm EDT
AFGE Files Emergency Motion to Protect the Speech Rights of Federal Employees During Impeachment
COLLEGE PARK, Md.
The American Federation of Government Employees and AFGE Local 2578 filed a motion in federal court on Friday, Jan. 24, to protect the First Amendment rights of government employees during the ongoing impeachment process.
The motion for a preliminary injunction asks a federal court to immediately suspend controversial guidance issued by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in late 2018 that has effectively barred federal workers from expressing views about the impeachment of President Donald Trump while at work.
AFGE had filed suit against OSC in August 2019 to block the guidance, but with the impeachment trial dominating national news, the issue has become more urgent as the policy is chilling the free speech rights of federal employees -- even as senior political appointees in the White House and other federal agencies have openly attacked the impeachment process without consequences.
"The Trump impeachment is THE major news story dominating the headlines. For federal employees, he is top management, and it is absurd to think impeachment of the boss will not be discussed at lunch and at the water cooler," AFGE National Secretary-Treasurer Everett Kelley said. "Worse yet, it is a legislative act not related to electoral activity as defined under the Hatch Act. We view it as unconstitutional restraint of free speech."
"The chilling impact of these rules has only gotten worse as the question of whether the president should be impeached moved from a speculative debate to a reality. Government employees have a right to speak about this historic matter," said Austin Evers, Executive Director of American Oversight, a non-partisan government watchdog representing AFGE in this case. "We are particularly concerned that OSC has taken no action against high-profile defenders of the president -- such as counselor Kellyanne Conway -- who, from their government perches, have weighed in against impeachment while ordinary civil servants who might hold different views must refrain from speaking out or risk losing their jobs."
The motion was filed as part of AFGE's ongoing lawsuit to block Hatch Act guidance issued by the OSC on Nov. 27, 2018, that presumptively restricts federal employees from expressing any opinion on "impeachment" or policy matters if the words "#resist" or "resistance" are used. If the court grants the motion for preliminary injunction, the guidance would be prohibited from taking effect while the case proceeds.
In the guidance, which equates the concept of "impeachment" with "removal from office," OSC confusingly advises that federal employees are allowed to discuss whether the president should or should not be impeached, but they are not allowed to advocate for or against impeachment -- a meaningless distinction that has made silence the only safe option for workers wishing to avoid potential punishment.
Following swift public pushback, including a letter from American Oversight, OSC issued a clarification of its initial position on November 30th, 2018, but made no meaningful change to the troubling substance of the guidance, compounding the concerns of government watchdogs, unions, and the public.
The preliminary injunction motion is accompanied by declarations of two AFGE Local 2578 members who are federal employees whose speech has been chilled by the OSC policy. One is an employee of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in Maryland who wishes to express views about whether President Trump should be impeached, but has refrained from doing so due to the guidance. The other member is a NARA employee in Missouri who wishes to use the terms "resist" or "resistance" while at work, but also has refrained from using those words.
AFGE is represented by the law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP and American Oversight. The lawsuit, filed in Maryland federal court on August 13, 2019, seeks to compel the OSC to rescind the November 2018 guidance and enforce the Hatch Act without violating the statutory and constitutional rights of federal employees. If granted, the motion for preliminary injunction would prevent OSC from enforcing the guidance while the lawsuit proceeds.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union proudly representing 700,000 federal and D.C. government workers nationwide and overseas. Workers in virtually all functions of government at every federal agency depend upon AFGE for legal representation, legislative advocacy, technical expertise and informational services.
(202) 737-8700LATEST NEWS
'Important Step': Biden Admin to Track Foreign Forces Killing Civilians With US Weapons
"Of course, its impact will come down to the details of implementation," said one expert.
Sep 13, 2023
Human rights advocates and some congressional Democrats on Wednesday cautiously welcomed Washington Postreporting that the Biden administration has created a program to track and investigate allegations of foreign forces harming or killing civilians with weapons provided by the United States.
"The United States clearly has a vested interest in knowing what harm its weapons sales and security assistance cause to civilians," Human Rights Watch (HRW) deputy Washington director Nicole Widdersheim told the newspaper. "Let's see if the Biden administration puts political will behind this good idea."
