(The Center Square) – Supporters of President Donald Trump’s plan to scale back collective bargaining say union contracts raise taxpayer costs and limit flexibility, while opponents argue it leaves already vulnerable correctional officers at greater risk.
Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall said the agency was ending the agreement because it believed collective bargaining was a “roadblock” and that the union contract had become “an obstacle to progress instead of a partner in it.”
Jonathan Zumkehr, president of Local 4070 representing employees at the Federal Correctional Institution, Thomson, said the Bureau of Prisons’ contract, signed in 2014 and extended through 2029, was never a special deal.
“This contract isn’t a pro-union contract,” Zumkehr said. “It’s a neutral contract that’s been in place for a decade, even under President Trump. People volunteer to join the union; nobody is forced.”
Illinois U.S. Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Rockford, said in a statement on social media, “To everyone at FCI Thomson, I’m standing with you and thousands of federal prison workers across the country in calling out this terrible decision.”
Maxford Nelsen, director of Research and Government Affairs at the Freedom Foundation, argued that many protections the union points to already exist outside of collective bargaining.
“Even without a collective bargaining agreement, corrections officers are still protected by civil service laws. What remains for unions to address tends to be more peripheral or secondary,” Nelsen said. “The absence of a collective bargaining agreement doesn’t remove staff rights, it just removes the union’s role in overseeing existing legal protections.”
Zumkehr argued that his experience at Thomson proves the need for union representation, pointing to near-daily staff assaults when he arrived in 2019. He said more than 1,600 sexual assaults on female staff went unaddressed by the agency until Congress got involved. Zumkehr also credited the union with pushing through safety reforms like access to pepper spray and Narcan.
Nelson argued that eliminating the collective bargaining agreements could free agencies to act quickly, particularly on matters tied to national security.
“The Bureau of Prisons, part of the Department of Justice, was exempted from collective bargaining on national security grounds,” said Nelsen. “While I’m not privy to the administration’s reasoning, it’s plausible that ensuring the secure operation of federal prisons, which house convicted terrorists, is a legitimate national security concern.”
Zumkehr countered the argument about national security, noting that other security agencies, like Border Patrol, still maintain union contracts.
“If Border Patrol isn’t classified under national security but prisons are, then this isn’t really about safety,” Zumkehr said.
Nelsen pointed to another concern: taxpayer cost.
“Many federal union contracts create committees and processes that insert the union into day-to-day operations,” Nelson said. “Paid time off for union activities means employees spend less time focused on the prison’s mission. The collective bargaining process can be lengthy, costly, and distract the agency from critical security missions.”
Zumkehr highlighted the successes of the union-management relationship at Thomson, including a jump from 19% to 91% in inmate participation in programming, including the FCI Thomson “Pawsitive Paws” program, which pairs inmates with puppies to train service dogs for veterans.
“Just three weeks ago, the union and management jointly organized a suicide prevention training to teach staff how to recognize warning signs and communicate effectively. The training benefits not only staff but also inmates, and it was funded by the union,” said Zumkehr. “Removing the union from this process threatens that direct connection with staff, which is crucial.”
