In his best-selling book
A National Party No More, maverick Democratic Sen. Zell Miller
(Ga.) describes his evolution from a loyal Southern Democrat to a
renegade one. As with most political conversions, Miller's involved
an event that he describes as "the straw that broke this old
camel's back." That straw was the decision of Senate Democrats
before the 2002 elections to insist that the new Department of
Homeland Security extend all sorts of union-backed rules and
protections to its employees, even when these rules clashed
directly with America's security needs.
As the debate unfolded, Miller found himself in full agreement with
the mainstream Republican position hat "the President [must have]
the flexibility to respond to terrorism on a moment's notice" and
"be able to shift resources, including personnel, at the blink of
an eye." He reasoned that civil-service rules that protect
incompetent bureaucrats in backwater federal agencies such as the
Department of Housing and Urban Development have no place in the
nation's premier homeland security agency. He concluded that Senate
Democrats were following not their best policy instincts but the
dictates of the powerful union that represents federal employees,
the American Federation of Government Employees.
Just before the elections, an increasingly frustrated Miller lashed
out at his Democratic colleagues, predicting his party would suffer
electoral losses due to its unwavering subservience to the federal
employee union. Indeed, Miller's own constituents arrived at
precisely this conclusion when they opted to replace Democratic
union loyalist Sen. Max Cleland with GOP challenger Rep. Saxby
Chambliss, after Chambliss highlighted 11 particularly revealing
votes where Cleland put union interests ahead of national security.
Congressional analyst Charlie Cook concluded that "the decision by
Senate Democratic leaders to focus on workers' rights was . . . a
costly miscalculation."
So why is liberal Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton pulling his Democratic
colleagues back into these treacherous waters? Last week, Dayton
offered an amendment to the funding bill for the Department of
Homeland Security that would have had the federal government
dictating the compensation packages offered to private guards who
provide security for federal buildings. Decrying the "cold-blooded
profiteering" of private firms that offer security services without
having to shoulder the burden of expensive mandates on employment,
Dayton was trying to further the time-honored union strategy of
using federal law to impose union-style mandates on non-union
labor, thereby eliminating the ability of these firms to deliver
higher quality service at less cost to the taxpayers.
Republican Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.) objected, arguing that
Dayton's amendment would have "a very serious adverse effect" on
the government's ability "to ensure the security of federal
buildings throughout the country." Notwithstanding the lessons of
2002, the vote broke down along party lines, as Dayton received the
support of every Democrat (except Zell Miller, of course).
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Capitol, union interests
prevailed when 24 House Republicans joined the overwhelming
majority of Democrats to bar the White House from attempting to
transfer hundreds of thousands of federal jobs to the private
sector. Conservatives have long argued that many government workers
perform duties--such as janitorial work, landscaping and copying
services--that are not "inherently governmental" and are best left
to more efficient and productive private-sector firms. Not
surprisingly, the Bush Administration's laudable initiative to
transfer these duties to private firms has encountered intense
opposition from public employee unions and their allies on Capitol
Hill.
Ernest Istook (R.-Okla.) who chairs the House Appropriations
subcommittee that oversees this issue, fought valiantly, but
unsuccessfully, to defeat the union-backed amendment offered by
Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen. "The goal of so many members of
this body," Istook complained, "is to shut down any effort to make
the federal government more competitive and more efficient because
they want to make sure that people are on the government payroll,
even if it costs more to do the work, and even if it is less
efficient." Bush Administration lobbyists hope to drop this
provision from the final negotiated House-Senate agreement, but the
damage has already been done. collective-bargaining "protections"
were included in the Department of Defense spending bill recently
signed by Bush.
These two episodes illustrate how far public employee unions will
go to protect union jobs--even if it burdens taxpayers with
unnecessary costs or interferes with national security.
Mr. Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at the Heritage Foundation.