Spring Break
Dems only protect own interests
Aanston Frazier
Issue date: 3/7/07 Section: Editorials
- Page 1 of 1
Y esterday the Democrats in the Senate showed once again they are concerned more with their big labor donors than with the security of the United States. In a 51-46 party-line vote Tuesday, Democrats defeated an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. to strip union rights from the Democrats' anti-terrorism bill.
What this means is that Democrats voted to allow Transportation Security Administration workers, who already do a bottom-rate job at airport security, the right to unionize and collectively bargain.
That's just what we need; incompetent screeners, who wouldn't know a bomb if it was labeled in front of them, given the right to demand higher pay and even further protections from being removed from the job for not doing their job.
Assuming this bill makes it into law, we can expect to see the same great efficiency and competency we've come to expect from the Department of Motor Vehicles replicated with the airport security workers. Why do I get the feeling that somewhere, some terrorist is happy with this?
Even the chief of the TSA, Kip Hawley, knows this is a bad idea, telling a Senate panel on Monday, "Going backwards to a system that adds bargaining, barriers and bureaucracy to an agency on whom travelers depend for their security can be characterized as many things, but it does not improve security."
Union backers try to paint this with the usual workers' rights nonsense, but the reality is that unionization tends to have a particular habit of destroying efficiency and rewarding the worst workers. Our school systems come to mind here.
Democrats would rather pander to their union donors than ensure that our nation is protected from future attacks. Allowing the unionization of airport security workers makes it difficult to move them around to respond to threat conditions and makes it nearly impossible to fire someone who hasn't a clue as to how to do his or her job.
This won't make us safer. It will make us more susceptible to potential attacks as a new layer of bureaucracy will see to it that the lowest common denominator is screening passengers.
Democrats aren't concerned with terrorism. They talk as if they are, but time and time again - whether its funding for Iraq, pursuing tough stances with terrorist states, or this current bill - Democrats' actions show they are more concerned with their far left constituents than with the security of the U.S. Actions speak louder than words.
Fortunately for all of us, President George W. Bush threatened to veto any bill that allowed for airport screeners to unionize. Hopefully he follows through with this threat, or we all will be made worse off by liberal pandering to the far left.
- Aanston Frazier, a former Marine Corps intelligence analyst, is a sophomore economics and political science major and a Mirror columnist.
What this means is that Democrats voted to allow Transportation Security Administration workers, who already do a bottom-rate job at airport security, the right to unionize and collectively bargain.
That's just what we need; incompetent screeners, who wouldn't know a bomb if it was labeled in front of them, given the right to demand higher pay and even further protections from being removed from the job for not doing their job.
Assuming this bill makes it into law, we can expect to see the same great efficiency and competency we've come to expect from the Department of Motor Vehicles replicated with the airport security workers. Why do I get the feeling that somewhere, some terrorist is happy with this?
Even the chief of the TSA, Kip Hawley, knows this is a bad idea, telling a Senate panel on Monday, "Going backwards to a system that adds bargaining, barriers and bureaucracy to an agency on whom travelers depend for their security can be characterized as many things, but it does not improve security."
Union backers try to paint this with the usual workers' rights nonsense, but the reality is that unionization tends to have a particular habit of destroying efficiency and rewarding the worst workers. Our school systems come to mind here.
Democrats would rather pander to their union donors than ensure that our nation is protected from future attacks. Allowing the unionization of airport security workers makes it difficult to move them around to respond to threat conditions and makes it nearly impossible to fire someone who hasn't a clue as to how to do his or her job.
This won't make us safer. It will make us more susceptible to potential attacks as a new layer of bureaucracy will see to it that the lowest common denominator is screening passengers.
Democrats aren't concerned with terrorism. They talk as if they are, but time and time again - whether its funding for Iraq, pursuing tough stances with terrorist states, or this current bill - Democrats' actions show they are more concerned with their far left constituents than with the security of the U.S. Actions speak louder than words.
Fortunately for all of us, President George W. Bush threatened to veto any bill that allowed for airport screeners to unionize. Hopefully he follows through with this threat, or we all will be made worse off by liberal pandering to the far left.
- Aanston Frazier, a former Marine Corps intelligence analyst, is a sophomore economics and political science major and a Mirror columnist.
Be the first to comment on this story