Virginia says it has ended most collective bargaining agreements

The decision ended the union protected 377,000 employees, more than three-quarters of the VA workforce.

August 6, 2025 6:54 pm

3 minutes to read

The Department of Veterans Affairs said Wednesday it is ending most contracts with the federal employee union, one of the most important consequences of an executive order to date that attempts to eliminate collective bargaining by a large number of agencies on “national security” grounds.

The department said in a statement that five major unions have been notified that Virginia is ending its collective bargaining agreement, which will take effect immediately. The affected unions are the United States Government Employees Federation, the National Association of Government Employees, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the National Committee of Nurse Organisations/National Federation of Nurse and the International Federation of Service Employees.

Until Wednesday, Virginia had more than 377,000 employees and was represented by 483,000 unions, according to federal employment records. The only exception to contract termination is to police, firefighters and security personnel who are exempted from executive orders. Officials said there were about 4,000 employees in the exempted groups.

Although the initial March order used a legal provision that allowed the president to suspend collective bargaining for national security reasons, Virginia's Wednesday announcement did not mention national security. Instead, department officials said they are ending the deal because unions “oppose major, bipartisan VA reforms and reward bad employees with misconduct.” They said ending collective bargaining for VA employees would enable these workers to be with veterans.

]]>

“Unions representing VA employees often struggle with the best interests of veterans while protecting and rewarding bad workers,” Virginia Secretary Doug Collins said in a statement. “We are making sure that VA resources and employees are focused on the work we work here: providing first-class care and services to those in uniform uniforms.”

The U.S. Government Employees Federation, which represents the vast majority of Virginia's union workforce (319,000 employees), said in a statement that the contract termination was “angry.”

“The real reason Collins wants to withdraw from the VA is because we have successfully fought the catastrophic, anti-veterans recommendations of the Asset Infrastructure Review Board, which will close several rural VA hospitals and clinics against the Trump administration’s plan to deprive the Trump administration of plans by cutting 83,000 jobs and providing private services with a higher private service, with a consistent health status of the company. AFGE National President Everett Kelley said. “We do not apologize for protecting senior health care and will continue to fight for our members and veterans they care about.” ”

Unions have been seeking to prevent the execution of executive orders in courts, but a recent appeals court ruling gave the Trump administration a green light to terminate the contract, while litigation continues to be litigated through the judicial system.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the government’s request to hold a lower court ruling that found anti-union EO to be a form of retaliation for First Amendment protected speech by the Labor Organization. The statement is based in part on the White House profile, which says the president signed the order because the unions are “hostile” to his policies and that he “supports a constructive partnership with the unions that work with him.”

However, the appeals court ruled that the president could terminate the contract even if the union's constitutionally protected speech was not a problem.

“On the surface, the order did not express any retaliatory animation. Instead, it conveyed the president’s determination that the excluded institutions have the main functions involved in national security and cannot be affected by national security. [Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute] The panel of three judges wrote in their August 1 comments: “Even if accepted for argument purposes, some of the statements in the factual statement reflects a certain degree of retaliation against the plaintiff's First Amendment activity, which is the factual statement of the plaintiff as a whole and also demonstrates the President's concern for national security.”

]]>