Annie Shiel, U.S. advocacy director at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), called the initiative "an important step" but added that "of course, its impact will come down to the details of implementation."
The Quaker group Friends Committee on National Legislation noted Shiel's remarks on X—formerly Twitter—while celebrating the "positive news... on accountability for harm caused by U.S.-supplied weapons."
"What will actually happen when U.S. officials find U.S. arms have been used in war crime or human rights violation? Will there be meaningful accountability, or will perpetrators just get a slap on the wrist?"
The U.S. State Department, which is leading the program with the help of "personnel from the Pentagon, intelligence community, and other agencies," announced the Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance (CHIRG) in an August 23 cable to American embassies and consulates, according to the Post.
A State Department spokesperson
told the Middle East Eye on Wednesday that "CHIRG establishes a process to respond to new incidents of civilian harm and prevent them from recurring, and to drive partners to conduct military operations in accordance with international law," but declined to say whether the probes will be made public.
The new initiative resembles a Defense Department effort launched last year that focuses on injuries and deaths of noncombatants caused by American forces—one which Shiel said at the time "offers opportunities to address long-standing structural flaws in U.S. policy and practice, prevent future harm, and provide civilians harmed by U.S. operations with the recognition and response they deserve."
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said on social media that he was "pleased to see" the State Department adopting an element of the Safeguarding Human Rights in Arms Exports Act, which he introduced with House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.).
Passing such legislation, the Post pointed out, "would ensure that the new procedures can't be abolished by a future administration, along with establishing other steps to prioritize rights concerns in arms sales."
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday also welcomed the new program while highlighting her related efforts on Capitol Hill. Over the past year, she has joined Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) in sending letters to the departments of Defense and State about the United States' complicity in civilian harm in Yemen.
CIVIC advocacy and legal fellow John Ramming Chappell stressed on X that the program "comes after years of congressional pressure" and "would not have been developed without demand from the Hill."
"Questions remain, of course," he noted. "What will actually happen when U.S. officials find U.S. arms have been used in war crime or human rights violation? Will there be meaningful accountability, or will perpetrators just get a slap on the wrist? Will close partners get special treatment?"
Former longtime HRW executive director Kenneth Roth also raised a question: "But what about forces armed by the U.S. that use other arms to kill civilians? That's wrong, too."
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer who is now a Crisis Group senior adviser, wrote on social media that the program is "a notable step" in monitoring civilian deaths and injuries but also warned observers to "be wary of relying on U.S. embassies, given 'clientitis.'"
Finucane added that such monitoring "is more likely to be effective" if it is "statutory-mandated" versus administrative policy, is "as independent as possible to insulate from those in bureaucracy with interests in selling arms," and incorporates information from all sources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': Ro Khanna Confronts Big Pharma Lawyer Over Medicare Drug Prices
The California Democrat accused Johnson & Johnson—makers of the $160,000-per-year leukemia drug Imbruvica—of floating a "flimsy legal theory" in a "desperate attempt to protect profits."
Sep 13, 2023
U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna on Wednesday ripped a senior Johnson & Johnson attorney after she repeatedly dodged questions regarding the legal justification for the pharmaceutical giant's lawsuit alleging government efforts to negotiate lower drug prices are "unjust taking."
At a House Oversight Committee hearing, Khanna (D-Calif.) grilled J&J assistant general counsel Aviva Weis over the company's federal lawsuit, which argues that Medicare drug price negotiations—an overwhelmingly popular provision of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—violate the First and Fifth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The J&J suit—and litigation separately initiated by Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the industry lobby Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)—alleges in part that the IRA mandate runs afoul of the takings clause, which states, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Referring to Imbruvica—one of the first 10 drugs tapped by the Biden administration for Medicare price negotiations—Khanna told Weis that "you've got a pill for leukemia patients, you sell it for $484 per capsule, that's $160,000 a year, you make $22 billion over that over the last 10 years, and you're making $65 billion in profit."
"Now, we have passed, as a Congress, and the president has signed a bill, saying: 'You know what? Let Medicare negotiate to try to bring that price down,'" the congressman continued. "And you, in your department—'cause you're assistant general counsel—have filed a lawsuit saying that negotiation would be an 'unjust taking.'"
