Bush adamant on worker rules

WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush squared off with the Senate on Friday, warning of a possible presidential veto if its legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security included provisions restricting the president's authority to remove its workers from collective bargaining agreements on the grounds of national security.

The labor issue would be significant at the new department because Bush's plan would bring together some 170,000 workers -- making the department one of three largest agencies in government -- many of whom are now in jobs where they are entitled to union protections.

It is not yet High Noon between the president and Senate, but spokesman Ari Fleischer said "absolutely" when asked if a veto recommendation from President George W. Bush's advisers would be forthcoming if the provisions passed by the Senate Government Affairs Committee remained in the final bill.

"The president is hopeful that an agreement can be reached so a veto will not be necessary," he said.

But for their part, Democrats and leaders of some government union charge Bush is simply "union busting" and not seeking provisions he needs to meet national security requirements.

Bush personally drew a line in the sand earlier Friday during a speech to a group of firefighters, mayors and governors in the White House Rose Garden.

"I'm not going to accept legislation that limits or weakens the president's well-established authorities to exempt parts of government from federal-labor management relations statute when it serves our national interest," he said. " ... A time of war is the wrong time to weaken the president's ability to protect the American people."

The Bush administration proposes that all normal civil service protections and other in-place work rules -- such as Social Security rules, Equal Employment Opportunity Plan rules and union protections -- remain in force for at least 12 months while negotiations take place to "streamline" the system.

Bush, citing the urgency and importance of the agency's task, however, wants a system put in place that would allow managers greater flexibility in hiring, firing and transferring employees.

He and Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., the ranking Republican on the committee that handled the homeland bill, said the restrictions on Bush would hamper management flexibility in melding 170,000 workers from 22 agencies into a streamlined workforce.

Democrats and unions have described the flexibility measures as an assault on unions, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said a veto would not make sense and doubted one would be made.

"Now, look, I fully understand the concerns of some of the unions here in Washington," Bush said Friday. "Somehow, they believe that this is an attempt by the administration to undermine the basic rights of workers. I reject that, as strongly as I can."

Kay James, director of the Office of Personnel Management, told reporters streamlining was necessary, since various departments being rolled into the new entity have their own particular personnel policies in addition to the broader, civil service protections.

To buttress her argument, she cited the example of five employees in an office -- each under a different system of pay and other benefits.

Under Immigration and Naturalization Service union rules, she said, workers can refuse temporary reassignment to another job if that reassignment lasts more than 30 days. Also, reassignment vacancies must be advertised and open to competition -- slowing down the process.

"If we don't have flexibility, it will be impossible to manage the mess" of differing benefits and rules, said James, a political appointee. "Folks, you have to have some appreciation for the complexity to combine all these systems."

The INS is one of the government agencies slated for inclusion in the new department. Others include the Coast Guard and Transportation Safety Agency and Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The White House also objects to a provision under which the head of the White House's Office of Homeland Security would need Senate confirmation.

The full Senate is expected to take up the Homeland Security measure next week before adjourning for the summer recess. The House was debating Friday its version, which meets the president's goals on the worker issue.

A Democratic source on Capitol Hill said Democrats were insisting on worker protections specified in the proposed bill.

"We felt it was important, because we are talking about real people," the source told United Press International. "It was important they have job stability when they are moved to this new office. They (the White House) say they will have a year, but that is not in any of the legislation.

"I know they are saying that, but how do we know. This is an administration that is not particularly friendly to labor. We don't want the uncertainty."

According to the president of the Border Patrol Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, simply promising current rules and benefits would apply for one year during what James called the "tweaking" process was unacceptable.

"No, no. That's like saying you can keep your job another 12 months until we look around and find someone to replace you," T.J. Bonner told UPI. "Nobody wants to work in an agency where they don't have essential protections. What they are going to end up with are people who are job-hopping every couple of years.

"We're talking about what we expect to be one of the premier federal law enforcement agencies in the country and in the world. We're looking for a high-class, motivated workforce of dedicated career professionals. Your not going to get people like that unless they have some basic guarantees that they are going to be paid what they are worth ... they can't just show up for work one day and be told 'we've decided to fire you.'"

Bonner said if Bush were to veto a homeland security bill over worker protections, it would show "he is not interested in homeland security, he's interested in busting the unions."