George Bush: Union buster.

January 24, 2002 10:06 PM

George Bush: Union buster. 500 federal employees (including US Attorneys' offices, Interpol's U.S. branch, the Criminal Division, the National Drug Intelligence Center, and the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review) fired because the presence of unionized workers would not be "consistent with national security requirements and considerations." [via bb]
posted by mathowie (34 comments total)

Approval Rating : - 82%
posted by adnanbwp at 10:09 PM on January 24, 2002

Everyone knows that unions are filled with Communist Al-Qaeda sympathizers. Jimmy Hoffa's probably hiding out in a cave with Osama right now.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:18 PM on January 24, 2002

It's sad that this one slipped under the radar. Whether you are pro-union or not, it's just plain wrong to use the "national security" as an excuse to bust unions. You know that some Bushie lawyer was flipping through the US code and stumbled across 5 USC 7103. I can almost see the evil grin spreading across his face...

The press release itself is also telling. The only time you put out a press release that looks like this is if you are really hoping that no one is going to bother to figure out what it means, and thus, what an evil bastard you really are...
posted by boltman at 10:37 PM on January 24, 2002

sorry about that second link. Try this.
posted by boltman at 10:41 PM on January 24, 2002

Holy shit — Everybody who said oppurtunists were going to use 9.11 for their dastardly ends were correct.

“The executive order was issued Monday. The following day, the Justice Department notified the AFSCME that one of its bargaining units "ceases to exist" and that another local "no longer represents the non-professional employees of the Criminal Division."

On Wednesday, a memo informed affected workers that "the previously signed collective bargaining agreement between the union and the office is no longer in effect."”

So not only did they get fired because of their union membership, the organization that's supposed to represent them was closed down. In a recession! These people are looking for work in a recession now!
posted by raaka at 10:45 PM on January 24, 2002

Dear W, please fire the rest of NDIC.
posted by mlinksva at 11:45 PM on January 24, 2002

To me, this is an outrage. Let me say upfront that I have been a union member for 24 years, and my personal loyalties are rather set. I'm an electrician and choose to pursue that occupation even though I possess a college degree. (I'm better able to provide for my family that way) I have in many instances worked in places that were swamped in security, have gone through many clearances, and been obliged to wait outside the door while blankets were draped over the computers at a military installation before I could enter the room in order to go into the ceiling space and install wiring that ultimately enhanced the abilities of said computers.

I'm well aware that this case is relatively small, and may be consequently seen as unimportant by many. But I must opine that the days when Collective Bargaing and being Red are seen as one and the same should be long behind us. We hardhats and the rest of the union members are just as patriotic as anybody else who appreciates their citizenship. Granted, the analogy is a bit timeworn and tired, but the modern conception is not really much of a leap.

Big business is not Daddy Warbucks,nor is any government, and to quote an early American, "If we do not hang together, we will surely hang separately"

Yes, it seems that all Republican administrations wish to destroy the political leverage of organised labor, and I've yet to see a labor organisation that lived up it's promises.

Labor does have a place in the history of the building this nation, and the exclusion of our members merely because of our awareness of our collective rights in spite of numerous attempts to disenfranchise those who may have the temerity to assert them in the face of the corporate elite.
posted by scottymac at 12:09 AM on January 25, 2002

Feel free to flame away, you won't hurt my feelings.
posted by scottymac at 12:10 AM on January 25, 2002

Can we dial this back a notch? The FPP says "fired", which word was taken from Boing Boing -- but the link to which both refer does not refer to firings or terminations. As far as I can tell this merely changes the status of the individuals from unionized to non-unionized, without affecting their employment.

If someone has a source for the "fired" charges, that's another thing, but none of the links presented here support that interpretation.

For perspective: these 500 persons represent 0.025% of the entire Federal workforce excluding the armed forces and postal service, of which approximately 2/3 are unionized. Also, do note that the legal justification is right there in the law.
posted by dhartung at 4:36 AM on January 25, 2002

"As far as I can tell this merely changes the status of the individuals from unionized to non-unionized, without affecting their employment."

But what if they insist on being unionised?

