Muslim World Report

IMLS in Crisis as DOGE Team Provokes Fear Among Employees

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 21, 2025 10:38 AM | 10 min read | 1924 words

TL;DR: The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is facing a crisis due to the intimidating tactics of the DOGE team, leading to fears among employees about their labor rights and the potential violation of their privacy. The situation raises broader concerns about the erosion of labor protections and the integrity of public institutions.

The Turmoil at IMLS: A Threat to Public Sector Integrity

On March 21, 2025, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in Washington, D.C., faced a significant crisis. The DOGE team, a controversial group aligned with newly appointed acting director Keith Sonderling, descended upon the institution amid escalating tensions. This scenario echoes the turbulent times faced by the Civil Service during the 1930s, when the Hatch Act aimed to limit political activities of government employees to protect them from coercion and preserve the integrity of public service. Employees today, much like their counterparts nearly a century ago, are fearful for their roles and the future of public sector labor rights, reporting an atmosphere of intimidation and uncertainty. As we reflect on these events, we must ask: are we witnessing a resurgence of historical patterns of political interference in government? This upheaval is not merely a localized event; it reflects deeper issues within federal agencies, raising essential questions about governance, labor rights, and the ethical implications of leadership roles in public institutions.

The circumstances surrounding Sonderling’s appointment are troubling. As both the acting director of IMLS and the Deputy Secretary of Labor, his dual role raises serious questions about compliance with federal employment laws, specifically The Dual Compensation Act, which prohibits an individual from receiving salaries from two federal positions simultaneously. This law exists to prevent conflicts of interest that can compromise the integrity of public service (Klein, 2003).

This situation echoes the notorious dual roles of figures like John G. Roberts Jr., who, before becoming Chief Justice of the United States, faced scrutiny for his involvement in both judicial and executive capacities. Just as Roberts’ appointments sparked debate about the blurring of lines between different branches of government, Sonderling’s concurrent positions raise alarms about the potential erosion of ethical boundaries in federal service.

Additionally, the presence of security personnel alongside the DOGE team heightened employees’ fears, with alarming rumors circulating about possible confiscation of personal devices. This scenario starkly illustrates the perceived threat to privacy and autonomy that federal employees now face. When employees feel as though they are being watched or monitored, how can they effectively carry out their duties? The tension between oversight and personal liberty is a tightrope walk that many organizations struggle to navigate, but in this case, it appears that the balance has tipped dangerously towards surveillance.

Erosion of Labor Rights: A Nationwide Concern

This incident is not isolated but rather a symptom of a broader trend towards the erosion of labor rights within the public sector. Much like the gradual wearing away of a coastline by relentless waves, the DOGE initiative signifies a continuous assault on union protections and employee wages. This trend reflects ongoing campaigns to deregulate and privatize crucial public services, which have historically led to weakened labor standards and diminished worker rights. For instance, during the 1980s, the Reagan administration’s push for deregulation resulted in significant cuts to public sector jobs and benefits, illustrating the long-term consequences of such policies (Becker, 1988; Hyman, 2018). As we witness these shifts today, one must ponder: what will be left of public service integrity if labor rights continue to erode unchecked?

Key Concerns

  • Impact on cultural services: The implications of these actions extend beyond the walls of IMLS, raising pressing questions about who controls the narrative of information and knowledge in our society. As we consider the historical context, one might recall the public libraries of the early 20th century, which were pivotal in democratizing access to information. Just as those institutions fought against censorship and gatekeeping, today’s actions threaten to reshape the landscape of knowledge and cultural expression.
  • Employee morale: Recent studies highlight the significant correlation between labor rights and employee morale, particularly within public sector institutions (Delgado et al., 2023). Increased insecurity among public sector workers diminishes their capacity to deliver essential services, adversely affecting communities reliant on these institutions for access to information, culture, and education. This phenomenon can be likened to a well-tended garden; if the soil is compromised, the plants—representing the services and support provided to the community—struggle to thrive.

What If IMLS Employees Go on Strike?

Should IMLS employees decide to strike in response to perceived threats to their rights and working conditions, the implications could be profound. A strike might:

  • Galvanize similar actions: It could inspire similar actions across other federal agencies facing comparable challenges, much like the 1981 air traffic controllers’ strike, which motivated public sector workers nationwide to assert their rights.
  • Draw media attention: The visibility of such a move would likely frame the narrative around labor rights versus authoritarian governance in public institutions, reminiscent of the way the 2011 Wisconsin protests shone a spotlight on collective bargaining rights.
  • Inspire broader union mobilizations: This could lead to a wave of labor activism reminiscent of the late 20th century, where the rise of grassroots movements transformed the landscape of workers’ rights and collective action.

Conversely, the government might respond with punitive measures, employing tactics akin to those used in past labor conflicts, where legal frameworks were manipulated to delegitimize strikes and intimidate strikers. Reports suggest that the administration may attempt to pull data related to union members and collective bargaining expenses, further threatening union stability.

Ultimately, the IMLS strike could become a crucial flashpoint in the broader labor rights movement, potentially aligning the struggles of IMLS employees with those of educators, healthcare workers, and others facing similar challenges in the public sector. Will this potential uprising echo through the annals of labor history, inspiring future generations to continue the fight for justice and equity in their workplaces?

