Disrespectful and Disgraceful: The Republican Policy Against First Responders
by Walter Brasch
It isn’t unusual that the Republican party is anti-union.
It isn’t even unusual that the Republican National Committee sent to its base a loaded questionnaire with blatantly leading and highly biased questions.
But it is unusual that the party that claims to ally itself with homeland security has not-so-subtly attacked the firefighters and police who responded to 9/11.
The Republicans want their respondents to answer a resounding “NO” to the following question:
“Do you believe that the federal government should allow the unionization of the Department of Homeland Security employees who serve in positions critical to the safety and security of our nation”?
What the Republicans neither say, nor apparently acknowledge, is that every one of the 60 police who died in 9/11, and every one of the 343 firefighters and paramedics who died in 9/11 were members of unions. Their union membership did not interfere with their responsibilities or their abilities. Nor did union membership interfere with the city’s 37,000 police or 15,000 firefighters and paramedics who either were on alert or responded during the two critical weeks after 9/11. In the U.S., police and staff personnel are represented by several labor organizations, with about 100,000 represented by the International Union of Police Associations and 325,000 represented by the Fraternal Order of Police; more than 295,000 are members of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The Security Police Fire Professionals of America represent more than 30,000 officers at several federal venues, including the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and NASA.
Union membership for emergency management dispatchers and thousands of construction workers didn’t affect their response to 9/11. None but the ignorant claim that union membership affects the ability of IRS, ATF, and treasury agents to do their jobs. Nor does anyone but the most uninformed party hacks believe that unionized federal fire fighters, border, customs, and immigration agents don’t perform their duties because they pay union dues.
Of course, President George W. Bush had no aversion to standing among unionized construction workers, police, and firefighters at the site of the former Twin Towers when he wanted innumerable photo-ops. But, less than a year after 9/11, President Bush said he would veto the bill to create the Department of Homeland Security if it allowed the employees to continue their union memberships or if collective bargaining was permitted for any of the 170,000 employees. It wasn’t an idle threat. More than two-thirds of Congress agreed to sustain his veto.
In January 2004, by executive order, President Bush stripped more than 500 Department of Justice paralegals, secretaries, and clerks of union membership, voided previously signed contracts, unilaterally decertified their unions, and forbid all DoJ workers from collective bargaining rights. Bush’s rationale was that because staff “have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work,” their continued union membership was not “consistent with national security requirements and considerations.” No president before George W. Bush, and no attorney general before John Ashcroft—not during World War I, World War II, or the Korean and Vietnam wars—had even suggested that union membership was a deterrent to effective homeland security. Although Ashcroft’s successor, Alberto Gonzales, also opposed unions, following an extensive internal review, he acknowledged that “the vast majority of [unionized] immigration judges discharge their duties in a manner of which we can all be proud.”
In March 2007, Bush again threatened to veto a Congressional bill that would allow collective bargaining. The Senate had approved, 51–46, to table an amendment that would have banned collective bargaining for the nation’s 45,000 airport screeners. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R–Utah) said allowing collective bargaining rights would be a “gift to al-Qaeda.” Sen. Jim DeMint (R–S.C.), the amendment’s sponsor, claimed it was “outrageous that some politicians want to protect union bosses more than they want to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.” However, DeMint also was honest in one of his reasons to ban collective bargaining. He said allowing collective bargaining in the Department of Homeland Security could lead to labor unions contributing more than $17 million to Democratic campaigns. Once again, President Bush had enough votes to sustain a veto if necessary. Thirty-six Republican senators and 146 House Republicans wrote to the President, “We believe that providing a select group of federal airport security employees with mandated collective bargaining rights could needlessly put the security of our nation at risk.” They never acknowledged that there were no-strike and no work slowdown clauses already in contracts.
Three months later, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Bush’s previous executive order that banned collective bargaining in the Department of Homeland Security was not only unconstitutional but parts of it were “simply bizarre [and] defies common sense.” This was no liberal court—nine of the 13 members were nominated by Republican presidents.
It’s been almost eight years since 9/11, and the Republicans still claim that the nation’s security will somehow be threatened by unionized first responders.
Like any political party, the Republicans can have whatever principles it wants. But to attack first responders because they may place union membership above their sworn duty to protect life and property, even at the risk of their own lives, is not only disrespectful, it is disgraceful.