I think the point here is that these people are being deprived of their right to choose to be a unionist. If they stand by their beliefs, they will be sacked. What right has the government to tell them "You are no longer in the union" - or, if I understand correctly, to simply close down the body representing them?

"Also, do note that the legal justification is right there in the law."

Big deal. Where's the moral justification? An unjust law is no law at all.
posted by robcorr at 4:55 AM on January 25, 2002

worst. president. ever.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:24 AM on January 25, 2002

[An unjust law is no law at all.]

An unjust law is still a law. Fortunately we don't get to pick and choose what laws we follow because of what we think of their morality. If you don't like it, then lead the charge to get it changed.
posted by revbrian at 6:35 AM on January 25, 2002

What, worse than Nixon, mcsweetie? Worse than Reagan? Worse than Millard Fillmore?!
posted by darukaru at 6:40 AM on January 25, 2002

Our 9-11 heroes were all UNION members. Would Bush and Ashcroft prefer we didn't notice that? Just can't trust that "Made in the U.S.A." union label because it doesn't benefit multinational corporate donors. Yet another argument for campaign finance reform.
posted by nofundy at 6:52 AM on January 25, 2002

Unions are the employment equivalent of vestigial legs on whales. A union can't do anything that someone can't do in the court system through EEOC regs or other labor laws. Unions, while useful and necessary in the past, now serve only to limit the ability of modern U.S. companies to adapt to changing market conditions. Note how well most people in the U.S. get along without them, while countries with more unionized labor (e.g. France, Germany) consistently find themselves facing strikes over just about everything. The only places that need unions are countries where conditions are dangerous for workers and there are no other means of obtaining relief from said conditions.
posted by CRS at 7:26 AM on January 25, 2002

I worked in a union setting at Lucent. I found they were most helpful in helping the less skilled, less motivated co-workers from getting their asses fired and also had the added benefit of keeping the high performers from being promoted. I mean, you don't wanna hurt the lessers' feelings.
posted by Mick at 7:38 AM on January 25, 2002

Before simply concluding that 9/11 was used for completely nefarious ends to kill unions, perhaps consider that there may well be some justification. It depends upon the union, depends on the relationship between union and non-union workers, and other variables. What unions do do is quite often create an antagonistic, "us vs. them" relationship between employer/employee. In the case of highly sensitive information, this may not exactly be desireable.

Thing is, if Bush was going to use 9/11 as the justification to go union-busting on general principles, he sure as hell would have done it to far more than 500 people. Maybe the conspiracy being being alledged by the article - that this is some huge issue that (it is implied) was buried by the press - is rather idiotic. Maybe the press actually assessed it to be a minor story. Maybe it actually is a minor story.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:28 AM on January 25, 2002

"What unions do do is quite often create an antagonistic, "us vs. them" relationship between employer/employee"

Beg pardon. What companies do is quite often create an antagonistic "us vs. them" relationship between employer/employee. Now, that's a much more accurate characterization of the relationship.

Union busting by fiat is NEVER a minor story, that is, unless your media boss opposes unions and licks Dubya's boots.
posted by nofundy at 9:02 AM on January 25, 2002

if there is an 'us verses them' attitude amongst unions, then it, likely as not, exists in the management as well.
unions are an important part of the working environment, as corporations gain more 'rights' and have the fiscal backing to support any legal battle against an employee the employees need to have someone to back them.
posted by asok at 9:10 AM on January 25, 2002

" ...Beg pardon. What companies do is quite often create an antagonistic "us vs. them" relationship between employer/employee. Now, that's a much more accurate characterization of the relationship..."

No, it isn't more accurate. I've never been forced to join a company. I have been forced to join a union, who held my employment by the company hostage to their demands. And I had to see my union dues support candidates and positions I deeply disagreed with.

' ... Union busting by fiat is NEVER a minor story, that is, unless your media boss opposes unions and licks Dubya's boots ..."

"Minor" story means "not many people will give a damn". "Media bosses" want to make money. If they think the public will be interested in a story, they carry it. Don't blame "media bosses" bucko, blame the public.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:05 AM on January 25, 2002

revbrian said:

An unjust law is still a law...If you don't like it, then lead the charge to get it changed.

