SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
federal workers
3 Simple Things a Republican Congress Could Do to Help Workers (But Probably Won’t)
If Republicans in Congress were willing to listen to the voices of their constituents, they could act immediately to help millions of workers in tangible ways.
Sep 01, 2025
When US President Donald Trump prevailed on election night, headlines touted the emergence of the GOP as the party of the working class. Just as Trump has been quick to market himself as putting “America workers first,” a small but increasing number of Republicans in Congress have also taken up the cause, championing their pro-worker credentials and even expressing tentative support for initiatives to promote unions and workers’ rights—conversations that would have been unheard of a decade ago.
This shift in messaging is hardly surprising—recent polling shows increasing support for unions and pro-worker initiatives across the political spectrum, even in polling sponsored by Republican-leaning organizations. But while President Trump has publicly touted his support for proposals like “no tax on tips” (a misleading talking point for a proposal that may hurt more workers than it helps), the White House has simultaneously launched an all-out assault on workers’ rights—effectively shuttering the National Labor Relations Board, stripping collective bargaining rights from 1 million federal workers, and proposing to scale back minimum wage, overtime, and health and safety protections for millions of workers.
It’s clear that President Trump has no real interest in helping working people. But it’s equally noteworthy that “pro-worker” congressional Republicans are doing very little to counter these attacks, and have no real agenda of their own to help workers succeed.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Workers have told elected officials—again and again—what government can do to help them. When working people are given the opportunity to vote directly on pro-worker policies through state and local ballot initiatives, strong majorities of voters—across party lines—support these policies. If Republicans in Congress were willing to listen to the voices of their constituents, they could act immediately to help millions of workers in tangible ways.
(1) A $15 minimum wage by 2026. Even someone who is working full time, year-round at the current minimum wage of $7.25 will live in poverty. While Democrats have introduced the leading proposal to raise the minimum wage to $17 per hour, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has introduced a different bill that would raise the wage to $15 by 2026—still a huge improvement that would benefit nearly 40 million American workers.
Raising the minimum wage is immensely popular, with 34 states having already increased their minimum wages above the federal level. Ten states already have minimum wages of $15 or more, and by the end of 2026 Florida and Nebraska will join this group—through ballot initiatives that passed with overwhelming public support. If the Republican senators and representatives from Florida and Nebraska would follow their constituents’ lead and join Sen. Hawley to support a raise, there would be a majority vote to pass a $15 minimum wage in both houses of Congress.
(2) Paid sick days. As of March 2023, nearly 28 million US workers did not have a guarantee of even a single day of paid sick leave. The Healthy Families Act (HFA) would let private sector workers earn up to seven paid sick days per year, benefiting 34 million workers and ensuring that they do not have to make impossible choices between their jobs and caring for themselves or a sick family member.
In the absence of federal protections, many states have taken the initiative to help workers. As of December 2024, 18 states have enacted laws that require private employers to provide paid sick leave. The three most recent state laws passed last November in Nebraska, Alaska, and Missouri by wide voter margins (though the Missouri initiative was subsequently repealed by the legislature and the governor). Even excluding the Missouri delegation, a total of 48 GOP representatives and four senators come from states that have already passed a paid sick days guarantee similar to the HFA—thus, paid sick days should easily have enough votes to win majority support in both houses of Congress.
(3) Restoring the Federal Right to Organize. As of July, 2025 almost 3 million people were employed by the federal government. Federal workers comprise a significant portion of the workforce in many states across the country. These public servants have faced mass firings and unprecedented attacks in the new Trump administration, including an executive order purporting to strip nearly 1 million federal workers of their right to form and join a union.
Whether in federal, state, or local government, both public servants and the people they serve benefit from collective bargaining. The process is a valuable tool to resolve conflicts early, reduce litigation, improve morale, and help attract and retain a qualified workforce, all of which helps the government function better. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia recognize this and provide some collective bargaining rights for their public sector workers. When politicians attempt to revoke these rights, voters can use ballot initiatives to protect them—as in 2011 when Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected an effort to strip rights from their public servants.
