WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — Today was National Action Day for federal employee unions. The event mobilized thousands of members from all 50 states to bombard senators with faxes, calls and e-mail messages to support provisions to protect workers in the proposed Homeland Security Department.þþBut in fact, today was just marginally different from any day in the last four weeks, a period when labor has lobbied in an extraordinary day-and-night campaign to keep the Bush administration from using national security arguments to cut job security provisions in the department.þþA battalion of more than 30 lobbyists has employed telephones and shoe leather to rein in wavering Democrats and lure persuadable Republicans to their side. Local and state labor directors, aided by the national A.F.L.-C.I.O. office, have called senators from their states to make the case that the domestic security effort is a precursor to a national union-busting drive.þþÿFor President Bush, it's his way or the highway,ÿ said Bobby L. Harnage Sr., national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. ÿI'm not used to crumbling to those kinds of demands. He's got a fight on his hands.ÿþþOn Tuesday, labor and the Democrats won a significant victory. They persuaded Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican senator from Rhode Island, to join Democrats and form a majority to limit Mr. Bush's ability to reduce job protections. þþIf unions object to reducing Civil Service protections, the accord by Mr. Chafee and the Democrats proposes that a presidentially appointed panel would arbitrate the dispute.þþThe White House reiterated today that such a move was unacceptable and would be vetoed if passed. þþAs soon as the Democrats gained a majority for the plan, Republicans announced that they were prepared to talk for days or weeks to prevent the Senate from voting on the issue.þþDemocrats accused them of filibustering the homeland security bill and delaying creation of the department. Republicans said they would rather have no department than one in which the president does not have greater control over employees.þþÿIf we're not going to do it right,ÿ the Republican leader, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, said, ÿif we're not going to make it possible to manage this department, if the president is going to lose authority, let alone the need to gain authority, then we shouldn't do it. And let the American people decide, you know, who is to blame for that.ÿþþNeither labor nor the Democrats want to be faulted for failing to create a department that many of them say they believe is necessary to fight terrorism. To put the onus on the Republicans for the delay, Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, plans to ask for a vote to cut off debate on the bill this week. þþAssuming that Republicans muster the 40 votes necessary to defeat the motion and keep their speeches continuing, to prevent a vote, Democrats will then be able to accuse them of talking the bill to death. þþTo keep from losing their one-vote majority on the issue, public employee unions spent today calling the offices of virtually every senator. þþThe American Federation of Government Employees, working with the National Treasury Employees Union, focused on several Republicans, including Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, George V. Voinovich of Ohio and John W. Warner of Virginia, who might consider the pact brokered by Mr. Chafee and two Democrats, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and John B. Breaux of Louisiana.þþThe federation prepared a script for members to use when calling their senators to urge them to vote for the accord proposed by Mr. Chafee and to oppose the Republican plan. It tells members at the top, ÿYour call will be more effective if you do not identify yourself as an A.F.G.E. member or federal employee.ÿþþThere was little need to lobby many mainstream Democrats, who rely on union members for campaign funds and election workers. Many reacted instinctively this year when Mr. Bush announced that he wanted to change work rules in the proposed department to make it more responsive. þþÿI hope we're going to start to be as hard on terrorists as we are on these union members,ÿ a reliable labor supporter, Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, said on the Senate floor. ÿIt's been over one year, and we haven't found bin Laden, but we're going to nitpick over whether you have a union or not?ÿþþLabor lobbyists were eager to remind senators of both parties that the unions believed that the lawmakers had compromised significantly by agreeing to the proposal by Mr. Breaux, Mr. Chafee and Mr. Nelson. þþA lobbyist noted that the Federal Service Impasse Panel, which would mediate Civil Service disputes, is stocked with administration appointees, after Mr. Bush had fired all the Clinton appointees this year. The chairman of the panel is Becky Norton Dunlap, vice president of the Heritage Foundation and former deputy assistant for personnel for President Ronald Reagan.þþRepublicans, however, said the proposal was not a compromise at all, but rather a concession to labor's political interests.þþÿUnder this amendment,ÿ the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said, ÿthe president would have less national security authority in the Department of Homeland Security than he has in every other department or agency of the federal government today. This amendment would accomplish this rollback by dramatically restricting the president's existing authority.ÿþþMr. Fleischer was referring to the part of Mr. Chafee's plan that would limit the president's ability to decertify collective bargaining contracts just for intelligence and antiterrorism employees and just for people with significantly changed roles.þþSeveral Republicans accused the Democrats of being more beholden to ÿbig labor bossesÿ than national security. þþOne of those ÿbossesÿ responded in kind.þþÿThis president often acts like a spoiled brat,ÿ said Mr. Harnage of the federation of government employees. ÿIf he can't play the game his way, he'll just take his marbles and go home, which is why there may not be a Homeland Security Department.ÿþþ
Source: NY Times
