Holden Hopkins is a student at Harvard Law School.
In today’s News & Commentary, the DOJ moves anti-immigrant hiring allegations against Elon Musk’s Space-X, and federal unions and agencies respond to Musk’s email report demands.
The Department of Justice is moving to drop discrimination charges against SpaceX, a company owned by billionaire Elon Musk, after the case was put on hold for over a year. The charges stemmed from allegations that SpaceX discouraged asylees and refugees from applying for jobs, violating federal anti-discrimination laws. The DOJ cited a legal challenge to administrative law judges as the reason for abandoning the case, aligning itself with corporate interests that argue these judges lack constitutional authority.
This move is yet another by the government which appears to personally benefit Musk and his various companies. Musk himself has of course been prominently involved in matters involving the federal government and workforce. As Gil reported yesterday, the billionaire and purported head of the Department of Government Efficiency sent an email to all federal employees demanding they reply with a report on what they were working on at the risk of termination. With the deadline for these “reports” looming tonight, federal worker unions and agencies have been quick to respond.
Musk’s email, reportedly sent from the Office of Personnel Management, has been called “un-American” by Doreen Greenwald, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, while the American Federation of Government Employees has vowed to challenge any unlawful terminations. The unions argue that Musk has no legal authority over federal employment and that the directive violates established procedures for managing the federal workforce. Meanwhile, supervisors at the DOJ have directed staff not to respond, citing potential ethics concerns.
This latest controversy comes amid a broader pattern of federal workforce reductions under the Trump administration, which has already dismissed nearly 30,000 employees in recent weeks. OPM, which serves as the government’s HR department, has been using a centralized email system to bypass agency leadership and communicate directly with workers. A recent federal court ruling upheld OPM’s right to use this system, despite concerns from employees and unions that it was being leveraged to pressure resignations. The latest email, however, omitted prior assurances that responses would be voluntary, further fueling concerns of mass firings.
Unions representing nearly a million federal employees have demanded that OPM rescind the email and issue an apology, warning that the administration’s actions conflict with federal workforce management laws. AFGE has made it clear that employees are under no legal obligation to comply with the directive and has pledged to fight any retaliatory firings in court.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
September 25
Healthcare workers rally to restore legal status for TPS holders; nurses at a Maine hospital overwhelmingly vote to form their union despite alleged aggressive union busting tactics.
September 24
NLRB abandons rule for offensive conduct during protected activity; New York home care workers seek a union election; maritime deck officers endure long fight for first contracts.
September 23
DoorDash settles delivery-worker pay claims; Philadelphia school workers win new contract; stock gains spur retirements.
September 22
Judge blocks ICE raids in Alabama; Chicago hotel workers vote to strike; AutoZone workers look to create first union
September 21
In today’s News and Commentary, the Seventh Circuit raises the bar for the NLRB to obtain preliminary injunctions, the California Primary Care Association sues SEIU-UHW for racketeering, and the Seventh Circuit finds that an employer group and think tank do not have standing to challenge an Illinois law banning captive audience meetings. On Friday, the […]
September 20
Culinary Workers Union members protests union leadership; lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft reveal internal concerns about the threat of AI training to human labor.