Terror, National Security and Anti-Unionism

[marmar]

from the Working Life blog:



Terror, National Security and Anti-Unionism
by Jonathan Tasini

Thursday 31 of December, 2009


There was a bit of wisdom that one could gain from the airline terror plot that, in my view, says a lot about the Republican view of the world and our own definition of national security. Yesterday, to its credit, The New York Times had an editorial entitled "Senator DeMint's Priorities," which made this point regarding the nomination of a permanent head of the Transportation Security Administration:

What’s the problem? Mr. DeMint says he won’t let the nomination go forward until he’s assured that a legal ban on T.S.A. workers unionizing will remain in place. Even after last week’s near-disaster over the Detroit airport, Senator DeMint clung to his union-bashing and knee-jerk warnings about the risks of security workers being allowed to collectively bargain.

He absurdly argued that “union bosses” will only worsen airline security (never mind that other federal workers and all manner of police forces responsibly exercise that right) while suggesting that President Obama has been out to “appease the terrorists.”

I want to be cautious about trying to pursue a narrow connection between the blocking of the nomination and terror plots being made easier as a result. In fact, the whole raft of stories we are now being flooed with about intelligence "failures" is astonishing: blaming intelligence agencies for the failure to catch pieces of information, in the avalanche of information cascading around the globe, about ONE person in the globe seems to me to avoid the larger question--terrorism is a political challenge, not primarily a policing challenge. But, I digress...

What was more interesting was this: DeMint's anti-unionism should make it clear that Republicans are not capable of safeguarding the country's "national security". I don't just mean preventing terro attacks. I mean "national security" in the larger sense of the well-being of the country. DeMint's demented assault on unions means not just that the TSA perhaps can't function. It means people don't get to earn a decent living and have to perform their TSA jobs without any dignity and respect and power on the job.

Of course, The Times does not spend any time making clear why unions are a part of the larger picture of "national security". The focus of the debate should not be on whether collective bargaining inteferes with the ability to screen baggage. It should be on the point that collective bargaining actually ENHANCES our national security.


http://www.workinglife.org/blogs/view_post.php?content_id=14647

[Edweird]

1. I wholeheartedly support unions. That being said....

the TSA needs to get their shit together before I would support THEM unionizing. From my own experience they are basically mall security from hell. Let's see a little professionalism, then we'll talk union.

[kenfrequed]

2. Err...

Usually having a union Ensures a certain amount of time is spent in training and retraining as needed. Non-union jobs are usually ones where training is not taken seriously. It is essentially considered a "flexible expense" (like labor) and gutted frequently.

[Echo In Light]

3. We've been subjected to the "fuzzy intel" ruse many times as it's good cover for them

[Igel]

4. I've always found this entire debate disengenuous.

DeMint is bad guy because he's holding up the TSA director's appointment. Why? Because he's anti-union--for requesting confirmation that the current law won't be changed. He's not asking for something to be changed, but for people to commit to not making a specific change. A change that may not happen in any event.

Meanwhile, the other side--it takes two for this mess to occur, right?--is sitting and saying, "Ah, DeMint's holding things up. Of course, we can clear the TSA director's appointment by merely saying, 'We won't change the law.' But we're not going to do that. Are we going to try to change the law? Well, we haven't thought that through, yet, but we don't want to limit our options. DeMint's hold and the TSA director's appointment aren't worth actually taking a stand. After all, we can blame him, so who actually cares about the position itself?"