[Walter M. Brasch is a university professor of journalism, social issues columnist, and the author of 17 books. His current book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available from amazon.com, bn.com, and other stores. The book was a winner in the politics/social issues category of USA Book News awards, and a finalist in the Independent Book Publishing Professionals Group awards. His weekly column was this year's winner in contests sponsored by the Pennsylvania Press Club and the Society of Professional Journalists; his column received honorable mention in competition sponsored by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists. Forthcoming in August is the third edition of Sex and the Single Beer Can: Probing the Media and American Culture. You may contact him at brasch@bloomu.edu or through his website, www.walterbrasch.com]
22 Responses to “Disrespectful and Disgraceful: The Republican Policy Against First Responders”
“More than two thirds of the Republican-led Congress”. Fixed. Other than that tiny omission, a well written piece. Attacking first responders in this instance-patting them on the back while pulling the rug out from under them is shady chicken-hawkishness. Unions are not evil. Bureaucratic like everything else, yes.
Unionize Homeland Security?
The last person who was stupid enough to jump on that bandwagon was Max Cleland – who was rightfully thrown on the trash heap of politics.
Good luck with this.
It's rather tortured logic to paint this as the GOP being against first responders. The first responders are already unionized and I don't see that changing. The DOD secretaries and paralegals were not first responders and I don't see how they are relevant to the issue.
As you point out the GOP is routinely anti-union and this is a reflection of that and nothing more, it's not some slight against police, firemen and paramedics.
Not on that ONE day, no. But more generally, the insistence by unions on the right to strike and on detailed work rules that stop employees from responding flexibly to unusual situations does cause significant problems, especially in critical public safety jobs.
Now, there are ways to limit these problems in critical public safety jobs, such as no-strike contract provisions and contract authority allowing supervisors to suspend work rules in emergency situations. But it is worth remembering that union leaders always oppose these provisions strongly as a threat to their (the leaders, not the members) power.
It is also worth remembering that a major reason that Republicans oppose unions is because the leaders have a pattern of using the dues that they collect from their members in support of the leaders' (not the members') political contributions. So let's not try to use the legitimate public honor extended to first responders to recast unions as some kind of altruistic model of social perfection.
Talk about twisted logic. Why not just say that because Republicans are against unionizing Homeland Security, they want babies to die? Makes as much sense, and is as logically connected as your stupid statement.
Hypocrisy exists within the GOP??? I'm shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brasch and his not-only-extremist but also-long-obsolescent stance (romantic Red) are laughable, again.
“Talk about twisted logic.”
Add innumerable other defects to silliness and pathology such as his — predictable defects, as we see as a matter of routine on this Web site.
“Unionize Homeland Security?”
Militant extremist lefties like Brasch are upset these days, even though ironically the extremism among the Dems is currently flourishing (to almost comically wretched excess, dysfunctionality, and obvious failure in the case of the current health care follies). Activist gays feel slighted by Obama's (predictably exploitive) campaign Promises that he hasn't rushed to meet, and even though Washington and the Dems have stooped to some of the lowest depths imaginable to Americans by taking over Detroit failed-model dinosaurs not only to prop them up, but specifically to pay off the UAW for its earlier Obama votes, other unions and related people are likely resentful as well as impatient to see the Employee Free Choice Act (“card check”) implemented, along with other goodies such as mandatory federal (liberal and activist Democratic) binding arbitration.
Q: “Why not just say that because Republicans are against unionizing Homeland Security, they want babies to die?”
A: Such language would offend the ultra-militant Roe-worshipping pro-abortion uber-absolutist lefties.
DLS said: “…but specifically to pay off the UAW for its earlier Obama votes…”
Where is this evidence? I would like to see this if possible.
Right! We only want kittens, puppies, seals and baby whales to die.
Why is this article on a moderate views site? This belongs on HuffPost or DailyKos…not here…
IMHO of course
Here is an interesting article that helps explain the mental defect most journalists suffer from.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/scalliwag/2…
The author argues that the majority of journalists aren’t the idiots they seem to be and when they lie, in their minds they are doing good.
@@Why is this article on a moderate views site? This belongs on HuffPost or DailyKos…not here…@@
so that Kattenburg seems more moderate in comparison??
“Where is the evidence? I would like to see this if possible.”
