Democrats are wasting little time taking care of union bosses with major payback.  Remember all the bluster Democrats provided in the Dubai Ports World fiasco when the proclaimed letting a company of a foreign country manage U.S. ports was dangerous? Not to worry, Democrats have a better idea; it’s called convicted felons.

To the rescue, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who had his amendment to the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill, which would prevent serious felons from gaining access to secure areas at American seaports, passed on a 94-2 vote.

Port Security vs. Union Clout

But wait, there is more! The DeMint amendment faced another amendment by Daniel Inouye (D-HI) that would allow future Administrations to delete the DeMint requirements. Both amendments go to a House-Senate conference where an earlier DeMint amendment was gutted at the behest of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union who took credit for killing the legislation, saying in their newsletter last year:

“We have heard rumors that Senator DeMint is particularly angry with the ILWU’s successful lobbying effort to strip his anti-labor provision.”

It’s an outrage that some politicians would rather please labor unions than vote to make Americans safer from future terrorist attacks,” said Senator DeMint.

“I don’t think serious felons should be trusted with secure access at our seaports, but apparently some senators do.”

“We passed legislation in the Senate last year closing this security loophole but it was taken out of the bill when no one was looking. Now it appears Democrats are planning to do it again.”

The Democrats and Unions demonstrate power and clout are more important than American security while at the podium they claim the Bush administration is not doing enough to secure the country.

Air Port Security vs. Union Clout

Democrats are also playing nice with unions while jeopardizing airport security, proposing collective bargaining rights for all 43,000 screeners at the Transportation Security Administration.

The provision would reverse the flexibility given to the agency to perform its critical aviation security mission. Collective bargaining was specifically rejected by Congress following the 9-11 attacks, because Congress understood that airport security needs to be more responsive and adaptive to terrorist threats. In the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, Congress recognized that special flexibility for personnel performing key homeland security roles is critical.

Thirty-six U.S. Senators have now signed a letter to President Bush objecting to a provision in S. 4, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill.

“Forcing collective bargaining on TSA would be a homeland security disaster,” said Senator DeMint.

“TSA employees already have the ability to join a union and they enjoy better working conditions, wages, and benefits than many Americans. Collective bargaining may generate millions of dollars in dues for union bosses, but it will do nothing to make American families safer from a terrorist attack.”

The White House said it “vigorously disagrees with these provisions of the bill, which were not recommended by the 9/11 Commission and would substantially diminish the Secretary’s flexibility to effectively manage the Department.”

Democrats Don’t Get It

Senator freshman Senator, Claire McCaskill (D-MO), offered that airport screeners would still be forced into collective bargaining, though the TSA head would have the right to put union rules aside in case of “emergency” or “imminent threat.”

Senator DeMint asked McCaskill if al Qaeda constituted an imminent threat and if she considered the global war on terror to be such an “emergency”.  McCaskill said no but a hurricane might qualify.

McCaskil further noted that denying union rights because of “world-wide terror” was “specious reasoning.”

Payback for Votes

The House of Representatives passed legislation making it easier for unions to organize workers, a bill known as the Employee Free Choice Act, a.k.a. “check-card”.

The EFCA would let workers choose to join a union once a majority signs cards, a process that would be quicker and less open to employer opposition than a traditional secret-ballot election. Union officials believe it would help reverse labor’s decline. Union membership currently stands at 7.4% of the private-sector work force, down from roughly 20% in the early 1980s.

Kimberly Strassel at Potomac Watch (subscription) writes:

The card check, in contrast, is a lesson in how the party’s liberal base forces Democrats to back political losers. The legislation’s only purpose is to give unions an unfair advantage in organizing, namely by eliminating the secret ballot in union elections and instead allowing thugs to openly bully workers into joining up. Americans understand and despise this, with polls showing 90% of the public thinks card check is a racket.

Hopefully Democrats will pay a huge political price for their “union payback”, we only hope politicians don’t do for American security what unions have done for the American auto industry.