| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| DEMS COURTING DANGER |
| 2007-02-27 |
| Congress' recent anti-Iraq War votes left little doubt that Democrats are willing to elevate party politics way above national security. But who knew they would likewise elevate Big Labor's special interests over America's security? This shamefulness recently manifested in House and Senate bills ostensibly implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Democrats took it upon themselves to also throw in recommendations from the American Federation of Government Employees (the largest federal employee union) and the AFL-CIO. As a big payback to these powerful union bosses, the Democratic bill include language that overturns rules disallowing the Transportation Security Administration's 43,000 airport screeners from unionizing. Congress created the TSA post-9/11 to fix airports' deficient security. But it prohibited collective bargaining precisely because it was known that it would compromise screeners' nimbleness and ability to respond to varying security demands. And that move came shortly after congressional Democrats' successful efforts to strip from the Port Security Act a measure the International Longshoremen's Association considered bothersome. Passed while Congress was still Republican-held, the law originally featured an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) imposing a seven-year-freeze on hiring dock workers convicted of murder, bribery, identity fraud, illegal-firearms possession and other crimes. Democrats, led in part by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), successfully stripped the provision during House-Senate conference committee. Coming not long after Democrats used the aborted Dubai ports deal to slam the White House for mismanaging port security, the party's decision to kowtow to the Longshoremen is ironic - to put it mildly. Really, Democrats ought to know better. The last time the public caught union interests trumping national security, the folks back home responded by voting Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle - who'd led a fight to have burdensome federal work rules applied to new Homeland Security hires - out of office. Indeed, voters nationwide noticed - and Democrats lost control of the Senate. Does the party want to reprise that debacle? |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #7 If you need an education on how unions screw the crap outta progress, study railroads. The rails fell into a fifty year plunge due to unions. Railroad stocks became toilet paper, railroad jobs, deadenders, rail technology ? Non-existent. They are recovering now, and I guarantee the word 'union', is rarely uttered. While we're at it, unions have helped end the American steel industry, the American shipping industry, and American manufacturing, in general. Unions are also the reason taxes are so high and rising. But, what's not to like ? Long live sitting on your ass pretending to work. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-02-27 19:28 |
| #6 Excalibur, I b'lieve they're being paid as if they were union, even though they aren't. That was a big reason we went from minimum wage private contractors to government employees. Mike N. and anonymous2u are giving the arguments made at the time for making the expensive change from the then-extant system of allowing essentially temp. agencies to handle the personnel side. Especially as there were lots of reports in the first months of shocking numbers of illegal aliens and criminals who'd been let in on the agency payrolls. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-27 18:24 |
| #5 The theory is when you have private security firms acting as the gatekeepers of the airports, the other security firms want the biz and will send people in to show the gaps of the current firm. When you have unionized employees who can't get fired, security will be more lax. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2007-02-27 12:03 |
| #4 The world has changed and the Dhemmicrats have not. |
| Posted by: Al and Tipper Gore 2007-02-27 11:57 |
| #3 Ex, with a unionized labor force, it's harder to axe bad/inneffective employees. Also run the risk of having to meet union demands that are contrary to the effectiveness of the security personnel. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-02-27 10:48 |
| #2 It could be due to my not being American but I fail to see how unionizing/barring unionizing these employees has anything to do with national security per se. Both positions strike me to be equally ideologically driven. Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made that if you want airport screeners to be paid five bucks an hour or whathaveyou with no benefits you are going to get exactly what you pay for. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-02-27 10:38 |
| #1 That must be a Post editorial? didn't see any authors name. I liked the piece it always gives me heatburn when I hear that America's largest union is the Gubmint union. Friends of mine work for the National Park Service, and Mike always brags to me that they [wife and friends] belong to the largest union in the United States. And I answer, "wow Mike, just like the Soviet Union". [accent on union] It's a routine, we do it at each greeting. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-02-27 00:58 |