When Weis tried to avoid saying whether she believes that federal agencies negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies constitutes "taking," Khanna said:
I guess I don't understand how, being the assistant general counsel, you can come before the United States Congress when you're suing the United States government, saying that we are taking your property. Now, that's a very serious charge... and you don't know whether it's a taking?
Khanna asserted that it's necessary for federal agencies to negotiate drug prices so that pharmaceutical firms "don't make $65 billion in profits every year and so leukemia patients don't pay $160,000" for a year's supply of Imbruvica.
"I think it is shameful what you and the pharmaceutical companies have done in suing the United States government to protect those profits," he added, "and you are totally unprepared to answer a single question about what the takings clause is and the justification for that lawsuit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Groups Stand With UAW in Fight to Protect Autoworkers During EV Transition
"This transition must center workers and communities," said advocates, "especially those who have powered our economy through the fossil fuel era, and be a vehicle for economic and racial justice."
Sep 13, 2023
On the eve of the expiration of the United Auto Workers union's contract and a potential strike Wednesday, climate action groups were among more than 100 civil society organizations on Wednesday calling on the "Big Three" automakers to ensure that a new contract protects workers as the U.S. transitions toward making electric vehicles.
Groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and Earthjustice were among those expressing solidarity with nearly 150,000 union autoworkers who are demanding that employees of electric vehicle battery plants being developed by Stellantis, Ford, and General Motors are paid fairly—reflecting the record profits the automakers have reported in recent years.
"Within the next few years—the span of this next contract—lies humanity's last chance to navigate a transition away from fossil fuels, including away from combustion engines," wrote the groups in an open letter. "With that shift comes an opportunity for workers in the United States to benefit from a revival of new manufacturing, including electric vehicles (EVs) and collective transportation like buses and trains, as a part of the renewable energy revolution."
"This transition must center workers and communities, especially those who have powered our economy through the fossil fuel era, and be a vehicle for economic and racial justice," they added. "We are putting you on notice: Corporate greed and shareholder profits must never again be put before safe, good-paying union jobs, clean air and water, and a livable future."
"Corporate titans will try to split our movement by presenting us with a false choice. They'll try to argue that building more clean cars is more important than supporting workers. But we know better."
With the Biden administration—under the Inflation Reduction Act—poised to invest billions of taxpayer dollars "to boost your companies' transition to electric vehicle manufacturing and component production," the letter reads, the companies must "do right by the workers who have sacrificed to keep your companies profitable."
Without meeting the demands of the UAW, the organizations said, the Big Three will be embarking on a "race to the bottom" that continues to exploit workers.
"We do not have to choose between good jobs and green jobs," Trevor Dolan, industry and workforce policy lead at Everygreen Action, said Wednesday. "Corporate titans will try to split our movement by presenting us with a false choice. They'll try to argue that building more clean cars is more important than supporting workers. But we know better. Our collective movement can only succeed if workers directly benefit from climate action."
The groups highlighted the demands of the union, including:
- an end to the industry's unjust tier system for workers, which leaves "tier-two" employees making less than half as much in hourly wages as top-tier employees and with less generous benefits;
- just wage and benefit increases that keep in line with the cost of living;
- the same pay and safety standards for workers in sustainable battery production as under the national agreements; and
- a robust, fair, and just transition into the EV economy with no loss of autoworker livelihood.
The expression of solidarity came ahead of a bargaining update that UAW President Shawn Fain was expected to give prior to the contract deadline.
Fain has led the union in demanding a 40% wage increase over four years—noting that compensation for General Motors CEO Mary Barra grew by more than 32% from 2018-22 while the median worker got only a 2.8% raise—cost-of-living increases, and a workweek shortened to 32 hours.
"The revival of domestic manufacturing of electric vehicles must also deliver on the promise of safe, dependable, good-paying UNION jobs across the entire supply chain," said Ben Smith, senior campaigner with Greenpeace USA. "In addition, we call on the Biden administration and all those in government at the federal, state, and local level to use every tool at their disposal to ensure strong labor standards are deployed alongside any support that taxpayers provide for EV automakers."
"It's time for the Big Three CEOs to deliver what these workers have demanded," Smith added, "a fair contract and a just transition now!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!