Re: even unions are a "security threat"

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Kendall Clark wrote:

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

Bomb Pretzelstan!

[snip]
> 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.

"Sorry, boss, contract provision 345.A delta R specifically says that
I can't torture clearly innocent, random araby looking persons without:

	1) A signed work order initialed by the prez,
	2) A fully qualified, union spittle wiper, equipment with
	   5 fresh laundered, to spec towels,
	3) Ergnomatic grips for the hot irons,
	4) A union barber to remove unsightly hair from the victim

I wish I could help you...."

Or how about,

"President Bush issued an order suspending certain federal employee's
civil rights, citing security concerns. 'Those pesky rights interfere with
certain employee's ability to protect the American People.'"

Sheesh!

> 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."

This left me speechless with rage. I presume, of course, he doesn't offer
an *alternative*. That is, he wants to pretend the injuries don't happen
due to, say, evil keyboards. *Nasty*.

Cheers,
Bijan.