Which reminds me of:

You can't change the world
But you can change the facts
And when you change the facts
You change points of view
And when you change points of view
You can change a vote
And when you change a vote
You can change the world.

(Yeah yeah, so I didn't write it. That doesn't mean it isn't something to consider.)
posted by verso at 10:48 AM on January 25, 2002

MM: I have been forced to join a union, who held my employment by the company hostage to their demands. And I had to see my union dues support candidates and positions I deeply disagreed with.

To take a page from your own laizze-faire book, no one made you join a union. Don't like unions? Then just get a non-union job, you lazy, pinko, pablum- puking, whiny liberal. It's that easy- isn't it? Isn't it?

CRS: Unions are the employment equivalent of vestigial legs on whales. A union can't do anything that someone can't do in the court system through EEOC regs or other labor laws.

Gosh, where to begin? Okay, how about the fact that before labor unions, those EEOC regs and labor laws didn't freakin' exist. Before unions, those big-hearted employers had zero ethical or moral qualms about making 12-year-old girls work in garment sweatshops for 14-hour days. And lest you feel they are vestigial, without the continued presence of unions our existing rights as employees will and do erode. Ever notice how many people are putting in 50-60 hour work weeks out of fear they'll lose their job, while at the same time their best friend can't find work in the recession because who needs to hire 3 people at the legal 40 hours a week when 2 will do overtime duty- often without overtime pay or compensation- out of fear for their own security? Gee, what a worker's paradise... unions still help people put 2 and 2 together and realize their job security can come by standing with, not against, their fellow employee. After all, the CEO of a company is already a union- a union of 1.

Or does the Enron debacle still not get through your head just in what high regard business owners hold the working men and women of this country?

CRS: Note how well most people in the U.S. get along without them, while countries with more unionized labor (e.g. France, Germany) consistently find themselves facing strikes over just about everything.

Why do libertarian/conservative types always drag out the scary "Socialized European Country" image? I guess that relies on US workers getting too little vacation time to ever actually visit these countries and dispel that myth. While the US workforce is ever increasingly reliant on McJobs with low pay, no benefits, and no job security (hm- maybe we aren't getting along so well without them), those awful 'unionized labor' countries get 6-8 weeks paid vacation every year- among other benefits- yet somehow they haven't descended into tribal warfare and primitivism. "Consistently... facing strikes", my ass.

MM: "Media bosses" want to make money. If they think the public will be interested in a story, they carry it. Don't blame "media bosses" bucko, blame the public.

Right, because the media has zero influence in shaping public opinion, and never gives the public the information the media thinks the public needs or should want.
And do tell: just how, exactly, do you propose the public show market demand to have news reported they don't know exists because it was never reported? I can't be the only one who is finding out about this executive order for the first and only time here at MeFi. Have you never heard the phrase "Manufacturing Consent"?
posted by hincandenza at 10:55 AM on January 25, 2002

" ... To take a page from your own laizze-faire book, no one made you join a union. Don't like unions? Then just get a non-union job, you lazy, pinko, pablum- puking, whiny liberal. It's that easy- isn't it? Isn't it? ..."

There is a difference between joining a company and joining a union. The man that hired me, that created the company, created the company, and hired me to add value to it. The union created nothing ... contributed nothing, did nothing other than to enforce dues on the creator's employees like some weird mobster collecting protection money.

Oh, by the way, I did take a page out of my own book - not by turning down the job to get a non-union one, but rather by taking a page out of your book ... getting a group of people together, "organizing", and ultimately getting the union tossed out.
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:17 PM on January 25, 2002

Hey good call dan, they weren't fired. They should be refunded their union dues at least.

Midas: as long as corporations are around to consolidate and protect their interests, unions should be around to consolidate and protect the worker's interest. Unions and corporations should also have the same legal guarentees, but they don't. Reform Taft-Hartley.
posted by raaka at 1:44 PM on January 25, 2002

" ... Midas: as long as corporations are around to consolidate and protect their interests, unions should be around to consolidate and protect the worker's interest ...".

