Redstate

union from organizing is:

GOOD GOVERNMENT.

It's too bad that every bill that contains funding for federal employees can't be held up until the current employee unions are decertified.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

... any better than partisan legislation?

PS: Your definition of "bizaare" must be very interesting.

Banning all government unions isn't a half-bad idea, but in this case I object to unionizing security personel so that they cannot be effectively deployed--and so cannot do their jobs. You believe their ability to present a "united front" is more important?

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

AE

"I object to unionizing security personel so that they cannot be effectively deployed--and so cannot do their jobs. You believe their ability to present a "united front" is more important?"

You present a scenario which has not occurred up to this point, I believe that is called a straw man.

I currently work around Unionized Civil Servants, and I have never heard of an instance where mission requirements were impeded by Union activities, which does not mean it won't happen, but it's not a common occurrence in my experience.

Unions do serve some purpose as a defense to some of the cruddy bottom line behavior of some companies now days along with protection from poor work place working conditions.

If the work place is wonderful and there is no perceived benefits to the workers brought about by going Union, then the workers will not vote to become Unionized and give up some amount of their pay for representation. I suppose the best way for the Federal Government to avoid a Union is to treat their workers well...what a concept.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

SteveLA: This is not a case in which I believe the "wonderful"-ness of the workplace should be the defining factor. Read what Chertoff said about how he needs to deploy them, and the reasons he needs them to be deployable without advance negotiation. Or perhaps we make how "wonderful" it is to be a TSA employee more important than how they can respond to disasters and security crises?

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

AE,

You may be right, but I have this tendency to discount what Chertoff has to say after the P*ss poor job his agency did during Katrina under his leadership, coupled with his and the President's lousy track record on dealing with illegal immigration problem.

I think there is more politics than good policy or trying to create a nimble organization at play here. I am also not afraid of Unions, and think that fundamentally a good work place and good relations with the workers and those that run the organization negates the need for a Union. That philosophy works pretty well in a lot of industries.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

You could deal with these issues with a simple, clear job description and making it illegal to strike.

Look at FEMA - with appointee Brown running it. There was no union involved and the incompetence shown was unfathomable. That incompetence constituted a serous risk - but somehow that risk wasn't as important as appointing a buddy/supporter.

The same story for the immediate aftermath of the Iraq initial combat phase - it was somehow OK to send a bunch of political supporters to deal with it.

So for Pres. Bush to get out the veto pen - and hold up this legislation - in the name of security rings more than hollow.

He has a long history of mis-identifying priorities - lots have suffered because of it. This is another, absurd, instance of that tendency.

There was no union involved and the incompetence shown was unfathomable.

FEMA employees are not unionized? Are you absolutely certain?

Here's the fun part ... why don't you list out the mistakes made by FEMA that demonstrate "unfathomable incompetence?" I'm not saying that FEMA did well, of course ... but I want to see if you actually know what you are talking about, or that you're just regurgitating media hype and conventional wisdom.

It would be helpful if you were to begin with telling us exactly what FEMA's job is, how many employees it has, and what it specifically failed to do as the hurricane approached and made landfall.

... for Pres. Bush to get out the veto pen - and hold up this legislation - in the name of security rings more than hollow.

Why the heck do you care? Do you honestly believe this would improve the performance of the TSA, or is it that you're mad that the President is not rolling over and giving the Democrats another source of campaign cash?

Take a deep breath...

What I said (and you quoted) was that the union wasn't implcated in the bumbling incompetence at FEMA - it was the politically appointed and unqualified leadership that was singled out for poor planning, poor prioritizing and poor execution.

For this President to come off those kind of failures - and then clam he has to veto legislation because of the threat a union posses rings hollow.

You assume I'm pro-union and for some reason more concerned about campaign contributions then national security. Your wrong on both counts. I'm arguing that we need less partisan bickering and more leadership.

For this President to come off those kind of failures - and then clam he has to veto legislation because of the threat a union posses rings hollow.

But of course, that is if one accepts your ridiculous premises and self-righteous moral preening about "failures", then one would have no problem with unionizing the military ... after all, nothing would change, right?

You assume I'm pro-union and for some reason more concerned about campaign contributions then national security. Your wrong on both counts. I'm arguing that we need less partisan bickering and more leadership.

Yes, and vetoing legislation - even if it's "bi-partisan" - is leadership; it comes with the office. He fought against unionizing the TSA in 2004 for the same reasons he is giving now. You may not like them but that does not mean they were not valid then, and it does not mean they are not valid now, even the 9/11 Commission recommended against it.

