I heard something on one of the cable news stations regarding the fact
that
one of the federal employee unions was sueing or disputing the fact
that there were no labor negotiations prior to going to a new level of
security (color) on the home security terrorism alert (I think it was
yellow or orange).
This was since September 11.

It might have been on the Fox News cable station but I am unclear.  I
have tried and tried to find out more about this but can find nothing
on it and I know I heard it.  Can you point me to anything?  I don't
even have a clue as to the correct way to query this. . I tried
everything I could think of.  This is not much to go on.

Hello again! I believe I have found the news story you're referring
to.

Here is a quote from the Associate Press story, as published on the
Fox News Web site:

Once on the fastest of tracks to passage, legislation creating the
Homeland Security Department remains mired in a Senate stalemate over
labor rights... Democrats who control the Senate say Bush's proposals
would effectively wreck many civil service protections in the new
agency and amount to an assault on union bargaining rights. Bush has
threatened to veto a Democratic bill that doesn't include the powers.

Talks to explore a possible compromise continued Monday among White
House staffers and aides to Sens. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., John Breaux,
D-La., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb. Those three moderates have offered an
alternative on the labor rights issue that appears to have a slim
Senate majority but is being blocked by Republicans amid opposition by
Bush.

The meeting, also attended by aides to Thompson and GOP Sen. Phil
Gramm of Texas, made little headway because, according to one
participant, Bush continues to insist on getting "100 percent" of his
proposals on management flexibility and union waiver authority. The
moderates' alternative sets up conditions for use of the union
national security waiver that Bush says take away from his current
powers.

from Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64566,00.html

A quote from the same story, as reported online by CNN:

The odds against creation of an anti-terrorism Homeland Security
Department grow greater by the hour, with some lawmakers saying a
labor rights dispute could sink the measure for the year... The
dividing issues remained Bush's demands for flexibility to hire, fire
and deploy the proposed agency's 170,000 workers and for continued
authority to waive union bargaining agreements for national security
reasons.

Bush and the Republicans say these powers are essential to create a
nimble agency that can react quickly to terrorist threats.

Democrats are backing an alternative that includes much of the
personnel flexibility Bush wants but imposes conditions on his use of
the union national security waiver. Many Democrats say Bush's plan
amounts to an assault on union bargaining rights.

from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/homeland.security.ap/index.html

Here are excerpts from several online accounts:

Carl Marlinga vowed Tuesday to fight President Bush's proposed
Department of Homeland Security, saying it would unfairly block worker
protections under union contracts and civil service rules.
"Union protections and civil service protections are among the basic
rights we have in this country," the Democratic candidate for Congress
said. "The president believes that having union workers in the
Homeland Security Department somehow weakens this country. That just
doesn't make sense."

The Macomb County prosecutor's stand puts him at odds with Bush and
his Republican campaign opponent, Secretary of State Candice Miller.
Bush has insisted that union and civil service restrictions would deny
him the flexibility to manage the 170,000-employee Homeland Security
Department.

Miller has staunchly backed Bush's plan, which asserts that, for
national security reasons, the administration needs unrestricted
authority to hire, fire and deploy workers.

Marlinga's opposition to the Bush proposal came at a news conference
held at a newly opened Sterling Heights fire hall. The candidate was
backed by union officials from the AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, the
American Federation of Government Employees and the Sterling Heights
firefighters union.

The union officials said the heroes of Sept. 11 were unionized
firefighters and police who never questioned their duty to rescue
victims of the World Trade Center attack. Federal unionized workers
have never put work rules ahead of national security, they said.

"Firefighters who were union members were running into the World Trade
towers to save other citizens. That's the test right there. They
passed it," said Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan State
AFL-CIO. "Federal workers will do the same."
 
from The Macomb Daily
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5568400&BRD=988&PAG=461&dept_id=141265&rfi=6

A narrowly divided Senate yesterday appeared close to killing off
homeland security legislation after the Democratic leadership failed
for the fifth time to end debate over union protections for some
government workers.

The attempt to create a department of homeland security was first
pushed by Democrats, resisted and then promoted by President George W.
Bush. But it has now become deadlocked over the president's authority
to move workers from one job to another or deny them union
representation.