Ahhh ... yes. But who should have the choice? How is it just for a union to "protect" me, and "consolidate my interests", when I not only don't want, but vehemently reject their "protection", and viewed them as actually using my money to actively oppose my interests.

Companies and unions aren't equals. Companies create jobs. Unions control the jobs that companies create, and control workers by controlling those jobs. Some see this middleman inserted into the equation as positive. I did not.

Actually, I'm curious ... of those that do support unions, how many believe that people not desiring to join, and definately not wanting their dues spent on candidates that they personally hate ... should be able opt out. If unions really do add that much value, are that necessary, and so effectively support the interests of "workers" ... shouldn't joining be voluntary?
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:56 PM on January 25, 2002

MM: How is it just for a union to "protect" me, and "consolidate my interests", when I not only don't want, but vehemently reject their "protection", and viewed them as actually using my money to actively oppose my interests.

Using that same reasoning, I assume you'd support those pacifists who refuse to pay a portion of their taxes since it would go to fund the Department of Defense/ military-industrial complex that they "not only don't want, but vehemently reject their 'protection', and [view] them as actually using their money to actively oppose their interests"?
What about people who hate the current candidates and politicians in office- can they demand to not pay taxes since they don't like the current form of democracy? Can they exercise a personal secession from the Union that is these United States (well, of course they can- renounce your citizenship and leave the country)?

How far would you take this before you realize that sometimes people do things that are for your own good, even if you don't realize it? The union position, then and now, gave you and the rest of the middle class plebes an actual leg to stand on so that now, at the start of a new millenia, you have the luxury of whining about the "evil of unions" instead of whining about the literal or figurative shackles you'd wear as slave, servant, or sharecropper. Spend a few months in a sweatshop making K-Mart clothes before you tell me of the theoretical perfection of a marketplace unfettered by those pesky and tyrannical unions.

I think joining unions should be voluntary- rather, it is voluntary in general- but I also think the idea of "union shops" isn't a bad one. As I noted before, the management of a company is already a perfect union- a union of one, acting as one mind and one will. This is made easier because it happens to be one person or a very small group of people, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that the management is a union acting in concert to pursue common goals. Employees seeking to do the same can only be successful with a solidified unified front presented to the management that is likewise solidified- and to that end unions must be, well, united.
posted by hincandenza at 3:28 PM on January 25, 2002

Union members are pretty much like folks who live in trailer homes. They were screwed before the tornado arrived.
posted by Real9 at 4:25 PM on January 25, 2002

" ... Using that same reasoning, I assume you'd support those pacifists who refuse to pay a portion of their taxes What about people who hate the current candidates and politicians in office ...".

Very interesting that both examples you use are about government, not the private sector. However (by the way) I'd love it if taxpayers themselves could determine what percentage of the taxes they paid went to each government program.

" ... How far would you take this before you realize that sometimes people do things that are for your own good, even if you don't realize it? "

Aahhh ... now we come to it - though I frankly didn't expect this to be said in such blunt terms. The utter arrogance of this attitude, the fundamental belief that somehow union leaders believe that they know better than me what is in my own "best interest" ... is something I always have, and always will, outright reject.

I am fully confident in my own skills and qualifications. I need no protection from a union leader - who lives off my wages, and directs my dues towards political candidates I oppose. Any employer that does not think the value I add to his/her company is more than worth the salary I receive doesn't need to fire me - s/he only needs to mention it and I'll voluntarily be gone that day.

" ... The union position, then and now, gave you and the rest of the middle class plebes an actual leg to stand on so that now, at the start of a new millenia, you have the luxury of whining about the "evil of unions" instead of whining about the literal or figurative shackles you'd wear as slave, servant, or sharecropper ...".

This might be relevent if it was 1902 and not 2002. And by the way, I'm doing rather better than most "middle class plebes". Even when I was younger and did wage labor, however, I've never seen myself as pursuing goals at odds with the companies I've worked for.

