Biden-era executive order harms business owners, forcing them into union agreements
The Trump administration recently enforced a Biden-era executive order, harming contractors and subcontractors that provide services to federal entities, and Bill Slayden is one of the many contractors who have been harmed by this rule. If Bill wants to continue providing construction services to the federal government, which is a major source of his company’s revenue, the company must enter into a forced agreement with labor unions—something that neither Bill nor his employees wants to do.
With the help of Pacific Legal Foundation, Bill Slayden is suing the Trump administration for enforcing the Biden-era executive order that is hurting businesses like Slayden Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
From garage business to leading mechanical company
Bill Slayden started his plumbing business in 1979, performing residential and light commercial jobs. His small start-up eventually grew into a leading mechanical engineering company, which provides vital contracting services to the federal government—and what once was as a garage business has scaled to a company that employs over 60 people.
As an entrepreneur, Bill worked hard to grow his business, which provides welding, plumbing, insulation, and sheet metal work for federal and private construction projects. He also offers training for younger mechanics, including an apprenticeship program for aspiring craftsmen.
In 2022, however, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which mandated that every contractor or subcontractor engaged in federal construction projects estimated to cost over $35 million “negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more appropriate labor organizations,” forcing Slayden Plumbing & Heating to choose between working with unions and the well-being of his employees and business.
Bill does not want to enter a project labor agreement (PLA), nor do his employees—but the executive order requires that he do so if the company wants to continue working these jobs.
This year, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum, saying that Biden Executive Order 14063 “remains in effect” and that “the Trump Administration supports the use of PLAs when those agreements are practicable and cost effective.”
Because federal construction projects are a primary source of revenue for Bill’s business, constituting almost 80% of his income, this executive order poses an existential financial threat to Slayden Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Forced to choose between working with unions and the financial well-being of his business, this mandate hurts his employees and business.
Because of this rule, Bill has already pulled out of two lucrative projects at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and laid off employees. But he shouldn’t have to make these decisions.
The president’s mandate has sidelined business owners and entrepreneurs like Bill Slayden. The president claims that a 1940s-era statute authorizes him to impose this Hobson’s choice, even though that assertion requires stretching his statutory authority beyond recognition. And, if he’s right, the upshot is that Congress has delegated unreviewable authority over huge parts of the economy to the president. Either way, this is not what the American Founders intended.
Upholding the separation of powers
By design, the Constitution established the executive authority as the enforcer of the law, not the maker of law. Through experience, the Founders determined that mixing legislative and enforcement power in the hands of a single department was the definition of tyranny, which is why our republic system is created with three distinct branches of government.
As Montesquieu warned in The Spirit of Laws, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” And James Madison echoed a similar point in Federalist No. 47: when “the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted.”
In Bill Slayden’s case, the president exercised authority that is not constitutionally permissible—and in the process, he placed an undue burden on business owners, forcing them either to enter project labor agreements or suffer financial loss. Presidential actions must stem from Congress or an explicit constitutional authority—and the Biden-era executive order harming Bill Slayden stems from neither.
