Con Union Se Vive Mejor and Homeland Security

The title of this post is Spanish. Roughly translated, it can mean everyone's life is better with unions.

And it's true: unions are great. They have some problems, of course, but they are essentially the only organized force opposing unbridled corporatism. They help their members by ensuring safe working conditions, living wages, and health insurance. They also help everyone else by pushing workplace safety legislation; union activism is responsible for the 40 hour work week and the weekend. Unions have an added appeal for Democrats, because they are a great way to organize supporters. Republicans use churches in roughly the same way, but unions lately have declined while churches have not.

That's why in 2002, when the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was being debated, Democrats tried to make sure DHS employees could unionize. This was more than just a partisan self-interest thing - it would have improved safety. Take the example of baggage screeners at airports. A union could make sure they are treated well and paid well, thereby minimizing turnover and dissatisfaction. It could make sure working conditions are productive by negotiating how much overtime screeners work, thus preserving their alertness.

Unfortunately, Democrats seemed to be caught completely off guard when Republicans claimed that the terrorists would win if we limited the flexibility of the new Department in managing its personnel. So, after Bush initially opposed the very plan of creating a DHS, Republicans successfully used the issue to depict Democrats as weak on national security. This was a major cause of the Republican routs in the 2002 midterms.

But recently there has been talk of another shot at unionizing the DHS, and I heartily commend Democrats for taking the issue up again. Republicans appear to be ready to play the same card, as Bush is expected to veto any legislation that includes anything pro-union. If Democrats go through with it, this will force Bush to be the one who obstructs a vital security bill for partisan reasons.

Democrats need to force Bush to get out his veto pen on this issue. But Democrats also have to be sure they help the media and the public make the connection between the danger to our shared security and Bush's intransigence. If they bring the legislation up, they must have that plan in place.

Incidentally, the proposal is not even particularly strong. To wit, it will empower a union to negotiate workplace conditions but not salaries. I don't really see why they should bother in such a watered-down way, since Bush & Co. hate unions more than anything. They are so reactionary in their opposition to any form of unionism that the measure won't get past his desk no matter what it looks like.

Better to just propose that the TSA union be fully empowered. In for a dime, in for a dollar, as they say. It could be argued that since the pro-union project here is doomed from the start, the whole project is just about leverage. And you get more leverage out of saying that the President blew it when you tried to meet him halfway than when you presented him with a partisan plan.

If this is indeed the rationale, then it is a prime example of the misguided thinking that helped mire the Democrats in futility for so long. This thinking is largely a product of the wing of the party that fetishizes centrism, thereby ignoring the basic principles of negotiating. Every carpet seller in the bazaar knows that you offer higher than you will settle for so that you can let the other guy talk you down. You end up with what you really wanted, and the other guy gets to think he got a bargain.

Granted, it gets a little tricky when applying this to Bush, since he is so obviously irrational. But in theory, if you went to him with a proposal for full unionization, even though you would be willing to settle for a union that can only negotiate workplace conditions, he could talk you down to that level. You could have your union, and he could tell his corporate overlords that he had really gotten a good deal out of you. Democrats would be well advised to get into the habit of playing smarter in this way. In the meantime, it's a step forward that they are proactively pushing this again.