Return-to-office (RTO) mandates have stirred significant unrest among employees across various sectors, culminating in notable union advocacy and opposition. One prominent example is the recent push by trial attorneys within the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to form the first attorney union in the department’s history.
The drive to unionize among ENRD attorneys was strongly catalyzed by the DOJ’s decision to increase mandatory in-office days. In September 2023, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced that employees would need to work in the office six days every two weeks starting January 2024, a significant increase from the previous two days every two weeks. This policy change, aimed at standardizing work schedules, has been met with resistance from ENRD attorneys who argue that it disrupts productivity and work-life balance.
Additionally, the specter of political intervention looms large. Former ENRD head Jeffrey Clark, now facing legal repercussions for his role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, exemplifies the potential for politicization within the division. The revival of “Schedule F,” a directive by former President Trump to make it easier to fire federal employees in policy roles, has further fueled these fears. This directive, which President Biden quickly revoked, highlights the precariousness of job security for federal employees, particularly those in policy-influencing positions.
In response to these challenges, ENRD attorneys began organizing in collaboration with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). Their goal is to collect support from at least half of the approximately 350 eligible lawyers and hold a representation election by October. If successful, this would mark a significant shift in the landscape of union representation within the DOJ, where attorneys have traditionally not been unionized despite other government offices having collective bargaining units.
The ENRD attorneys argue that union representation is crucial for ensuring their voices are heard on issues like RTO policies and the broader protection of civil service roles. A member of the organizing committee emphasized the need for a direct voice in decision-making processes, stating, “We needed to readjust the structural imbalance of power by giving employees a direct voice that decision-makers were required to listen to.”
The endeavor to unionize is not without its challenges. ENRD attorneys must navigate the fine line of advocating for their rights without appearing partisan. Their work often involves defending environmental regulations that are politically contentious, making it imperative to maintain an image of impartiality. This challenge is compounded by the fear of antagonizing conservative factions that might view the union as a political maneuver.
A Republican former senior ENRD official expressed skepticism about the unionization effort, arguing that it could undermine the attorneys’ duty to impartially represent U.S. interests in court. He warned that a unionized ENRD might face increased scrutiny and funding challenges from Congress.
Beyond RTO mandates, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal work has emerged as another critical issue driving unionization. ENRD attorneys are keen to influence DOJ protocols on AI, ensuring that these technologies are leveraged effectively while mitigating potential risks. The ability to negotiate on scheduling and technological implementation underscores the broader scope of concerns that union representation can address.
The NTEU, already representing attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is poised to file for an election to be the sole bargaining unit once sufficient support is secured. The union’s national president, Doreen Greenwald, highlighted the importance of collective advocacy, stating, “We look forward to learning more about how these highly skilled employees can advocate for themselves by coming together and fighting for improvements in their workplace.”
The push for unionization in response to RTO mandates is not limited to the DOJ. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is facing similar challenges from its employees, represented by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 3403. Following the announcement of new RTO plans, AFGE conducted a survey that revealed significant employee dissatisfaction. Many employees expressed concerns about the impact of increased in-office requirements on their productivity and work-life balance.
One NSF employee noted in the survey, “I started this job when NSF was posturing a hybrid and remote workforce, which indicated to me that NSF would have remote work available. Because they are essentially not allowing anyone to be remote, I will be finding a new job by October.” This sentiment reflects a broader discontent among NSF employees, with a substantial number indicating they might leave the agency if the new RTO plans are implemented.
Jesús Soriano, president of AFGE Local 3403, emphasized the need for NSF leadership to reconsider their approach. “We hope that they will learn from this, and in negotiations, they focus less on absolute management rights and more on compassion,” Soriano stated. Despite the survey results and union advocacy, NSF has indicated that it will proceed with its RTO plans, requiring telework-eligible employees to work in the office at least four days per two-week pay period starting in October.
The push for unionization among ENRD attorneys signifies a broader trend of increased labor advocacy in response to RTO mandates and political uncertainties. As organizations navigate the complexities of post-pandemic work arrangements and technological advancements, the voices of employees are becoming increasingly pivotal. The outcome of the ENRD unionization effort could set a precedent for other federal employees facing similar challenges, underscoring the enduring importance of collective bargaining in ensuring fair and equitable workplace practices.