Again, you refute yourself so well. You just finish launching a series of partisan attacks against the President, loudly asserting failures without really bothering to prove them to be true or even make a proper case against his decision to veto and then you claim you want an end to "partisan bickering."

I don't.

I'm one of those people who believe that partisanship is actually a good thing. And it is not "bickering" for a President to veto legislation he believes is a bad idea - it is a very good thing. It is the very opposite of leadership for a President to affix his signature to legislation he believes is bad for the nation. Vetoing bad legislation is a part of his job description i.e. United States Constitution Article II - you should read it some time.

The General Schedule and Civil Service programs are in place to make sure government jobs don't become patronage prizes, and honestly I have a hard time seeing what The Union™ actually does for the people I work with every day (I'm a DoD contractor) anyway.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

The bozos are replaceable. Once you get a union contract in a government unit, the work rules are forever.

Just so I'm clear, "all of them" includes cops and firefighters.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

This isn't a question of whether unions are good or bad.Its a question of whether the Pres should be threatening to veto homeland security legislation in order to keep a union from forming.

Even if you would rather not see the TSA unionized, you have to ask what on earth raises this issue to the level of a Bush veto - given all that he hasn't vetoed.

The argument that a union will make the TSA less responsive doesn't wash. Lots of things make government agencies less responsive and effective - somehow this hasn't been such a problem in the past.

This isn't a question of whether unions are good or bad. Its a question of whether the Pres should be threatening to veto homeland security legislation in order to keep a union from forming.

You do know that you just brutally contradicted yourself here, right? And besides, apart from it being "non-partisan" what makes this piece of legislation so important or special? Why are you so worked up about it? Care to share?

The argument that a union will make the TSA less responsive doesn't wash.

You can start by telling us why. You just saying it don't make it so.

And when you're done, try using that same logic to tell us exactly why the President should veto "non-partisan legislation" that would enable the military to unionize.
After all, "Lots of things make government agencies less responsive and effective - somehow this hasn't been such a problem in the past."

From reading your laments here, one would think that vetoing legislation was something that took a President more time and energy than simply putting his signature on a piece of paper.

Do you recall former senator Max Cleland? He obstructed homeland security legislation which he claimed that he otherwise supported because it did not write into law special privileges for unions - his campaign contributors. He was criticised on this in TV ads by his opponent, and claimed that people had questioned his patriotism. So stop questioning the President's patriotism. On this issue, you are, apparently, not allowed to disagree with him without questioning his patriotism.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Can we start with the teachers?

www.scottbomb.com

.

Flyerhawk, I have yet to see a union that does more good than harm, and just because there are entrenched entitlements for other groups that have security duties I don't see the need to let it creep into this sector. That is not to say that police and firemen are not heroic independent individuals--I just don't think that their independent heroism is enhanced (or inspired) by their union status.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

Are you defining harm and good? Because I can think of many unions that are quite popular with their constituents and have good relations with their employers.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Our government would certainly provide better service and workers would get better treatment without silly work rules and other such union nonsense that's based on an 18th century business model.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

AE

As a cautionary tail, consider the plight of the two border patrol agents in jail right now. They have a Union, who is fighting for them in the face of an out of control leadership who for what ever reason is seeking to nail their hides to the barn door. Let's not even talk about the the lower and mid management in the Border patrol and the stories of abuse of power when it comes to rank and file workers.

And on the same Union, how is the Border Patrol negatively effected in the ability to redeploy forces by their Union?

Before you rush to condemn all Unions, recognize that at times they are all that stands between a worker and an out of control set of management, and that applies doubly to Federal Government mangers, is a Union.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

I'm going to read "tale" for "tail," and point out that what you are using is an extreme exception to prove your rule that unionizing federal employees is a good thing. I'm sorry if you think Mr. Chertoff's response to Katrina was sub-standard, but how exactly do you think that unionizing TSA employees would have improved this performance, or, perhaps more pertinently, the response to Rita?

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

AE

The logical basis that Chertoff's argument relies on is that he must be able to redeploy TSA employees as he and his successors see fit, yet he lacks that capacity with the Border Patrol. How can one part of DHS be so "mission critical", the position does not make sense.

The argument of; sock smellers, underwear and bag checkers along with operators of X ray machines at airports are much more "vital" to Homeland security than Border patrol agents who secure our borders? This must surely be the case, so great is the need to prevent troublesome Unions from representing TSA employees which in turn would impede the ability DHS leadership to rapidly reassign them in times of something which is of great importance. That's the argument right?

I'm not buying Chertoff's or the President's argument about this issue, it's more about the log term political worry of another Union supporting D causes. To pretend otherwise is just not being intellectually honest.

