Summary
A federal judge in Boston has lifted a temporary freeze on the Trump administration’s “fork in the road” program, which offers mass buyouts to millions of federal workers.
U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. ruled that labor unions challenging the plan lacked legal standing, as they were not directly impacted.
The unions argued the program could harm their membership and reputation, but the judge found these concerns insufficient.
With the ruling, the administration’s unprecedented resignation incentive can now proceed.
labor unions, representing the labor–the workers who are impacted, labor unions which exist to represent those workers…
don’t have standing.
holy fuck.
They lack standing?? They stand to not get paid when Congress never appropriates the money they never previously discussed spending for this idiocy! Gimme a break.
We’re a few years past them just making up standing for cases they want to push through and just gaslighting about there being no standing for case they want shut down.
There was no legal standing in the case that shut down student loan forgiveness, but that didn’t matter because they were shutting down something they disliked. It’s the opposite here, while they clearly have standing, they’ll just be told they don’t by some asshat who just cares for having power over others.
Ah, I think I might have an idea about where this “doesn’t have standing” might come from.
The union doesn’t have standing, because the union isn’t an employee. Employees are members of the union, but the union itself is a separate entity.
If my guess is right, it would be the absolute stupidest of technicalities.
Which is insane, because (as has been pointed out), the entire point of unions is to REPRESENT the workers!
Yes, in contract negotiations, which are not lawsuits.
They should have gotten a group of union members (employees) to sign on as plaintiffs, or done it as a class action of employees. Maybe they will?
You’re right, of course, and I appreciate the angle you are steel manning here. I just also know that those greedy fucks speak money and that’s exactly what they are fucking with in terms of union dues tied to employment and membership, so it should still be clear to any judge that the union has a crystal clear legal and financial interest in the outcome, both of which are topics of particular interest amongst the money-sniffing bunch as they are directly tied to power and influence
I dont know what you mean by “steel manning” (as in I’ve never heard that phrase), but I’ll assume it means you’re displeased.
Make no mistake: this doesn’t make me happy. I don’t even know the actual reason the judge had. I’m not a lawyer. I just asked myself, “If the union doesn’t have standing, who does?” The employees, with disregard as to whether they’re union members or not.
I am 100% in favor of standing firmly in the way of fascism, and when I see obstacles to fascism fall, I am disappointed. In this case, there exists a way that I can understand it, even if I don’t like it.
Steel manning means arguing in good faith for a side even if you might feel differently
I meant it respectfully, and I appreciate the perspective
How the fuck do they not have standing? That makes no sense at all.