The Protect America’s Workforce Act (PAWA), recently introduced in the House of Representatives, would reverse the Trump executive order and protect federal workers’ right to form and join a union. This popular legislation has 222 cosponsors, including seven Republicans. Two Senate Republicans—Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—have already voted for an unsuccessful amendment on the Budget resolution to protect collective bargaining rights for federal workers. If the two GOP senators from Ohio would follow their constituents’ lead in supporting public sector collective bargaining rights, PAWA could pass both houses of Congress and restore these important protections to more than 1 million American workers.
More than seven months into this Congress’ work, the fact that none of these commonsense proposals are even under discussion by our nation’s elected leaders sends a strong message about this Congress’ priorities. And it is manifestly clear that Republicans in Congress stand with President Trump, and not with working Americans.
These three simple proposals are overwhelmingly popular with people across the political spectrum and would collectively benefit millions of American workers. A Republican-controlled Congress that was willing to work across party lines could move these proposals to the president’s desk in a matter of days. (While the filibuster might prove a stumbling block in the Senate, there are opportunities every Congress to consider legislation under rules that provide a simple majority vote if proponents are properly motivated.) It’s time for congressional leaders to step up this Labor Day and put helping working families front and center on their agendas.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Order Ramps Up Assault on Union Rights of Federal Workers
One labor leader called it "another clear example of retaliation against federal employee union members who have bravely stood up against his anti-worker, anti-American plan to dismantle the federal government."
Aug 28, 2025
In the lead-up to Labor Day in the United States, President Donald Trump on Thursday escalated his attack on the union rights of federal employees at a list of agencies with an executive order that claims to "enhance" national security.
Trump previously issued an order intended to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of government employees in March, provoking an ongoing court fight. A federal judge blocked the president's edict—but then earlier this month, a panel from the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit allowed the administration to proceed.
Government agencies were directed not to terminate any collective bargaining agreements while the litigation over Trump's March order continued, but some have begun to do so, according to Government Executive. On Monday, the 9th Circuit said in a filing that it would vote on whether the full court will rehear the case.
Amid that court fight, Trump issued Thursday's order, which calls for an end to collective bargaining for unionized workers at the Bureau of Reclamation's hydropower units; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; National Weather Service; Patent and Trademark Office; and US Agency for Global Media.
Like the earlier order, this one cites the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. As Government Executive reported Thursday:
Matt Biggs, national president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, whose union represents a portion of NASA's workforce along with the American Federation of Government Employees, suggested that the administration's targeting of NASA—IFPTE's largest union—was in retaliation for its own lawsuit challenging the spring iteration of the executive order, filed last month.
"It's not surprising, sadly," Biggs said. "What is surprising is that on the eve of Labor Day weekend, when workers are to be celebrated, the Trump administration has doubled down on being the most anti-labor, anti-worker administration in US history. We will continue to fight in the courts, on the Hill, and at the grassroots levels against this."
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which also sued over the March order, said that "President Trump's decision to issue a Labor Day proclamation shortly after stripping union rights from thousands of civil servants, a third of whom are veterans, should show American workers what he really thinks about them."
"This latest executive order is another clear example of retaliation against federal employee union members who have bravely stood up against his anti-worker, anti-American plan to dismantle the federal government," Kelley declared, taking aim at the president's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
"Several agencies including NASA and the National Weather Service have already been hollowed out by reckless DOGE cuts, so for the administration to further disenfranchise the remaining workers in the name of 'efficiency' is immoral and abhorrent," the union leader said. "AFGE is preparing an immediate response and will continue to fight relentlessly to protect the rights of our members, federal employees, and their union."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Christian Nationalism for Lunch? Thanks, But No Thanks
A new U.S. Office of Personnel Management memo allowing workplace proselytizing is not a great recipe for harmonious and productive coworker relations.
