They would probably be deemed an essential service and not be allowed to strike.

I actually agree with some of what Ron says. I'm a member of a union & I can tell you there are pros & cons. If TSA were to get a union,management would have to follow whatever contract they have. It would be difficult if not impossible to get rid of bad employees.

[QUOTE=coachrowsey;13652820]I actually agree with some of what Ron says. I'm a member of a union & I can tell you there are pros & cons. If TSA were to get a union,management would have to follow whatever contract they have. It would be difficult if not impossible to get rid of bad employees.[/QUOTE]

So what would change?

[QUOTE=Boggie Dog;13652867]I can only speak of where I'm at. We have many "slack arses" & those who just do not perform period. The company fires them the union gets their jobs back & they come back laughing.

I'm a union guy all the way but I hate this part, that's why I would never take a shop steward position as I can not defend those types.

They knew when they applied for the job that it was non-union.

If they want a union job, go work for the auto manufacturers.

Unions representing Federal employees are not allowed to strike by law regardless of what service (essential or nonessential) the employee is performing. Most will remember the strike by air traffic controllers during the Reagan Administration. They were all fired.

FB

That post also is defending the changing of procedures without notice -- it's just additional PR cover for passengers to be made into subjects who have to endure the stupidity of "consistently inconsistent" TSA actions/failures "so 'we' can keep the terrorists on (or is that off) their toes".

Because law enforcement and firefighters actually do work that help society and make us a safer and better place.

How many firefighters have you ever seen groping grandma's breasts?

In all seriousness, with the problems we already see with TSOs today-- attitude problems, not knowing the rules, making things up as they go along "just for the heck of it", and more-- we don't need a union. Unionizing them will only make it harder to get rid of the 80-some-odd percent who are poor or underperforming at their jobs.

Obama only supports unionization because it will add to the coffers of those who are some of his biggest supporters (unions and union bosses), who will likely use at least some of the additional dues money in a legally questionable manner.

Any TSA employee that thinks union membership is going to improve their workplace will be disappointed when they realize they have little to show, other than a regular dues deduction from their paycheck.

Explain, please?

If the TSA union is prohibited from striking, why would management sign off on contract terms that insulate nonperformers from firing? I once belonged to a government union. The leaders were useless in contract negotiations.

I don`t understand people thinking that a union prevents a change when it is needed to combat different potential threat tactics. (Just go with me and assume that they are needed). In Canada, we are unionized. When the Panty Bomber attempted his attack, it didn`t matter that we are unionized. Our directives came down and we followed them. We didn`t always know what was going on because the new directives changed daily for a while, but no one contacted our union about the changes. As far as I am concerned, the union`s job is to get a contract for wages, benefits, etc. The Union has nothing to do with operations.

Because government workers are a political constituency, unions are the means for funneling contributions and votes, and government unions serve to extract higher pay and benefits not as necessary to deliver work but as needed to deliver votes and cash to the politicians who reward them.

There's no marketplace here, it's an inside game, and one that has little relationship whatsoever to private industry.

And this would apply to your local police officers and firefighters, as well as road crew workers and water department staff, too, would it not? Should their unions be eliminated? I really don't see why the TSA can't have the same representation that government employees at the local and state level have across the country.

Shift workers (recall I was one of those for 32 years) have unique needs--things like shift selection, vacation and days off. How often should shifts be selected? Yearly? Quarterly? Whenever a TSA manager feels like it? Who gets Saturday and Sunday off versus Tuesday and Wednesday on graveyard? Can you imagine buying airline tickets when you don't know what your days off are ahead of time? Those are the types of things that can be spelled out in a MOU with a union.

Add on smaller things like compensation for travel time to training classes, or even how much updated training will be provided each year, or the selection process for promotions. Seems like it's all negotiable to me, and I'd rather have a union looking out for my interests versus the acting head of the TSA telling me how it is.

If the TSA needs to be able to adjust employees around workload they can designate some of the shifts as floating shifts to fill special needs.

That's pretty much how it worked in the two local police departments I worked for. The unions did not set policy as to how we answered calls or directed resources. The MOU covered things like shift selection, vacation, mandatory overtime and the like.

As a former union-belonging government employee, I can say that the shop steward does get called on to keep the non-belonging manager within the bounds of work rules. I also can assure you government managers like to bend the rules as far as they can go. Neither civil service certification nor union membership protects the members, but a grievance can.