Punching In: DOL Cutting Staff and Cake Within Frances Perkins

Monday morning musings for workplace watchers.

Party Protests|Labor v Industry on PLAs

Rebecca Rainey: One DOL employee quietly, but prominently, protested against Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s decision to hold a celebration at the agency’s headquarters last week.

A sign with an image of rapper Drake grimacing next to the words “using taxpayer dollars to end unsafe working conditions” and then smiling next to the words “using taxpayer dollars to throw yourself a birthday party” was taped over a poster of Chavez-DeRemer in one of the elevators at the DOL last week, according to a photo shared with Bloomberg Law.

A DOL employee also pointed to a post on a Bluesky from an account named the “Alt U.S. Department of Labor,” which had called out the event.

“She is literally throwing a party for herself at a federal building while bragging about right-sizing the federal workforce and slashing programs that help make sure American workers aren’t competing against child labor,” an April 7 post from the account said. The social media account says it represents ”the voices of many employees who are angry, scared and doing our best to hold the line.”

A US Department of Labor staffer protested against a celebration that took place at the agency headquarters in April, following staffing cuts at the agency.

The event was an official swearing in ceremony and reception for Chavez-DeRemer and Deputy Secretary Keith Sonderling, according to a DOL spokesperson. Because the event also took place on Chavez-DeRemer’s birthday, her family had a small cake for her, the spokesperson said, but declined to comment further on the record.

The clapback from DOL staffers comes as many are bracing for more layoffs at the agency in the coming weeks. The agency reopened early retirement and deferred resignation options for all DOL employees last week, warning that reductions in force were planned in the coming weeks.

In the past few weeks, the department’s Women’s Bureau, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Disability Employment Policy, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Employee Benefits Security Administration, and Bureau of International Labor Affairs saw terminations of probationary staffers. Some of those employees were later reinstated after a lawsuit was filed by unions representing federal workers.

On the policy front: a trade association is fighting a labor group over a lawsuit against project labor agreements.

The Associated Builders and Contractors is pushing back against the North America’s Building Trades Union’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over two agencies’ failure to require project labor agreements on large federal construction contracts, and calling on the president to fully cancel the requirement.

NABTU sued the Defense Department and General Services Administration last week for allegedly bypassing a Biden-era executive order that required pre-union hire pacts on federal construction projects over $35 million. Project labor agreements are contracts entered into with unions that set the terms and working conditions for a specific project.

The agencies under Trump have allegedly issued memos overriding the labor agreement requirement for “entire classes of projects” and have updated solicitations to remove the requirement, according to the lawsuit.

ABC counters that the Trump administration was using a “lawful exemption” from the requirements, which they contend are anti-competitive and favor unions.

The construction trade group is urging the president to go further, and fully rescind the 2022 executive order mandating the PLAs.

“This would erase any basis for NABTU’s lawsuit, allowing all contractors—both union and nonunion—to compete on a level playing field. It would also be a huge win for government efficiency by saving taxpayers up to $10 billion annually,” Kristen Swearingen, ABC vice president of government affairs said in a statement.

President Donald Trump has already canceled several executive orders related to federal contractors and procurement, including Biden directives setting a $15 minimum wage for contractors and prioritizing federal contracts and grants towards companies that utilize registered apprentices. But, the project labor agreement mandate has so far managed to survive those mass recissions.

Tre’Vaughn Howard: Almost three months into a new administration it’s unclear whether the government will go forward with its enforcement of a new regulation around silica levels in mines.

The US Mine Safety and Health Administration has notably not taken any clear position in a legal challenge to the Biden-era rule that would require coal mine operators to cut respirable silica levels in half.

Legal observers were hoping to see last week how MSHA planned to approach its defense or lack thereof for enforcing the silica rule. Instead the agency simply bought time by delaying enforcement of the rule and not opposing a request from industry to stay the regulation.

“They very consciously said nothing about the rule itself,” said Arthur M. Wolfson, a partner at Fisher Phillips LLP. “What everybody needs is for the case to go forward and be decided,” he added.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit paused the silica compliance deadlines for now while it determines whether it will grant or deny an emergency administrative stay of the rule. The Eighth Circuit also granted the unopposed motion to place the litigation in abeyance, meaning the rule is stayed until the court decides to lift it.

MSHA announced it’d pause enforcement for the rule until August 2025 during the expedited briefing schedule, citing cuts at National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s field offices.

However, the mine trade groups argued the four month pause wasn’t enough time, citing MSHA could arbitrarily rescind the pause at any given time.

The groups also sought a stay for the compliance date for metal/non-metal mines as well.

The National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association filed its challenge in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in June 2024, which has since been combined with another challenge by the Clay Mining Association.

NSSGA argues MSHA unlawfully imposed significant restrictions on methods for achieving the permissible exposure limit, including the prohibition of job rotation and respirators to reduce silica exposure, which make achieving compliance unfeasible. The Eighth Circuit would eventually need to decide on whether changes to the rule are needed before its implementation or whether the rule can proceed as is.

About 1,100 coal mines in the US would have to comply with the rule, which calls for all underground and surface mines to reduce the amount of breathable silica dust by 50%.

Under the rule, the “permissible exposure limit” would drop from 100 micrograms of silica per cubic meter of air to 50 micrograms during a work shift. Employers would have to start taking some protective measures where silica levels reached 25 micrograms.

A rise in the number of miners with black lung and other respiratory diseases prompted the new regulation, which was finalized in April 2024 to cover more than 200,000 workers.

We’re punching out. Daily Labor Report subscribers please check in for updates during the week, and feel free to reach out to us.