I watched as the historic vote was taken.
Here's the bill text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2550/text
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Protect America's Workforce Act”.
SEC. 2. Nullification of Executive Order relating to Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.
The Executive order titled “Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs”, issued on March 27, 2025, shall have no force or effect and no Federal funds may be obligated or expended to carry out such Executive order
Here's the Yeas and Nays from the vote: https://www.congress.gov/votes/house/119-1/332
20 Republicans joined 211 Democrats to pass this historic bill.
- Bacon, Don [R-NE]
- Bost, Mike [R-IL]
- Bresnahan, Robert P. [R-PA]
- Evans, Gabe [R-CO]
- Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA]
- Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY]
- Joyce, David P. [R-OH]
- Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ]
- LaLota, Nick [R-NY]
- Lawler, Michael [R-NY]
- Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA]
- Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY]
- Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA]
- Nunn, Zachary [R-IA]
- Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ]
- Stauber, Pete [R-MN]
- Turner, Michael R. [R-OH]
- Valadao, David G. [R-CA]
- Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ]
- Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI]
Here's the subject Executive Order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/exclusions-from-federal-labor-management-relations-programs/
It seems to me that the title of H.R. 2550 is misleading. "Protect America's Workforce Act" is more about protecting Federal Workers Unions, it seems to me.
I asked Grok how many Executive Orders have ever in the history of the U.S. been nullified. Here's the response:
Congress has never successfully nullified a duly elected president's executive order through legislation that became law against the president's will. This means there are zero instances where Congress passed a bill to override or nullify an active executive order, the president vetoed it, and Congress then overrode that veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.
I then asked Grok about H.R. 2550 in the 119 Congress (our current Congress) and finally I asked Grok this and this:
How much cost do labor unions add to the cost of federal employees paid by taxpayers?
Hasn't your response ignored the time aspect cost of Federal Unions? And the influence aspect cost in the way Federal employees work to serve taxpayers?
Grok response, in part...
You're right to point out these nuances—my previous response focused primarily on direct monetary subsidies (like official time payroll) and estimated compensation premiums, but it didn't fully unpack the time-based opportunity costs (e.g., lost productivity from hours diverted to union activities) or the influence-based costs (e.g., how union-driven policies and bargaining might slow decision-making, reduce flexibility, or hinder taxpayer service efficiency). These are harder to quantify precisely because they involve indirect effects, and data is often debated along partisan lines. However, recent reports (e.g., from OPM, GAO, and think tanks) provide evidence to assess them.
...
Broader Context and Balance
Total Augmented Cost: Adding these to my prior $3-6B premium estimate brings 👉union-related taxpayer burden to ~$5-12B/year (~1-2% of federal personnel budget)—modest but non-trivial amid $34T debt.
Debate: Pro-union views (Treasury/EPI) stress positives like 5-15% productivity gains from "voice" (e.g., better safety/training). Critics (Heritage/GAO) highlight measurement gaps, with 2025 Trump policies (e.g., EO reinstating limits) aiming to test reductions.
Data Gaps: GAO's 2023-2025 reports call for better tracking; OPM's FY2024 TFUT report (Feb 2025) is the freshest but doesn't fully model opportunity costs.
I urged my Rep Kevin Hern to vote No on H.R. 2550. He represented US citizens in my district of Oklahoma well with his No vote. IMHO.
Just thought I'd share in case any US citizens choose to talk to their Senator about this historic bill or something.
CORRECTION. The "historic" part was disputed in a comment below, so I asked Grok again about the dispute. Here's the convo: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_ac8927d1-ec8c-4d49-b920-2b4fa025ebd9
So, it may not be as historic as being the first. Admittedly, the "Historic" label is kinda like bait. The important part is the actual bill title and topic and vote--this occurrence. But, I'm still keeping the label "Historic".
Edit. Who reported this better, GAW or Axios??
https://www.axios.com/2025/12/11/trump-order-union-rights-house-repeal. 👈p.s. They think we are stupid.
I get aggressive when I read a piece larded with GROK OPINION. I usually instruct these AI holes to dispense with their views or use language that is unmeasurable. So, only facts. No perception shaping, framing, whatever; Typical Patholigical behavior. These are SYSTEMS, not humans. And SYSTEMS in my view, have no business in shaping or expressing what is or is not with meaning.
After all, I am the one doing the framing, judging, considering, deciding, giving meaning. Not Grok, Chat or some other AI magi fling.
As to the contents, It is quite clear that the system will protect itself. And those voting in favor, have a vested interest there, instead of representing their actual constituents. But there you go.
At least it signals that there is a slight majority to fund this potential to gridlock. It may not survive the senate, or even ... it may not survive the Presidents Desk.
It definitively shows how those so called R people voting against Trumps policies are still RINO.
I hear ya. Still, Grok was able to accumulate statistics (believable or not) far faster than I could, especially since it involves math. I didn't include all these in my post, but I did include what I asked for others who wish to inquire on their own.
The point of me including links to source information is to hint at the "trust (or not) but verify.". Notice that I didn't include a link to Grok, but cited my source questions and what the summary response was to me.
In other words, I hear you and don't disagree with you. Just curious, do you use a calculator or abacus?
hahahaha, I use a calculation MACHINE / DEVICE.
I was chatting with Chat/Grok on this particular subject, and noting how these are geared toward humanizing Ai, I turned the screws on these methods and showed what their basic problem is.
And this is the battle line. To keep our humanity: we are in desperate need to go back to the basics: to be human is to be the valuat-OR and decid-OR: expression/ declaration of internal will creating our own missions.
Amen. We have to recognize when the response falls short and either press further or abandon the artificial for the real Truth.
I recently starting interacting with AI. So far there have been several instances where I have had to correct what it spit out. Once it was even stumped and I witnessed the AI in real time trying to process the correct answer. It kept changing its answer and recalculating. Would I trust what it spits out - hell no. I basically use it as a tool to retrieve information that would take me more time to find on my own - but I already know where I am going. It is concerning that so many turn to AI to actually think for them.