Not That It Does Max Cleland Much Good Now

Remember back in 2002, when Democrats like Senator Lieberman proposed legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security, and Bush opposed the legislation, saying it would create a needless bureaucracy? And then Enron and other scandals hit, followed by the Minneapolis FBI whistle-blower, Colleen Rowley, and Bush began to take a hit in the polls? So, on the very day Rowley was scheduled to testify before Congress, Bush did a, dare we say?, flip-flop and announced that he was for the Homeland Security Department that he had been against.

But there was a catch, designed by Karl Rove to snare unsuspecting Democrats. A poison pill was placed in the legislation, preventing Homeland Security employees from having the same organizing protections as other employees, in the name of "national security" and "flexibility." Many Senate Democrats, who supported a Homeland Security Department from the beginning, refused to support this Republican version because they felt that it destroyed the federally protected rights of these employees to organize and they were clobbered in the 2002 elections. (The infamous Max Cleland ad in Georgia was based upon this issue).

So I was intrigued by this little-commented upon nugget in the news:

A federal judge has ruled against the Department of Homeland Security for a
second time in a case brought by unions that contend that proposed workplace
rules would gut their collective bargaining rights.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer blocked the rules in August,
saying the department's plan failed to provide for binding contracts. The
department asked the judge to modify the injunction and let it move ahead with
implementation of a new labor-management system.
Collyer ruled last week that
the department's proposed remedy fell short because it would still allow the
department to disavow or ignore negotiated contracts by claiming that they would
interfere with the agency's mission.

The judge faulted the department for invoking "the familiar mantra that
this degree of 'flexibility' is needed to protect homeland security and combat
terrorism." Congress endorsed more flexible rules at the department, she said,
"but not at the expense of ensuring that employees could engage in collective
bargaining."

Colleen M. Kelley , president of the National Treasury Employees Union,
called the judge's opinion "a very significant win for all Homeland Security
employees." NTEU lawyer Elaine Kaplan said the ruling showed that "there is no
inconsistency between ensuring collective bargaining rights and protecting
homeland security."

Larry Orluskie , a department spokesman, said the administration will study
the decision and "consider next steps." The government has 60 days to file an
appeal.

So it looks like Democrats like Cleland were right on principle but wrong on the politics. It's not a reason to compare someone who gave up three limbs for his country to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
- posted by Joshua @ 12:46 PM