## Notes from 20 February 2026 [[2026-02-19|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-02-21|Next note →]] I reviewed the [February 2026 supplemental report]([https://gemini.google.com/saved-info](https://www.opm.gov/about-us/reports-publications/agency-reports/taxpayer-funded-collective-bargaining-expenses-in-the-federal-government-fiscal-year-2024-supplemental-report.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email)) from the [[US Office of Personnel Management (OPM)]], which details **taxpayer-funded collective bargaining expenses** across the federal government for the 2024 fiscal year. The report is intended to increase transparency and oversight of costs related to federal sector labor-management relations. **Key data (governmentwide)** Federal agencies reported approximately **$181.6 million** in collective bargaining–related expenses. The breakdown is as follows: - **Personnel compensation: $131.37 million (72.3%)**. This covers agency staff time for negotiating term CBAs, midterm agreements, and engaging in dispute resolution such as mediation and arbitration. - **Office space (FMV): $22.62 million (12.4%)**. This is the estimated fair market value of agency office space provided for union use. - **Penalties and settlements: $11.53 million (6.3%)**. This includes arbitration awards and monetary settlements provided to workers or unions. - **Non-personnel costs: $16.08 million (9%)**. This includes arbitral fees ($6.3m), administrative support ($5.6m), technology ($2.5m), and travel/lodging ($1.1m). OPM identifies these expenses as a material management responsibility. The report highlights the **opportunity cost**, noting that resources used for bargaining are unavailable for other mission-critical activities. Costs vary by agency; for example, the Department of Justice reported **$30.7 million** in compensation for collective bargaining disputes. The availability of this granular data marks a shift in labor relations discourse. While the methodology of the OPM report can be debated, it moves the discussion from abstract claims to specific figures. This places a burden of proof on unions to provide counter-data or justify these costs as necessary for workplace stability and mission delivery. This transparency highlights the lack of similar data in other systems, such as Brazil, where the cost of labor relations remains largely hidden.