AND IN THE SECOND HALF OF HIS SECOND TERM, THE DECIDER BECOMES THE VETOER
According to A.P., President Bush will veto the new "September 11 antiterror bill."
Yes, you've read that correctly. Bush will veto a bill. As you may know, that would be his second veto in 6+ years, after he put the kabbosh on a bill to fund stem cell research last fall. But let's read even deeper, shall we. Bush will veto a bill . . . which contains the words "September 11" and "antiterror" in its name!
I'm shocked. This would be like FDR vetoing a bit of New Deal Legislation, or Lincoln rejecting Congressional authorization to mobilize against the rebelling Confederate States. Because I'm not sure I've ever heard Bush speak about anything without referencing the day on which he failed us, or the all-encompassing "war" he declared upon a quasi-military tactic not long after that day.
So why, oh why, would he decide to veto this bit of legislatin'? Because the bill contains a provision that . . .
That's as far as I'm gonna wade into the labor relations aspect of this stupid story. But I just want to hear the Administration's explanations as to why it's rejecting antiterror legislation. Why it's putting it's own ideology regarding labor & unions over National Security.
Afterall, we're At War, right?
Yes, you've read that correctly. Bush will veto a bill. As you may know, that would be his second veto in 6+ years, after he put the kabbosh on a bill to fund stem cell research last fall. But let's read even deeper, shall we. Bush will veto a bill . . . which contains the words "September 11" and "antiterror" in its name!
I'm shocked. This would be like FDR vetoing a bit of New Deal Legislation, or Lincoln rejecting Congressional authorization to mobilize against the rebelling Confederate States. Because I'm not sure I've ever heard Bush speak about anything without referencing the day on which he failed us, or the all-encompassing "war" he declared upon a quasi-military tactic not long after that day.
So why, oh why, would he decide to veto this bit of legislatin'? Because the bill contains a provision that . . .
permits airport screeners to unionize.That's it. Nothing more. No banning of the Bible. Nothing about forced abortions, or mandatory gay marriage. No oaths of fealty to Osama, or admonitions to pronounce "nuclear" as "nuke-lee-er." Nah, none of that. Just a chance to guarantee collective bargaining rights for the incompetent schmucks that make you take your shoes off at the airport.
That's as far as I'm gonna wade into the labor relations aspect of this stupid story. But I just want to hear the Administration's explanations as to why it's rejecting antiterror legislation. Why it's putting it's own ideology regarding labor & unions over National Security.
Afterall, we're At War, right?
posted by Mike at 8:50 AM
13 Comments:
Jimmy Hoffa's descendents are hampering the fight againt terror? This is completely unacceptable. When will people learn that only huge corporations can be trusted with vanquishing terror?
I wouldn't trust the Ghost of Jimmy either. I'm not really sure what the difference is, in 2007, between big corps and the biggest unions. Both seem to make nice money off workers.
But -- funny me -- I'm one of those guys who says, "Hey, let's let the screeners decide for themselves whether they want to unionize."
But unions are full of communists who don't want to work. Haven't you read the right-wing manifesto?
Well, based on my post-9/11 airport experiences, I'm not so sure there's much "desire to work" among the screeners.
As to the Communist part, I can't say. I'm not familiar with the secret handshake and I'd never do it barefoot even if I knew it.
It's all about priorities, I guess....
Are Republicans so blinded by their anti-union fever that they can't understand the simple idea that if you make the front-line jobs in the war on terror low-paying, low-benefits, and low-security, you're only going to attract the people who can't keep a position at Burger King?
As someone who used to work a fry machine at BK, let me remind them of a simple maxim -- minimum wage means minimum effort.
Maybe that doesn't bother them since they fly on private jets.
Ahhhhh, but OM, here you are mistaken.
Unlike the airlines, which seem to be hemorraging cash, BK and the other members of the food service industry are cash cows. Moo.
I think they want to keep wages higher at BK and McD;s, so the better workers will stay in those far-more essential industries.
I think they want to keep wages higher at BK and McD;s, so the better workers will stay in those far-more essential industries.
Yeah, 'cause in case you guys forgot, those are manufacturing jobs...
You guys forget. Bush fought this battle in 2002. And he won. The Dems fought Homeland Security because it wouldn't guarantee the right of the screeners unionize. Dubya then went out there on the campaign trail and compared Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden. He thinks this is a winner for him.
Furious -
Well, the burgers don't just appear, fully-formed, from the head of ZeusCow. It's man-u-fack-sure-ing, dude. Embrace Teh New Mer'ca.
John -
Good point. I had forgotten that.
Yeah I have to agree with John Royal. It seems like this is just another way for Dubya to make the Democrats seem like no-spine-havin-weasels. Screw the right to unionize. I wonder if screeners know if they can do that.
As for McD's and BK "man-yoo-fack-cher-ing" industries, first off, they don't produce or manufacture any of the products they make. If you read Fast Food Nation (Mike, don't disappoint, I know you've read it), you see that they farm all that stuff out (on the NJ Turnpike there is a factory that makes the FF flavoring, for example) and those employees are treated horribly, which is why we have e.coli in meat and salmonella and stuff like that in fast food (bad practices). I do not take my business to places that expect to have the highest levels of service standards and not treat their employees well because in turn I will not be respected. I go to Whole Foods Market, Starbucks, etc because I believe in their ethos.
ON that rant, I hate W.
Ahhh but we're fighting them over there (and will so forever) so that we don't have to fight them over here. Thus we don't need to protect ourselves over here and therefore there's no need for any further 9/11 commission legislation, especially if it means letting more workers form a union, which every red blooded American knows is just a front for the commies. Oh I know you think that communism's been dead since the collapse of the USSR and China's embrace of capitalism, but it's those socialists down in South America that we have to worry about. Those neo-commies.
See, W makes perfect sense doesn't he. ;)
they don't produce or manufacture any of the products they make.
Oh, I know, Coop. That was that new-fangled eye-urn-ee thing. All the cool kids are doing it.
And good to see you end on the anti-W rant. You had me worried with the "make the Democrats seem like no-spine-havin-weasels. Screw the right to unionize. I wonder if screeners know if they can do that" part.
DED -
we're fighting them over there (and will so forever) so that we don't have to fight them over here.
Doesn't this seem to rationalize the need for screeners as well as the prohibition of their unionizing?
Well, isn't that what W's trying to make happen? Was I that good at channeling him that I actually sounded like him? No wonder I had a headache today.
Post a Comment
<< Home