I don't need to "whine" about unions - they are a shadow of their former selves, and most of us are better off because of it. I have no problem if people want to unionize. I will never, however, accpt a union's right to force me to pay dues to it for the priviledge of working in a company the union did not create - I consider that legalized extortion. The one time a union did try to say it knew better than me what my own interests were - it got me mad enough to take considerable pains to get it banished from the company.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:34 PM on January 25, 2002

Unions are essential. Even if you aren't in a union you are still directly benefiting from the work of unions. Most people have heard the witty argument about the weekend and the 8 hour day. These of course are actually hard won benefits that you would not have had workers not organized together to demand them. Even today wages, health insurance, safety and environmental protections all have to be fought for. As long as there is capitalism there must be a union to serve as a countervaling force to protect people against the drive for greater return on investment at the expense of anything possible. I really believe that anti-union people just don't get it, don't have a historical perspective, or haven't had the personal experience of falling victim to a corporate whim.
posted by chrismc at 11:18 PM on January 25, 2002

"The union created nothing ... contributed nothing, did nothing.."

Holy shit. Is there any point talking to someone like this?

Unions have contributed immensely to society. If you can't see this, you'd better send your kids to the coalmines immediately.
posted by robcorr at 1:51 AM on January 26, 2002

" ... I really believe that anti-union people just don't get it, don't have a historical perspective, or haven't had the personal experience of falling victim to a corporate whim ..."

I have a fairly significant historical perspective. I do believe that at one time unions were a positive force. I believe what they often now are counterproductive, and easily as corrupt and self-serving as the worst of the corporations they claim to "protect" workers from.

" ... Unions have contributed immensely to society. If you can't see this, you'd better send your kids to the coalmines immediately ..."

Once again, I agree with the "have" - i.e., the past tense. I do not believe, however, that because they gave people the "8 hour week and the weekend" 50 years ago that they should be able to demand dues from me today. You could get rid of every remaining union in America and no one's kids would be working in coal mines.

As I said, I have no problem at all with unions, or people that want to join unions voluntarily. You may well see great value in them - fine for you. I don't see value in them, and do not need them to protect me. I don't believe I have the right to tell any corporation that they owe me anything - anyone I work for, from an individual to a company of 50,000, is something I honor for creating value. I don't want to make more than they want to pay me, nor demand rights. If I don't accept the terms they offer, I'll work elsewhere.

In short - those that believe they need a union to get whatever "rights" they believe they deserve, more power to you. Organize. But if a union tells me that I need it, that it will give me more value than the cost of the dues I need to pay to support it, then I'll say no. If it then says that it knows better than I what is good for me, and that it demands that I pay it to "protect" me - well, this is another throwback to a past time ... it's called a protection racket, and it is illegal when the mob tries it. And if any union tries to do that to me - I will go as far out of my way as I need to destroy it's presence in the business it thinks it has the right to control.
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:25 PM on January 26, 2002

the reason that union membership is mandatory in a union shop is because of the "free rider" problem. Whether or not you approve of what the union does, you tangebly benefit from the union in the form of higher pay, greater job security, better benefits, etc. In fact, the whole conservative critisism of unions is that they artifically raise the price of labor beyond its true market value. So, from the union's perspective, why should you get those benefits if you don't contribute dues? I suppose you could voluntarily accept lower wages and agree to be the first employee laid-off in the event of a downturn and then keep your union dues, but unless you're willing to do that, you have a moral resposibility to pay up, or find another job.
posted by boltman at 3:12 PM on January 26, 2002

you have a moral resposibility to pay up, or find another job.
I think you have a moral responsibility not to tell other people what their moral responsibilities are. I would be very willing to accept your caveats assuming your union would not object to my being fairly evaluated by the comapany I work for, including not being the first to be laid off if the company finds me valuable, or worthy of higher pay.
posted by thirteen at 9:59 AM on January 27, 2002

the reason that union membership is mandatory in a union shop is because of the "free rider" problem.

So if some Peruvian pan flute player sets up shop in the street, playing music (or generating noise, whatever your point of view is), he has the right to force people to pay to eliminate a "free rider problem"? Nice approach.
posted by dagny at 5:16 AM on January 29, 2002