White House Threatens Veto of Antiterror Bill Over Union Clause

[merh]

Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2007
Union Clause Threatens Terror Bill
By AP/LAURIE KELLMAN

(WASHINGTON) — President Bush and his Senate allies will kill a Sept. 11 antiterror bill if Congress sends it to the White House with a provision to let airport screeners unionize, the White House and 36 Republicans said Tuesday.

"As the legislation currently stands, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Senate Republicans swiftly backed up the threat with a pledge by more than enough senators to block any veto override attempt. "If the final bill contains such a provision, forcing you to veto it, we pledge to sustain your veto," they wrote to the president. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., planned to offer an amendment to strip the provision from the bill.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that allowing screeners to unionize would impede the department's quick response to possible threats. Fast redeployment of screeners, such as in response to Hurricane Rita and the failed London plot to blow up airliners, cannot wait for negotiations, he said.

-snip-

more @ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1594390,00.html

But, but, but this admin only cares about the citizens and fighting the war on terror. :sarcasm:

[bullimiami]

1. whatever. let him veto the republicans back into powerlessness. good for us.

[rock]

2. Agreed

Seems right to me. No matter what we do, no good will come from bush*.

[fryguy]

3. I'd expect nothing less from the partry that broke PATCO

GOP math: union + industry = bad

"Fast redeployment of screeners"? Is he kidding.....

[gratuitous]

4. The only thing worse than a terrorist

Is an American worker with a union card.

Or did I miss what Mr. Bush was saying?

[izzybeans]

5. Let them show their asses, their sloppy asses on this one. If the democrats can not

beat them to death with this one then they aren't even trying.

[shadowknows69]

6. Yeah, but the headlines will read

Democrats fail to pass 9/11 legislation. The veto sentence will be near the end of the story.

[AndyA]

7. Go for it Bush! You stupid SOB - veto the bill.

And the message will be: YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR.

You are more interested in protecting the interests of your corporate friends.

And all the GOPers who vote with you, can go to hell with you as well.

F*ck 'em. Give them a noose, they'll do the rest.

[nolabels]

10. This would be a good place to start to rack up the points.

Two years is a short time in politics. The republicans who are standing behind * need to identified with him and the politics they are really serving. Even if the government has to come to a stand still things will be better off in the long run.


Btw, dreaming that elected representatives actually had gonads is not crime, but continued habituation of such views could be detrimental to real perspective on how things really are :sarcasm:

[Lerkfish]

8. so...union workers are incapable of responding quickly? um...

you mean as opposed to FEMA?

LOL

[BayCityProgressive]

9. If Harry Reid negotiates this away

I will be pissed. Hold this bill up until 08 and get a bunch of their asses booted.

[merh]

20. Don't even get me started with fema

:freak:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Just For Educational Curiosity, Since I Don't Know Many Of The Details, What Are The Benefits To The

potential for Unionization as it relates to an anti-terror premise? What benefits of the bill are lost if this part isn't included?

Thanks in advance.

[merh]

12. You can research it

I'm sure you can find all sorts of info if you google.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. So You Don't Know The Answer Then? That's Ok. Anyone Else?

[merh]

14. I know the answer that justifies it in my mind.

If you have questions, the best way to answer them is to research it yourself. I won't do your homework or think for you.

And FYI, you don't get many responses if you are just asking me, why not start your own thread and let others think for you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. I Was Expecting You To Generally Be More Helpful To Those Seeking Information.

Not sure why you are presenting with attitude. Are we not supposed to ask for additional information here? Why are you shunning the request so much?

Fact is, I've searched on google and can find NOTHING that talks about the need for the unionization part or how it does or doesn't help the legislation. All I can find are articles stating nothing more than it will be vetoed if it contains the language, without going into any details whatsoever as to what benefits we'd lose if it weren't included.

Now you either know the benefits or you don't. If you do, then it would be very much appreciated if you actually supplied it; rather than being unhelpful.

[merh]

18. Not sure I have to answer you at all.

If you want to be informed, then go look it up or start a thread of your own and ask others to assist you in forming an opinion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. Why Are You Giving Such Attitude For A Request For Info In YOUR OWN DAMN THREAD?

Seriously? What is your malfunction here?

It's a friggin innocent question and you are acting all defensive and threatened by it. Why? Jesus christ.

[merh]

23. LOL, testy aren't you.

It's my thread and I can post what I like.

If you have questions that are not answered here, may I suggest you utilize "google".

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Not Testy, Just Curious. It Is Quite Odd And Perplexing That You Won't Answer A Simple Question.

Of course you can post what you like, but that doesn't mean it does or doesn't make sense. And I'm sorry, but your refusal and attitude you are giving me in supplying help makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I asked you a simple question and you are responding so defensively as if I asked God knows what. That's your right, but forgive me for not understanding why you are giving such attitude.

