Terrorism

Opposition to Unions More Important Than Security

Chimpy would rather deny workers their rightsthan protect this country.

President George W. Bush may veto legislation to adopt many of the remaining recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission unless Senate Democrats drop a plan to allow airport screeners to join unions, a Bush administration official said.

A provision in the security legislation now before the Senate would give government-employed airport security screeners the right to bargain collectively for union contracts and whistle-blower protections.

[snip]

Bush’s senior advisers would recommend a veto of the legislation, which authorizes more than $9.3 billion over three years in security grants to states, if it contains union organizing rights for airport screeners, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

“We vigorously disagree with those provisions in the bill,” Stanzel said.

The Senate security legislation would implement the recommendations the Sept. 11 commission made two years ago that hadn’t already been enacted. The measure includes a provision that requires $9.3 billion in grants be distributed with preference to cities that terrorists are most likely to target.

The Bush administration and Republicans defeated efforts by Democrats in 2002 to include organizing rights for TSA personnel when Congress passed initial legislation creating the Homeland Security Department.

[snip]

The Bush administration opposes a requirement in the bill that would require the U.S. to reveal annually the total government spending on intelligence programs, a Sept. 11 commission recommendation.

5 thoughts on “Opposition to Unions More Important Than Security”

  1. Out of curiosity – what is the reason that Shrubco sees this as so bad?
    Is it the union / collective barganing or the fact that some whistleblower who reports a problem which degrades homeland security would be protected from reprisals (see the Walter Reed punishing the wounded vets who lived in deplorable conditions)

  2. I know what his real motivation is — the Republican hatred for unions and anything else which might help the working people of America — but what is the ostensible reason for his refusal to allow unions here? Is there any pretense of a rationale for screwing workers to ensure “national security” or “protection against the terrorists”? Really, I can’t think of any.

  3. hoppy, of course you’re right. i was blinded by rage. my bad.
    king george…ARGH!

  4. Bush will sign the bill, but attach a signing statement asserting that he will not enforce the union rights involved. Don’t forget, this is King George we are talking about here.

  5. what the hell is he smoking? seriously, this is fucking outrageous. the dems better not drop the union piece. call the chimps’ bluff, and if he vetoes it, then say goodbye to republican votes in 2008. and get the votes to override his ass.
    argh. i love getting pissed off first thing in the morning.

Comments are closed.