Democrats accused the president and the Republican party of
politicising the issue by introducing workers' rights into the debate,
then portraying them as opposed to presidential anti-terrorism
efforts.

from Financial Times Online
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1031119824630

Legislation creating a Homeland Security Department to meet terrorist
threats was on "life support" Tuesday after the Senate again failed to
break an impasse over labor rights affecting thousands of workers who
would be transferred.

from Austin American-Statesman
http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/Washington/AP.V5343.AP-Homeland-Securi.html

Once on the fastest of tracks to passage, legislation creating the
Homeland Security Department remains mired in a Senate stalemate over
labor rights.

from Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-homeland-security1001sep30,0,780971.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

The very best way to find a news story is with Google's wonderful
"Google News" search. This remarkable search engine puts 4,000
continuously updated news sources at your disposal. The service is in
Beta, but it is fully functional, and has become an indispensible tool
for many news addicts like me.

http://news.google.com/
 
My search strategy:

Google News Search, "federal" + "union"
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=federal+union

I hope this is the information you're looking for. If not, please
request clarification, and I'll be glad to try again.

Best regards,
pinkfreud

---

Request for Answer Clarification by schmooz-ga on 02 Oct 2002 14:59 PDT

TH1138 Thanx! This is just the thing I was looking for. This was an
article on the Union response.  Do you think that you might b able to
rell me where I can find out more about the accusation that led to
this article?  You are right on!!!

---

Clarification of Answer by pinkfreud-ga on 02 Oct 2002 15:01 PDT

Here are some more links, relating to the National Treasury Employees
Union's reaction to Senator Phil Gramm's allegation that the NTEU
tried to prevent the implementation of the color-coded terrorism alert
system:

"We cannot give the president a law that will not get the job done,"
said Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas. "We can't give him this beautiful,
shiny pickup truck with no steering wheel."

To illustrate his point, Gramm released a Sept. 18 complaint from the
National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 12,000 Customs
Service workers, involving the administration's color-coded system of
terrorism threat alerts. Gramm said the complaint to the Federal Labor
Relations Authority showed the obstacles that unions can pose.

But the union's president, Colleen Kelley, said the complaint was
intended to put the Customs Service on notice that the union is
supposed to be briefed in advance about changes affecting its members.

"I think the example is exaggerated and inappropriate," Kelley said. 

from The Olympian
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20020927/frontpage/9712.shtml

And more on the same story--

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1002/100102t1.htm

http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=1503117

Great answers and great comments from thx1138.

Hi schmooz,

Also this article sounds pretty close:

"The union leader also challenged a statement last week by Sen. Phil
Gramm, R-Texas, that NTEU tried to prevent the implementation of the
color-coded terrorism alert system established by Ridge’s office
earlier this year. NTEU filed an unfair labor practice complaint
against Customs last month after agency officials issued a 25-page
directive establishing procedures for employees based on the various
alert levels. But Kelley said the union lodged the complaint not
because it opposed the alert system, but because union officials
believed the agency had not properly briefed them before issuing the
plan to employees.
“A potential change in work conditions was issued and the law requires
notice be given to employees and the union,” she said."
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1002/100102t1.htm

Regards

THX1138

Hello again Schmooz,

This was the only other article I could find regarding the story:

"Gramm placed in the Congressional Record that NTEU, which represents
12,000 Customs workers, recently filed a complaint with the Federal
Labor Relations Authority about the government's new color-coded
warning system.

"They (NTEU) are saying it was never negotiated with unions, and
therefore it is illegal and they want it overturned ... and that the
president had no right to set up a system where Americans could have a
better reading of the dangers we face," Gramm told reporters. "That is
the problem we face."

NTEU President Colleen Kelley fired back: "We are not saying the
warning system is illegal or roll it back. We are just saying notify
us as you are suppose to do under the law."

Kelley said her union filed an unfair labor practice charge on Sept.
18 after learning Customs in August had issued a 25-page directive on
how working conditions would change at each level of the new warning
system.

"They are required by law ... to notify us and give us an opportunity
to bargain on it," Kelley said in a telephone interview."
http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=1503117

Regards

THX1138