Everyone knows nation building is for sissies and not nearly as much fun as blowing things up. And for Republicans, there may be nothing better than capitalizing on war fervor to blow up a union. So it should come as no surprise that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, perhaps bored by the post Iraq-war world, is once again picking fights at the Pentagon.
You may recall that before September 11 saved his job, Rumsfeld spent his first nine months in the Bush administration earning the enmity of just about everyone around him. Recently, of course, he's been riding high: In the days after the Iraq War, he strutted through press conferences with an almost comically self-satisfied air -- threatening Syria, scowling at those who had criticized his war plans. Now, having vanquished Saddam Hussein's army (and having let every American know just whom they should credit for that victory), Rumsfeld re-entered the public spotlight yesterday -- this time to battle his own employees.
Appearing before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, Rumsfeld testified in favor of a new administration proposal that would prohibit all 720,000 of the Defense Department's civilian employees from engaging in collective bargaining. The plan passed the House virtually intact last week and is now up for Senate approval.
Rumsfeld argued that the requirements of the war on terrorism make it necessary for the Pentagon to be able to waive clauses of U.S. government code that protect collective-bargaining rights and appeals processes. The bill would allow the defense secretary to prevent employees from filing appeals after being fired and from registering their collective-bargaining organizations. It would also end congressional oversight of Pentagon hiring, firing and personnel practices.
Frustrated Pentagon employees crowded the hearing yesterday. Though none testified, they could be heard privately and publicly expressing concerns that the bill would allow their bosses to fire older workers who are not yet eligible for retirement benefits.
The Pentagon's preferred version of the bill would also prevent collective-bargaining organizations from going to the Federal Services Impasses Panel or the Federal Labor Relations Authority in the event of a dispute with management. Instead, the president could issue a "national security waiver," which would give the secretary of defense final decision-making authority.
"If we're negotiating and we don't reach an agreement, he'll decide what it will be," Bobby Harnage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which currently represents about 200,000 Defense Department employees, told me after the hearing. "That's not collective bargaining; that's consultation."
David Walker of the Government Accounting Office agreed in his spoken testimony that many of the personnel practices at the Pentagon need to be reformed. But he also said he supports the Senate version of the bill, which would preserve many of the employee rights the House bill would eliminate. "There was no consultation regarding unemployment, employees or executive bargaining taken by the [Defense Department] in the past," he explained. "So when I see a provision they will 'consult,' it doesn't give me much comfort. There need to be independent third parties involved."
Rumsfeld testified that the House version would not endanger collective bargaining because such rights would only be infringed upon if the president signed the national-security waiver. Rumsfeld wrote, "In an age when terrorists can move information at the speed of an email, move money at the speed of a wire transfer, and move people at the speed of a commercial jetliner, DoD is bogged down in the bureaucratic processes of an industrial age -- not an information age."
But Harnage would have none of it. "He's talking out of both sides of his mouth," he said after the hearing. Harnage's testimony was to the point: "The House bill lets [the Defense Department] decide whether or not to have due process for employees, it lets [the Defense Department] decide whether to let employees have collective bargaining. And even if they have collective bargaining, it removes any enforcement mechanisms. This isn't about national security or about flexibility; this is about politics."
Jerry Swanke of the AFGE expressed similar concerns while waiting to enter the overcrowded hearing. "Anyone who has the guts to stand up will be fired," he said. "The president could sign away our negotiating rights with the stroke of a pen."
Because the Senate bill is far more protective of bargaining rights than the House version, it has bipartisan support -- despite unanimous union disapproval of both measures. Democratic senators are apparently hoping that the Senate bill can trump the House version in conference. "It's still a bad bill," Harnage said of the Senate measure, "but it's a heck of a lot better than what the House passed."
"It's the administration's agenda to scrap employees rights," Harnage added. "This is part of a pattern. They figured with the war, the timing was good. So when Congress was leaving for Easter they tacked this on to the Defense Authorization Bill in the House, even though it wasn't germane. That bill always passes without a vote; it's like motherhood and apple pie. But this is a mean, dangerous piece of legislation."
It may well be mean and dangerous. But in the hands of a smug defense secretary bent on world -- and bureaucratic -- hegemony, one thing it's not is surprising.
Michael Wallach is a TAP Online intern and a graduate student at Columbia University's School for International and Public Affairs.
This article has been corrected since it was originally published. The AFGE's president's name is Bobby Harnage, not Robert Harnage.
