What Recourse Remains For Federal Correctional Employees Without A Union?

Trump Administrative efforts to undo the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 since January 2025 continued in late summer as the anti-labor reforms initially directed at the National Labor Relations Authority (NLRA) were expanded against individual bargaining agreements. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) oversees nearly 35,000 employees. Their collective bargaining rights were terminated on September 25^th. BOP Director William K. Marshall III issued a statement characterizing the move as a coup for Federal correctional officers as he pushed out the Council of Prison Locals: "[T]he bottom line is CPL-33 didn't give you your protections, the law did, and Bureau policy continues them."

In addition to promising job security and safety, Marshall noted three such laws tied to the Civil Service Reform Act still presumably protecting correctional employees: whistleblower rights, appeal rights, and anti-discrimination laws. But for many Federal employees and contractors, assurances made on the grounds of civil service law are cold comfort.

How Safe and Secure Are Federal Bureau of Prisons Jobs?

RIFs and Understaffing

Reductions in force (RIFs) are an obvious threat to Federal job security as such. RIFs reduce job security —especially for correctional employees and contractors. When you work in a correctional facility, there is safety in numbers. Safety requires that projected staffing needs are met rather than doing more with less, stretching the workforce to unsafe levels. Facilities themselves are in disrepair for want of maintenance staff. Adequate staffing is essential to safety for employees, visitors, and incarcerated individuals alike.

Unsafe work conditions abound at present. And as the number of detainees increases, safety plummets without adequate resources: including staff of every description. According to the BOP director, unions are to blame for lack of reforms on this front—not offering members protections but rather, red tape.

Remaining Protections – What Appeal Rights Do Federal Correctional Employees Have?

MSPB Backlog

The Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) is overwhelmed and understaffed. Even more concerning, a system set up to review individual cases is not designed to address collective concerns. One usually sees this problem in the reverse: an individual union member, whose issue is not well suited to resolution through the collective bargaining agreement, is forced to undertake their own complaint to the Board.

A simple surge in cases filed by Federal employees or cuts to MSPB's resources and staff alone would have been enough to significantly stall the appeals process. MSPB has been dealing with both. Many presently counting on the Board's due process now face uncertainty. The road to Hell is paved with due process. Backlog and resource restrictions noted, a further issue faces the BOP employee losing their union protections: generations of MSPB judges have been selected from the ranks of those who are from management, or who support a management view. The Board is unbalanced to the favor of management.

OPM Updates and Dwindling Due Process for Federal Employees

To make matters worse, BOP employees and contractors are subject the public trust requirements of suitability and fitness respectively. Traditionally, suitability has served as a requirement for entry to civil service. But OPM proposes extending this requirement to current, post-probationary employees. This will offer an accelerated path for removing formerly tenured Federal employees on suitability grounds.

And with the sunsetting of periodic reevaluations in favor of Continuous Vetting, suitability concerns are likely to be far more frequent. On top of that, federal employees will have far less time to defend themselves against unfavorable suitability actions: as little as five days.

Are Federal Bureau of Prisons Employees Protected From Discrimination?

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and EEO Complaints

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established by an act of Congress. The president lacks the authority to dismantle the EEOC or EEO laws protecting Federal employees. EEO and affirmative action provisions for Federal contractors, by contrast, were enacted by executive action. Hence, President Trump has the authority to revoke many of those protections by executive order himself—and he did so (EO 11246).

Stripping anti-discrimination provisions from the books is not the only way to erode EEO protections, however. An overtaxed and understaffed EEOC without the resources to effectively enforce EEO provisions gets federal employees to much the same place as contractors regardless: less protected. Also, the President can impose an order to not permit settlement agreements, forcing all complainants to a full and costly hearing.

Sections 501/504 and Disability Accommodations

Sections 501 and 504 guarantee reasonable accommodations for Federal employees and contractors respectively. Unlike other EEO provisions, those protecting individuals from discrimination on the basis of disability remain on the books for both groups. Again, such provisions can only do so much when enforcement mechanisms degrade. Both the EEOC, which enforces Section 501 for Federal employees, and the Office of Federal Contractor Compliance (OFCCP), which enforces EEO laws for contractors, are understaffed.

Factor into this the spike in reasonable accommodation requests that followed President Trump's memorandum ordering Federal employees back to in-person work. The result? Requests for reasonable accommodations have stalled for many federal employees and contractors—even with civil service law on their side.

As for future developments, the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 includes provisions requiring the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce Title VII's civil rights laws only in the courts. This would eliminate collective administrative remedies to address discrimination such as resolution agreements and consent decrees. Project 2025 also proposes elimination of disparate impact analysis in enforcement proceedings, obscuring discrimination with redefinition.

Do Federal Correctional Employees Still Have Whistleblower Protections?

Both Federal employees and contractors working in BOP facilities are obligated to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse, and threats to public safety or health. Federal correctional facilities have seen their fair share of such reports. According to BOP Director Marshall's statement, this fact only proves AFGE's impotence.

Because whistleblowing is a job requirement, whistleblower protections remain on the books. However, recent changes at OPM have accelerated the removal process for federal employees. Avenues for whistleblower reports like the Inspectors General and the Office of Special Counsel have been diminished. Whistleblowers have always been at risk of harassment. Now, they are even more vulnerable.

What Recourse Remains to Federal Employees Without Union Representation?

It is not enough for civil service laws to be on the books. Employee protections do little without adequate resources backing them up.

Major shifts in Federal workplace policy and culture have left gaps in Federal employees' safety net. Unions could fill some, but not all, of these gaps. The Shop Steward will have less tools to aid embattled workers. Accordingly, all workers need to start planning—and resourcing—to protect themselves. Short of retaining a federal employment attorney, federal correctional officers may find themselves pushed farther along the cliff with fewer guardrails behind them.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.