even unions are a "security threat"

I'm waiting for the ban on 'stealthy, salty hand snacks'.

What is interesting is that while some rule or other is typically misinvoked
to make these kinds of things happen, there's *never* any substantive sense
to be made; i.e., Bush apparently has the authority to ban unions for
'security concerns', but the administration simply will not *adumbrate* with
any sort of specificity conditions under which these concerns are real. I
daresay it's not because they are so arrogant (though they are) but because
there *are* no likely conditions under which unions in these agencies would
be a real problem.

This is a pretty ubiquitous pattern these days: formal invocation of some
legal statute without the slightest substantive elaboration.

It's like the general saying that the al Qaeda prisoners who were
transferred to Cuba, who had to be manacled *and* sedated, were the kinds of
people who would "chew through power cables w/ their bare teeth to down the
plane" -- yeah, that's *clearly* a real concern!

Plus,  the *Nat'l Drug Intelligence Center*?!? Please!

Kendall
--
NYT
January 16, 2002
Bush, Citing Security, Bans Some Unions at Justice Dept.
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Invoking security concerns, President Bush has issued an executive order
barring union representation at United States attorneys' offices and at four
other agencies in the Justice Department.

Although federal law bans strikes by federal employees, White House
officials said Mr. Bush had issued his order out of concern that union
contracts could restrict the ability of workers in the Justice Department to
protect Americans and national security.

The order, issued on Jan. 7, has angered unions, which say the president is
exploiting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 to pursue a campaign against
unions.

The order bars representation for more than 500 workers at the United States
attorneys' offices, the criminal division, the National Drug Intelligence
Center, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review and the National
Central Bureau of Interpol.

The associate director for collective bargaining at the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees, Steven Kreisberg, said
unionization in no way threatened national security.

"We're outraged by this," said Mr. Kreisberg, whose union represents more
than 300 employees in the Justice Department, including secretaries, file
clerks and messengers.

"A lot of these Justice Department workers have been members of unions for
20 years," he said, "and there's never been an allegation of a problem. It's
a very cynical use of the Sept. 11 tragedy by an antiunion administration."

A spokeswoman for the White House, Anne Womack, said previous presidents had
barred other classes of federal workers from unionizing by invoking the
national security exemption in the law that gives federal employees the
right to unionize.

"The legislation," Ms. Womack said, "recognizes that a unionized work force
is not always appropriate for certain agencies or subdivisions of
government, including employees who engage in investigation, intelligence,
counterintelligence or national security."

The order has widened a rift between Mr. Bush and labor. Last week, unions
condemned his naming Eugene Scalia, son of Justice Antonin Scalia of the
Supreme Court, as Labor Department solicitor after failing to win Senate
approval. As a corporate lawyer, Mr. Scalia had enraged unions by saying an
ergonomics regulation from the Clinton administration intended to reduce
workplace injuries was based on "quackery" and "junk science."