Aug 13, 2025
Imagine you’re a federal civil service employee, reading today’s paper while having a sandwich during your lunch break in the cafeteria. Another federal employee, maybe a coworker or maybe not, sits down beside you and politely begins to tell you why his faith is correct and why yours, actually, isn’t. Sounds annoying, possibly enraging, and presumably inappropriate if not prohibited? Think again.
According to a July 28, 2025 memorandum to the heads of all federal departments and agencies from Scott Kupor, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), employees “attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views,” including “why the non-adherent should re-think his religious beliefs,” is perfectly okay and even protected religious expression, so long as it falls short of harassment.
As a former federal attorney who worked for the U.S. Labor Department for 39 years, including eight years as a senior executive who ran a regional office, I find this policy disconcerting at best. From the standpoint of office mission effectiveness, maintaining positive and respectful peer-to-peer relationships is crucial. It’s one thing for coworkers, during breaks, to have candid and even heated discussions about sitcoms, musical tastes, or even politics. It’s quite another to laud one’s own spiritual belief and disparage, if not outright insult, another’s. Not a great recipe for harmonious and productive coworker relations.
This right to attempt to convince others that their religious convictions are misguided extends not only to peer coworkers, but to supervisors too. In other words, as you’re enjoying your sandwich in the cafeteria, your supervisor could sit down next to you and explain why your deeply held beliefs happen to be wrong. Not quite so easy to tell them it’s none of their damn business.
The prospect of federal supervisors advising their subordinates that their religious convictions aren’t the “correct” ones becomes dramatically more troubling if supervisors’ tenure is subject to the president’s whims.
But there’s another aspect of this policy that casts an even darker shadow. All this arises in an administration fueled by U.S. President Donald Trump’s vow to “bring back Christianity,” and populated or supported by self-described Christian nationalists like House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Russell Vought, once again head of the powerful Office of Management and Budget.
Christian nationalism means different things to different people, but has a number of core beliefs. A major 2024 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute included five statements designed to measure support for Christian nationalism. The list included:
- God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.
- The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.
- Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.
- If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.
- U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
The study found that 30% of Americans can be classified as Christian nationalism “adherents” or “sympathizers” (those who fully or mostly agree with the five statements), compared to two-thirds of Americans found to be “skeptics” or “rejecters” (that is, they mostly or fully disagree with the statements). Nevertheless, according to preelection reporting by Politico, “Vought and his ideological brethren would not shy from using their administration positions to promote Christian doctrine and imbue public policy with it.”
According to Christian nationalism expert and history professor Kristin Du Mez, “This is not a pluralist vision for all of America coming together or a vision for compromise… It is a vision for seizing power and using that power to usher in a ‘Christian America.’” She believes that if the Christian nationalist movement gets what it wants, “There will be no meaningful religious liberty. There will be essentially a two-tier society between the quote unquote, real Americans—those who buy into this, or pretend to—and then the rest of Americans.”
Is this latest OPM memo part of a veiled effort to advance a Christian nationalist vision for our country? Consider that the prospect of federal supervisors advising their subordinates that their religious convictions aren’t the “correct” ones becomes dramatically more troubling if supervisors’ tenure is subject to the president’s whims—including, potentially, loyalty to a Vought-endorsed Christian-nationalist-inspired belief system. During Trump’s first term, Vought tried to reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers as political appointees, which would have enabled mass dismissals of those deemed unsuitable. A similar effort is underway this time around. Will espousing Christian nationalism be one of the unstated litmus tests to get, or keep, a supervisory job?
Whether there’s a Christian nationalist agenda lurking behind the OPM memo or not, a better policy for government workers would suggest, if not require, that unless asked, they—and particularly supervisors—keep their judgments of others’ personal belief systems to themselves.
But since the July 28 memo says otherwise, federal employees, please note: As you’re minding your own business munching a tuna salad sandwich at lunch, you might find your supervisor offering a spiritual lesson that wasn’t on the menu. If it works for you, fine. But if it doesn’t go down well, do send it back, with a polite but firm “no thank you.” Assert your freedom of religion, or your freedom not to be religious, while you still have it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular