In conjunction with my other thread here, please read for context if you haven't:
There are several other pursuits the union should be working on... not just trying to get laws changed that can help us, but challenging the existing laws that negatively impact us.
1- FEPCA has been overridden every year since it was enacted. While the President and Congress have broad discretion over the budget, an alternative pay plan is only supposed to be issued "because of national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare". I believe we have legal standing to challenge EO's and appropriations that counteract FEPCA.
www.law.cornell.edu
The key legal argument would be that the continuous invocation of “national emergency or serious economic conditions” under Title 5, Section 5303(b) is unreasonable and arbitrary. Specific points-
Presumption of Bad Faith: we could argue that it is implausible for genuine national emergencies or serious economic concerns to persist every year for three decades. This pattern suggests abuse of discretion rather than legitimate application of FEPCA.
Failure to Justify Economic Conditions: The President must justify each alternative pay plan in a written explanation to Congress. We could seek to review these explanations to argue that they lack substantive evidence or fail to meet the statutory standard.
Violation of Congressional Intent: FEPCA was designed to address pay disparities between federal and private-sector employees, and continuous overrides frustrate that intent.
2- Strikes
We are currently prohibited from striking in any manner or claiming we have the right to do so. We can however legally challenge that, and argue that we should have that right. I believe we have standing to make a legal argument that seeks to allow limited strikes by federal employees by permitting strikes with carve-outs for essential services, which could provide a more balanced approach and may be more likely to gain traction in the courts or as part of public debate.
The end goal would be to allow limited strikes where only certain portions of our job are affected, such as allowing full services of military, medevac, special priority, etc... but scale back on GA and commercial traffic by up to some maximum amount. For example, we could strike by reducing total volume of those a/c by up to no more than (choose whatever appropriate number here 50-80%), etc... We could then begin a strike by implementing a gradual increase in traffic reductions up to that maximum amount. This would allow us to have some meaningful bargaining impact without destroying the economy or disrupting national security missions. This would frame the issue as a compromise between the government’s need for continuity of essential services and federal employees’ rights to collective action for better wages and conditions. We could argue that a blanket ban on all strikes violates our First Amendment rights to organize and advocate for better conditions through collective action. A lawsuit might also invoke the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment) to argue that, without the ability to strike or collectively bargain, federal employees are deprived of a fair process to advocate for better wages and working conditions. The total prohibition on strikes, when combined with the lack of meaningful alternatives for bargaining power, arguably puts federal employees at an unfair disadvantage compared to their counterparts in the private sector.
Whether either of these 2 paths would ultimately end up being successful is up to the courts, but they are viable paths that should be pursued. The strike issue could also be proactively addressed by the union by trying to have said laws changed rather than legally challenging existing structure, but the best thing would be doing both at the same time.
There are several other pursuits the union should be working on... not just trying to get laws changed that can help us, but challenging the existing laws that negatively impact us.
1- FEPCA has been overridden every year since it was enacted. While the President and Congress have broad discretion over the budget, an alternative pay plan is only supposed to be issued "because of national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare". I believe we have legal standing to challenge EO's and appropriations that counteract FEPCA.
5 U.S. Code § 5303 - Annual adjustments to pay schedules
Presumption of Bad Faith: we could argue that it is implausible for genuine national emergencies or serious economic concerns to persist every year for three decades. This pattern suggests abuse of discretion rather than legitimate application of FEPCA.
Failure to Justify Economic Conditions: The President must justify each alternative pay plan in a written explanation to Congress. We could seek to review these explanations to argue that they lack substantive evidence or fail to meet the statutory standard.
Violation of Congressional Intent: FEPCA was designed to address pay disparities between federal and private-sector employees, and continuous overrides frustrate that intent.
2- Strikes
We are currently prohibited from striking in any manner or claiming we have the right to do so. We can however legally challenge that, and argue that we should have that right. I believe we have standing to make a legal argument that seeks to allow limited strikes by federal employees by permitting strikes with carve-outs for essential services, which could provide a more balanced approach and may be more likely to gain traction in the courts or as part of public debate.
The end goal would be to allow limited strikes where only certain portions of our job are affected, such as allowing full services of military, medevac, special priority, etc... but scale back on GA and commercial traffic by up to some maximum amount. For example, we could strike by reducing total volume of those a/c by up to no more than (choose whatever appropriate number here 50-80%), etc... We could then begin a strike by implementing a gradual increase in traffic reductions up to that maximum amount. This would allow us to have some meaningful bargaining impact without destroying the economy or disrupting national security missions. This would frame the issue as a compromise between the government’s need for continuity of essential services and federal employees’ rights to collective action for better wages and conditions. We could argue that a blanket ban on all strikes violates our First Amendment rights to organize and advocate for better conditions through collective action. A lawsuit might also invoke the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment) to argue that, without the ability to strike or collectively bargain, federal employees are deprived of a fair process to advocate for better wages and working conditions. The total prohibition on strikes, when combined with the lack of meaningful alternatives for bargaining power, arguably puts federal employees at an unfair disadvantage compared to their counterparts in the private sector.
Whether either of these 2 paths would ultimately end up being successful is up to the courts, but they are viable paths that should be pursued. The strike issue could also be proactively addressed by the union by trying to have said laws changed rather than legally challenging existing structure, but the best thing would be doing both at the same time.
