Trump-era move to limit prison unions draws fire from lawmakers and
staff
[October 02, 2025]
By Catrina Barker | The Center Square contributor
(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.
[to top of second column]
|
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."
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
