As part of his plans to improve the efficiency and reduce the size of the federal government, President Trump offered federal employees <a href="https://www.opm.gov/fork" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a generous buyout</a>, effectively equal to about eight months of pay and benefits worth $122,000 on average.
Federal employees, who originally had until February 6 to accept the buyout offer, were scheduled to stop working at the end of this week. Despite federal employee unions urging them not to take the buyout, an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 federal workers have accepted the offer.
But a federal judge just delayed implementation of that buyout until at least February 10.
With federal employee unions at the helm of the lawsuits, it must be that the buyouts would harm federal employees — right?
Wrong.
The buyout offers a win-win for federal employees. Those who want the buyout can take it and enjoy eight months of pay and benefits without having to work. Those who don’t want the buyout nevertheless benefit from it as the more people who take it, the smaller are their chances of being laid off.
No one has to take the buyout; it’s entirely optional. Taking it is far better than being laid off with no severance through reorganizations or a reduction in force — both of which, the Trump administration noted, are coming.
The <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/unions-sue-trump-administration-arbitrary-capricious-employee-buyout-offers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unions argue</a> that the buyout offer is arbitrary and capricious, and that the president lacks the authority to issue these payments. And they’ve instructed their members not to take the buyout.
But as head of the Executive Branch, the president has authority over the federal workforce, including significantly reducing its size. While Trump’s generous buyout offer is unprecedented, reducing the size of the federal workforce is not.
Within a month of taking office, President Clinton <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-12839-reduction-100000-federal-positions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">issued an executive order</a> instructing agencies to reduce their workforces by 4% over the following three years. He didn’t offer any buyout, and federal employment declined by more than 10% over the following three years.
It’s clear that the president has the authority to reduce the size of the federal workforce, which means that all federal employee unions are fighting for is to prevent their members who want the buyout from receiving it.
While the judge who delayed the buyout did not comment on its legality, the administration will presumably make the case that the buyout maintains spending on the federal workforce at the levels appropriated by Congress; and the offer is one of managerial directive, including allowing agencies to redirect work according to their needs.
The fact that federal employee unions are suing to prevent something that unilaterally benefits their members highlights one of the reasons Big Labor continues to decline in membership; union leaders often put their own desires for power and money above the best interests of workers.
If federal employees’ unions want to help their members, they will end their quest to deny them generous buyouts, and instead help their members make informed decisions that align with their own personal interests instead of the interests of union leaders.
***
Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
<div class="css-j7qwjs">
<div id="post-body-text">
<div class="e1nzmkc90 css-pvudsd">
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
</div>
</div>
</div>

USAID Protest

Federal Employee Unions Seek To Strip Buyout Offer From Federal Workers

Donald Trump

Federal Government

Opinion

Trump Administration

Unions

America is very diverse. What works for one person or family doesn’t necessarily work for another, and what works for one city or state doesn’t necessarily work for others. 
This is particularly true for minimum wage laws because costs of living vary significantly across the United States. 
The federal government recognizes these differences (albeit imperfectly) through <a href="https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality">locality-based adjustments</a> to the General Schedule pay scale which increases some workers’ pay by as much as 40% due to higher costs-of-living.
But lawmakers pushing a $15 nationwide minimum wage are failing to recognize these differences, and while no city or state can escape the <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/07/11/here-are-6-ways-a-new-report-devastates-the-15-minimum-wage/">unintended consequences</a> of a $15 minimum wage, some areas will be especially hard-hit.
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ms.htm#00-0000">In Mississippi</a>, for example, the median wage is $15 per hour. That means that half of all workers in Mississippi earn less than $15 per hour, and half earn more. 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="wp-image-184186 aligncenter" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/DS-minimum-wage-15-hour-map-1-for-DW-01-300x276.jpg" alt="" width="549" height="505" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/01/DS-minimum-wage-15-hour-map-1-for-DW-01-300x276.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/01/DS-minimum-wage-15-hour-map-1-for-DW-01-627x576.jpg 627w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/01/DS-minimum-wage-15-hour-map-1-for-DW-01-768x706.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/01/DS-minimum-wage-15-hour-map-1-for-DW-01.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 549px) 100vw, 549px" /></div>
Imposing a $15 minimum wage on Mississippi would be like imposing a $21.24 minimum wage on California, a $24.14 minimum wage on Massachusetts, and <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_dc.htm#00-0000">a whopping $35.74</a> minimum wage on DC.  
A $35.74 minimum wage in DC would have a lot of lawmakers scrambling to run their offices, considering they currently pay many congressional staffers <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44323.pdf">$20 per hour or less</a>. 
Puerto Rico demonstrates the consequences of an excessively high minimum wage. The federal $7.25 minimum wage equals 72% of the island’s median wage of $10.13. That’s forced many people out of employment entirely—the island has an abysmally low <a href="https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/commentary/how-restrictive-labor-laws-keep-puerto-ricos-economy-down">40% labor force participation</a> rate, and <a href="https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/acsbr20-01.pdf">over 40%</a> of residents receive Medicaid and food stamps. 
Already fraught with a financial crisis, still recovering from two devastating hurricanes, and continuing to struggle through the consequences of covid-19, a $15 minimum wage would be overwhelming for Puerto Ricans.
It’s one thing if cities like <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532">Seattle</a> and San Francisco, or even states like New York and Illinois want to impose $15 minimum wages on their workers and businesses. If they set minimum wages above market wages, workers and employers who are <a href="https://www.facesof15.com/">priced out</a> of the market at least have the option of going elsewhere to earn a living. 
And that’s already happening. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the seven states plus DC that had passed $15 minimum wage laws as of 2019 averaged <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html">net migration</a> of -50,000 in 2019 while the 20 states with a $7.25 minimum wage averaged net migration of +25,000.  
A nationwide $15 minimum wage would eliminate that option of moving.
Perhaps that’s why cities and states that have already raised their minimum wages to $15 want to impose the same increases on everyone else. It reduces the competition. 
That’s why unions fight for $15 minimum wages (and then <a href="https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-unions-in-la-want-to-be-exempt-from-the-15-minimum-wage/">try to exempt themselves</a>), and why big companies <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/04/3-reasons-to-celebrate-amazons-15-minimum-wage-and-3-reasons-to-fear-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/">like Amazon</a> support a $15 minimum wage after they’ve automated their own low-wage jobs.
But that’s not fair to states and local governments that want to keep income opportunities open for everyone. And it’s not fair to workers and employers who are happy with the work they could lose, nor to their customers who may lose access to products and services that they desire, <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/09/04/chart-much-fast-food-prices-rise-employes-paid-15-hour/">at prices</a> they can afford.
Policymakers in DC should leave minimum wage decisions to local policymakers and instead focus on policies that will <a href="https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/labor-policy-covid-19-and-beyond-recommendations-get-americans-back-work">help all workers</a> earn higher incomes by creating more value rather than by taking away the jobs and incomes of others. 
Rachel Greszler is research fellow in economics, budget, and entitlements in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, of the Institute for Economic Freedom, at The Heritage Foundation. <a href="http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/g/rachel-greszler" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/g/rachel-greszler&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1611789498210000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEFbcGoGshioOb4cHT1J0EoxDZCIg">Read her research.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Rally for higher wages in New York

One Size $15 Minimum Wage Doesn’t Fit Most

Minimum Wage

Menu

Federal Employee Unions Seek To Strip Buyout Offer From Federal Workers

One Size $15 Minimum Wage Doesn’t Fit Most