See ya! :hi:

[merh]

27. Well, just so you know,

if you are going to post this I'm not going to defend something just because; I'm gonna defend something because I agree with it and am educated on it, it would be cool if you actually educated yourself.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. What The Fuck Do You Think I Was Trying To Do?

Course, you've been absolutely no help with it whatsoever. But another poster answered, so thanks to them for it.

[LSK]

31. from the bill

SEC. 408. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.

c) Report to Congress-

(1) REPORT REQUIRED- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Government Accountability Office shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on--

(A) the pay system that applies with respect to TSA employees as of the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(B) any changes to such system which would be made under any regulations which have been prescribed under chapter 97 of title 5, United States Code.


Title 5, chapter 97 of US Code:

(b) System Requirements.— Any system established under subsection (a) shall—

(4) ensure that employees may organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them, subject to any exclusion from coverage or limitation on negotiability established by law; and

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00009701----000-.html

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Thanks For The Snips.

I think * is an idiot for being so readily willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater, especially considering some of the absolute atrocious bills he's had no problem signing and avoiding veto on. But aside from that I also don't mind if the Dem leadership chooses to take this out of the bill either. Since it is a nice to have rather than something that directly applies to the anti-terror concept itself, than I don't mind it being a separate battle for the future and having this bill go forward without it. Much like * is an idiot for threatening to kill the bill based on this alone, so too would we if we held it up based on this alone.

[druidity33]

46. well

I'm sure you can find something that explains the benefits of belonging to a Union. One of the things that i think might be pertinent to Airport Security... is being able to complain about your superiors without endangering your job. Without Union representation, i'm not sure any complaint made would ever see the light of day.

A society with more Unions secures a middle class and living wages. You either believe that or you don't.

Ever been an "at will employee"?

[Balbus]

33. "You can research it" is message board speak for "I don't know."

[merh]

34. No it's not.

I'm just not going to answer the guys question. I have my understanding as to why it is in the bill and why the president would want to veto it. Now if the other poster wants to form his own opinion he should do as he has posted: "I'm not going to defend something just because; I'm gonna defend something because I agree with it and am educated on it.

It could well be that I am familiar with the poster's tactics and not willing to play his game. It could be that I don't think for others and I'm not in the mood to do someone's homework for them. I am tired of the "echo chamber" description used for this board. Don't form an opinion based on my understandings, form it based on your own. If the other poster researches the issues and forms an opinion, then I would be willing to discuss the bill with him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. It's Either 'I Don't Know' Or 'The Answer Isn't One That Aligns With My Position So I Don't Want To

give it'.

As far as researching it myself, I tried and could find nothing that gave additional insight or understanding into the question. I now see it was because there simply wasn't any additional logic to it being part of the bill other than just 'ehh, let's throw this in here while we can'. That's ok and all and I could understand why, I'm just not going to take a position of "They better not bend on this and better leave it in there, it's important!" either, based on that. If there was some greater reason I hadn't known as to why it was important to the bill, I may have taken that position. But if it's just a nice to have that doesn't really affect the important aspect of the bill one way or another, then I'd be a fool to take that position in my opinion.

[endarkenment]

15. The bill ALLOWS unionization.

It does not mandate it. Why exactly should any workers be FORBIDDEN to unionize?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. That's A Separate Issue Than The One I'm Asking.

I'm just asking is it there just for the same reasons as would be given for ANY industry to unionize? Or does it actually make the bill better as it relates to terrorism?

If it's just for sake of the argument of 'well, they should be able to unionize', then I don't mind fighting that overall battle another day and not having it as part of this very important legislation. But if there were logical reasons included in it as to how it makes the bill better as it relates to anti-terrorism efforts, than I absolutely could defend it on its merits. But I don't know that. I'm not going to defend something just because; I'm gonna defend something because I agree with it and am educated on it.

[KamaAina]

30. Um, maybe because we want qualified workers fighting terror?

Or does it actually make the bill better as it relates to terrorism?

Then again, Bush** doesn't know jack about qualified workers OR fighting terror.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. What Does Unionization Have To Do With Qualified Workers?

No idea how that relates, but I'll agree wholeheartedly that we want qualified workers fighting terrorism.

[Lerkfish]

41. one of the many advantages of unions is to hold the employer to certain standards

an example of where that DOESN"T work is AK steel in Middletown, Ohio, currently locking out its employees. Employees were striking because the company was using unskilled labor to do dangerous jobs....many people had been killed for not having the experience that the union employees HAD, but because the company wanted to cut corners, they used people off the street to do dangerous activities. OSHA cited them continuously, but just gave them a slap on the wrist.

In some cases, unions can force an employer to adhere to safety regulations they'd otherwise skirt.

just one example.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Absolutely.

I agree completely with your post. But I wasn't really questioning the importance of the existence of Unions. I know in many cases they are mandatory. I was asking the question just based on the narrow terms of whether or not it enhances the anti-terror aspects of the bill or if it doesn't.