Now, suddenly, your asking people to prove the unionization of the TSA would actually improve their performance.There was no argument put forth that this is the case. Only that any potential harm could be easily mitigated, and that the whole battle is misguided.

Pres Bush needs to convince us that he knows how to prioritize and engage our true enemies effectively. Not only has he not done that, but now he's picking stupid fights that will get us no where closer to the security his job is to ensure.

The fact that Cheney nearly got blown up today is an indication of very real problems in Afghanistan. And Bush didn't even mention it. That does not build confidence that he knows which fronts to fight on.

The fact that Cheney nearly got blown up today is an indication of very real problems in Afghanistan.

Really ...?

Well, according to this guy, things are a little bit more complicated.

OK, time for me to chime in ... I was the XO of Bagram AF from March ‘05 - August ‘05. Then I got my dream job as S-5 of the TF that had 100 square km around BAF. I only mention this so you know where I am coming from here.

[...] the front gate to BAF is where trucks from Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, locally/Kabul and everywhere else on Earth that can reach Central Asia by truck, gather. I spent an awful lot of time there, talking with locals, transiting in and out of base, etc. There are alot of people on base, and it is the central logistics hub for alot of ops. It has always kept things moving along - "resurgent Taliban" aside. This bomb sure didn’t change that.

The front of BAF is crowded, and if someone wants to blow themselves up—they will be able to. It is not some sort of symptom of nationwide insecurity. [Heard of lots of TB attacks in Mazar-i-Sharif? Konduz? Herat? The Panjshir Valley? The Salang Tunnel? Surobi Dam? No?] The waiting area is full of trucks, mom and pop shops, some soldiers from the JLC and MCT(s) trying to get everyone arranged in order and escorted to the search areas. There also happen to be a lot of kids. The kids hang out to watch, sell trinkets or cookies (I bought so many packages of the strawberry and orange flavored Iranian cookies that the little ones would see me walk out and they would run up and say "Major! You buy cookie?!" Heh, they knew me well. But I digress).

It would be like some American domestic terrorist setting off a suicide bomb made from fertilizer and diesel, in a van, at the entrance to a mall. If there is someone deranged enough to want to do so…

This had nothing to do with the fact that the VP was there. I am sure somebody knew someone special was there—when "special" aircraft or anything unusal landed at BAF, we always joked — "here come the rockets tomorrow". And, usually, they did. It takes a bit of time to set something like that up—24-48 hours. Usually it was some HIG asshole or a local militia guy who was paid by the HIG to pop a few 107mm rockets at us.

If someone was going to try to get at the VP they would have had to go at least a mile to a mile and a half inside. I happen to know what the layout of the base is — and nothing short of a tank company could do it.

This was a feeble gesture that sure ain’t going to win any affection for the remnants of the Taliban. Blow up Pakistani and Afghan truckdrivers? Kids?! Oh mighty warriors, indeed. Nothing says invincibility and the favor of the Hand of God like blowing up truck drivers and kids.

I am so f$#&ing angry right now I can hardly type.

[H/T: Jeff Goldstein]

Very few people knew details of Cheney's visit. Despite all our precautions, details leaked - that means we either underestimated how thoroughly infiltrated the gov't is, or knew but failed to respond to effectively to it.

Why do you suppose neither Bush nor Snow wanted to talk about it?

... details leaked.

What makes you so sure? What have you read or seen that leads you to believe that this is anything other than a coincidence? Think. If these folks were so connected and sophisticated that they had access to the Vice President's itinerary, they should have been able to do something more than send one man to blow himself up more than a mile away from the target.

Why do you suppose neither Bush nor Snow wanted to talk about it?

[1] Presidents and White House Press Secretaries generally don't comment on ongoing investigations. Unlike you, the Secret Service is still trying to figure out if it was a leak or coincidence ...

[2] Maybe they just didn't like the people asking the question.

doesn't have a bureau in Pakistan or at BAF, maybe no details leaked. Maybe a suicide bomber took advantage of the normal crowd at the gate and torched himself. And later when they found out Cheney was there they took "credit" for an attack on him.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

--absolutely nothing.

Unions exist today to enrich and serve the union management who take advantage of workers while trying to hold businesses hostage. I've worked with unions both in government (air traffic control and civil service) as well as in the private sector for 20 years.

In most businesses as well as government, both workers and management would be better off without unions. A 19th century concept that was once needed but has outlived its usefulness.

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

He vetoed that bill providing taxpayer money for embryonic stem-cell research on new genetic lines.

Run like Reagan!