Your momma smokes Clintons cigars.
You want to make it an insult fest? Is that what you want to do?
From the article you initially responded to me on:
The president says he wants the same authority he enjoys with other agencies to exempt workers from collective bargaining rights when national security is involved.
-- Now that reads to me like Democrats, in return for 50million buckaroos from the unions, are wanting to give new collective bargaining rights to this department.
Are you with me so far feces for brains?
So this new department will be the only one exempt from collective bargaining, which - now here I may be wrong, and will admit it, reads to me as the ability to strike.
-- But you want find it anywhere else, that this is about the ability to strike. But this is a decent summary on the issue:
--
By providing Democrats with both money and troops on the ground, unions serve as the party's single most important political ally, and lawmakers are loath to cross them just weeks before critical elections. Labor ranks near the top of the Democrats' list of contributors, with $50 million in donations in this cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By contrast, unions gave just over $4 million to Republicans during the same period.
The AFL-CIO and other labor organizations have been blitzing members of Congress with e-mails, faxes and phone calls from union members inside the Beltway and well beyond. Bush, meanwhile, recently held a series of meetings at the White House with Republican and Democratic senators in the hope of cementing enough support for his proposal to win approval.
Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), one of Bush's closest allies on the Hill, said the president cannot afford to apply existing labor rules to the new department. Say, for example, the government learned of a possible terrorist threat at a football game in New Orleans, Portman said. While the future secretary of homeland security might want to send to New Orleans 400 specialized agents from different sections of the department and from cities throughout the country, existing collective bargaining and pay requirements might make this impossible.
...
These are the key issues:
• Labor relations. The White House wants to retain the ability to remove some employees from unions for national security reasons, a right exercised by every president since Jimmy Carter. Democrats want to make it more difficult to do that to workers coming into the new department by requiring Bush to ultimately obtain the approval of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
• Hiring. White House officials said it now takes an average of five months to hire a federal employee. They want to be able to bypass certain hiring rules and speed up the process.
• Pay. The White House said the current system rewards nearly all employees regardless of merit. Only 619 federal workers were denied pay increases last year because of their performance, they said. They want the ability to build in performance incentives. They also want to merge the pay systems of the agencies that will make up the new department.
• Transfers. Bush wants the ability to move workers from one part of the department to another to meet rapidly changing needs. Labor leaders said that could open the door to arbitrary transfers on the whim of management.
• Discipline. White House officials said that it often takes 18 months or longer to fire errant employees. Only 434 federal workers were dismissed for poor performance last year. Too many appeals prolong the process, they said.
washingtonpost.com |