Begin with the obvious, Mr. T — the _obvious_. Look at Detroit, and Chrysler in particula; the UAW was in fact given deliberately preferential and unmerited beneficial treatment as such while at the same time there have been bondholders (who held claims against the companies with obviously greater priority and weight) who were deliberately cheated, Chavez-style.
You can read about Chrysler here, among other places (this was a _commonplace_ story at the time).
(I am not the only one to make proper comparisons to Chavez insofar as the Detroit saga is concerned.)
http://thehill.com/david-keene/obama-uaw-theft-…
http://www.uaw.org/solidarity/08/1008/feature03…
http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/06/10/uaw-backs-oba…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087…
http://www.patcleary.com/2009/03/uaw_more.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examin…
Supporters _cannot_ assume this was All Sweetness and Light and an attempt to preserve UAW benefits simply to avoid having PBGC swallow the pensions and promptly require a massive taxpayer bailout (with the learned public demanding reduction in the capped replacement amounts to the UAW people, if not all PBGC beneficiaries, consequently).
Supporters cannot claim, either, that this was merely a “desperate early stimulus measure.” It wasn't.
CO…I think Kattenburg gets a pass because of her large and consistent number of contributions to the site.
“The author argues that the majority of journalists aren’t the idiots they seem to be and when they lie, in their minds they are doing good.”
Much of the blatant, overt liberal bias in the media the denying of which amounts to repudiating the laws of physics, too, say) is due to the political nature of those who are in journalism, as is true in government and academia, the other two notorious sites. “Birds of a feather.”
In addition to that, yes, you are right, there is the “any means to a good end” nature of what can be called “advocacy” or “crusader” liberal ["]journalism["], that what matters most is the “need” to get “the message” (make the desired liberal scoring point) to the audience. There are all kinds of excuses for being slipshod (or dishonest) in addition to getting the “right” (liberal) message to the audience, such as what April Oliver said about charges of US chemical weapon use: “To put in all these little details — maybe this person was a Russian not an American, maybe it was a CIA coverup — you can overload the audience. There are a lot of maybes in this. “
(April Oliver and Peter Arnett, why aren't you campaigning for the “public option” and bashing the Republicans like the rest of your peers?)
“large and consistent number of [very liberal] contributions”
Clarified.
Incidentally, T-Steel, don't neglect the city of Detroit itself (not limited to its failing public schools system). While some in the unions say Obama won't ever let Detroit institutions fail, these people are mistakenly sanguine, I believe; on the other hand, Obama's administration has been so creative and union-friendly with the Detroit automakers that some here seem actually to look forward to an Obama rather than a state-managed receivership (bankruptcy process) of the city. Another taxpayers' “quick rinse”!
Sully Sullenberger — the pilot (as I'm sure everyone knows) who landed his plane in the Hudson River after it was hit by geese — is a member of a union, too. Criticizing unions is one thing, but opposing the unionization of Homeland Security employees on the basis that it would compromise safety if the U.S. were attacked again, without mentioning that all the 9/11 first responders were union members, is dishonest at best and I think it's downright slimy. Or disgraceful and disrespectful. Those are good words, too.
Wow.
Letting liberals write is one thing, but they let these people drive cars and run trains and things.
It seems evident they don’t have the reasoning capacity for that sort of activity.
“Criticizing unions is one thing, but opposing the unionization of Homeland Security employees on the basis that it would compromise safety if the U.S. were attacked again”
… which is the issue of interest here, stripped of extraneous statements you go on to make — and it is a valid basis for opposition, because a valid (bulletproof, in fact) criticism of unions is that they interfere with, they _compromise_, function of the organizations they inhabit (not limited to, but examplified by, among other things, their putting their own interests before those of the organization). Consider Detroit and the UAW (not only excessive pay and benefits, but staffing levels and of course the _work_rules_), or the Detroit police or schools, or the unionized functions long known about in New York City, for example.
I'm not surprised that activists would want to seek unionization for the one are left in life that remains in large part unionized, unlike the Real (and private) World, namely government. If they can't succeed there, how can they have confidence in succeeding elsewhere (back in the private sector)?
We'll see how things go with the union folks. Right now the next item after health care that the Dems want to rush to address in the wrong way is “immigration reform” (pro-immigrant, pro-liberal, pro-Dem).