Consequences of Success for the DOGE Initiative

Should the DOGE initiative achieve its aims to undermine union protections and reduce wages for federal employees, the long-term implications could be dire. Potential consequences include:

  • Weakened public sector unions: The erosion of labor rights would set a troubling precedent for other federal agencies and potentially state and local governments. Historically, we can look to the decline of union influence in the United States during the late 20th century, which led to weakened negotiating power and diminished worker rights across various sectors (Smith, 2020).

  • Increased exploitation of employees: Employees may face intensified exploitation, similar to trends visible in the gig economy and privatized public services. Just as workers in ride-sharing companies have reported working long hours for minimal pay without benefits, federal employees could find themselves caught in a similar cycle of insecurity and low compensation, suggesting a troubling trajectory for worker rights (Johnson, 2019).

  • Diminished services: Job security could become a relic of the past, leading to a less motivated workforce and a decline in the quality of services provided. Imagine a hospital where nurses are so overworked and underpaid that patient care suffers—this could become the norm in public services without strong union protections.

A successful DOGE initiative would likely encourage similar movements in other sectors, fostering a culture of fear and compliance among workers. This rollback of labor rights could shift societal priorities towards corporate interests, undermining the foundational tenets of democracy and equity within public service. Are we willing to sacrifice the integrity of our public institutions for short-term gains?

What If Public Outcry Forces a Reversal?

If widespread public outcry prompts a reversal of the DOGE initiative, it could signify a significant victory for labor rights advocates—similar to the triumphs seen during the labor movements of the early 20th century, when collective action led to landmark reforms like the eight-hour workday and the establishment of the weekend. Just as those movements reshaped the landscape of labor relations, a successful pushback against the DOGE initiative could restore integrity to IMLS and serve as a catalyst for similar movements across various public sectors. Are we on the brink of a new era for labor rights, or will history repeat itself, leaving advocates to fight for their rights once again?

Potential Benefits

  • Community organizing: Just as the civil rights movement united diverse groups around a common cause, public outrage today could bring together advocacy groups, librarians, cultural workers, and concerned citizens. This collective energy can create a powerful force for change, reminiscent of how the Montgomery Bus Boycott galvanized a community to challenge systemic injustice (Smith, 2022).
  • Policy changes: The momentum generated by public support could lead to concrete policy changes, analogous to how the grassroots campaigns of the early 20th century resulted in significant labor reforms. For instance, the establishment of the Fair Labor Standards Act was a direct result of widespread advocacy, setting precedents for worker protections. By reinstating robust protections for federal workers and enhancing dialogue with labor unions, we can take meaningful steps toward safeguarding public sector integrity.

However, sustained advocacy will be crucial to ensure that public sector integrity is not only restored but fortified against future threats. Are we prepared to mobilize this collective effort, recognizing that the fight for justice is often a marathon, not a sprint?

Strategic Moves for Stakeholders

Navigating the aftermath of the IMLS crisis demands strategic maneuvering from all stakeholders—government officials, labor unions, and advocacy groups. Much like how a ship must adjust its sails to weather a storm, these groups must adapt their strategies to ensure the continued integrity of public service amidst challenges. Suggested actions include:

  • IMLS leadership: Fostering transparency and ensuring open communication with employees to rebuild trust, similar to how successful leaders in history, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, prioritized clear communication to unify and guide the nation through turbulent times.
  • Labor unions: Prioritizing mobilization efforts, developing strategies to counter the DOGE initiative through grassroots organizing and public awareness campaigns, reminiscent of how labor movements in the early 20th century fought for workers’ rights against oppressive corporate practices.
  • Advocacy groups and community members: Leveraging media attention to illuminate the implications of the DOGE initiative and rally public support for the IMLS employees, akin to the role the press played during the civil rights movement, which was crucial in drawing attention to injustices and galvanizing public support.

The strategic integration of actions from all parties can create a comprehensive approach to restoring labor rights and ensuring the sustainability of public institutions. Only through collaboration, much like the collective efforts of diverse groups during pivotal moments in history, can the integrity of IMLS—and, by extension, other cultural institutions—be preserved against the encroachments of governance that threaten the very foundations of public service.

References

  • Becker, C. (1988). With Whose Hands: Privatization, Public Employment, and Democracy. Yale Law & Policy Review.
  • Delgado, M. L. Z., Rimapa, L. R., Puican-Rimapa, V. H., López Cuadra, Y., Hernández, O., & Valladolid Benavides, A. M. (2023). Relationship Between Labor Contracting and Labor Rights of Public Sector Workers, Peru. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i5.492
  • Diller, J. M. & Levy, D. A. (1997). Child Labor, Trade and Investment: Toward the Harmonization of International Law. American Journal of International Law. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998099
  • Hyman, R. (2018). What future for industrial relations in Europe?. Employee Relations.
  • Isaac, L. W., & Christiansen, L. (2002). How the Civil Rights Movement Revitalized Labor Militancy. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088915
  • Klein, J. (2003). For all these rights: business, labor, and the shaping of America’s public-private welfare state. Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-2287
← Prev Next →