[Lerkfish]

44. I was responding to the question "what do unions have to do with qualified workers?"

I was addressing the narrow scope of that question, and pointing out how, in an example, a union was being locked out on the very issue of qualified workers.

:shrug:

next time, if you don't want someone to explain why unions are related to qualified workers, don't ask why unions are related to qualified workers. That should cut down on some of the confusion.

:crazy:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Yup. You're Right.

And you also have every right to have challenged me on it. I think in my reply I got lost in the context of why you replied to begin with since I had been upstairs with the kids for a bit and just ran down quickly to check for replies and quickly respond to any. I obviously mistook your reply for one in the scope of the general OP topic as most of the other responses I've replied to, when in fact your reply was in response to a direct question I asked. So in that sense, I absolutely had a "I'm a dumbass" moment, and my apologies for it. :)

[Lerkfish]

48. no problemo, it just gave me a chuckle and a "wtf?" moment

:)
:toast:

[Selatius]

24. I think you already know the answer to that.

But just to spell it out for you:

Letting workers unionize or not has no bearing on whether it puts Bin Laden behind bars or makes it so that we could secure the border, the airports, the seaports, etc. A more likely measurable effect would be to increase the number of airport screeners, border patrol agents, etc.

The only reason, apparently, as to why they tacked this proviso onto this bill is because they calculated Bush would not "toss the baby out with the bathwater" over a provision he objects to. They likely calculated passing this provision in its own bill on its own would more than likely provoke a Bush veto, less so if it was tacked onto something essential or fundamental like this current bill.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Actually I Didn't Know The Answer, But Thanks For The Info.

I really don't mind then if they throw this part out and fight the battle another day. The bill's too important in my opinion.

[Selatius]

28. It just proves how militantly anti-worker Bush is if he's willing to jeopardize the entire bill.

He would cut off his own nose to spite his face, apparently. Or would he?

[merh]

37. I would venture to guess that the other poster understands that

is why I posted the OP. If I read his comments correctly, he is trying to get someone to explain to him why the worker's rights are so important and provisions to protect them are included in the bill. I think he wants someone to concede that the 9/11 anti-terror provisions upsurp the individual rights of the workers. From what I gather from his posts, he refuses to see that crushing the workers' rights should be secondary to the security needs addressed in the bill. Of course, that is just my opinion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. No Idea What You're Talking About.

With all due respect, I have no idea where you get that perception from or why you are looking into a simple question that deeply. I assure you, you couldn't be further from the truth in regards to intent.

Furthermore, one of the most perplexing accusations ever made towards me is the one you just put above saying that my posts show I "refuse to see that crushing the workers' rights should be secondary to the security needs addressed in the bill". How you take that out of my posts is a huge mystery to me.

[merh]

40. Maybe it is this from you initial post.

What benefits of the bill are lost if this part isn't included?

Sort of like the glass is half empty, in my book. Not asking how this provision harms the bill and why it causes the admin so much difficulty that the prez would veto it, just assuming the bill would be better off without protections for workers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Not True At All.

The reason for the question if because the anti-terror bill is ABSOLUTELY something that needs to be passed. I think * would be an utter idiot (which of course, he is) if he vetoed such a bill on such grounds. However, if we know that's going to be the case, I also think it would be a bit foolish for us to fight for its presence if it doesn't actually directly relate to the anti-terror premise of the bill. I hope you can understand the logic in that for what it is.

I'm not saying it's not important and that ultimately we shouldn't fight for their ability to unionize. Personally, I think every workgroup should have the decision in their hands as to whether or not they want to do so. What I am saying is that I don't mind if that battle has to wait till another day and this bill gets passed without the provision, if it doesn't directly enhance the anti-terror aspects of the bill.

[merh]

49. That was my interpretation of your post(s)

Told you, I'm not in the mood to play your games, go have fun with somone else.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. It Isn't Me Playing Games, With All Due Respect.

I've answered plainly and matter of factly to each of your posts and have explained the truth of the matter. Why you want to still express attitude in the ways you are and twist things into things that they aren't, as well as being too stubborn to re-assess your 'interpretation' after being presented with simple explanation, is quite disturbing to see.

Not sure what your problem is nor why you feel the need to continue to twist things. I've played no game and in fact have been as straightforward and honest as I could be. But there really is no need to continue, as I have received from more helpful posters the answers I was seeking. :hi:

[LSK]

29. H.R. 1 Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007

Search H.R. 1 here http://www.thomas.gov

[bridgit]

16. they care more about their bloodsucking bottom line than they do...

about fighting terrorism :thumbsdown:

[porphyrian]

22. Why do they hate America? - n/t

[madrchsod]

45. well i guess it`s not worth fighting for

[proud patriot]

50. oh boo hoo

:hi:

[merh]

51. .

:hi: