![]() |
My other knock on the system (and I was in a union at one point) is that there is no real incentive to go beyond mediocrity. You can't really reward the ones that do a good job - the ones that are professional |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 13661384)
Please cite your source for this assertion.
|
Originally Posted by secretbunnyboy
(Post 13661766)
...in fact, if they weren't civilians, then they wouldn't be able to do their regular law enforcement job under the Posse Comitatus Act which restricts the use of the military for public order under normal circumstances.
Guard units may also be mobilized in Title 32 status to perform certain missions in support Operation Noble Eagle in order to void the restrictions of posse comitatus...Guard solders may also be ordered to active duty under Title 32 U.S. Code. Title 32 allows for the mobilization of Guard units under the control of a state’s governor, but with full federal pay and allowances being provided by the federal government.58 Despite the federal funding, such troops are not constrained by the restrictions placed on “the Army National Guard while in the service of the United States. If granted authority by the governor, soldiers in Title 32 status can thus perform law enforcement functions--to include direct participation in search and seizure activities and being granted arrest activities. Anyway, just nitpicking since I undertand the gist of your post. Civilian LE are just that...civilians, albeit paramilitary. TB |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 13661953)
Are you asking me for a cite?
|
Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance
(Post 13661913)
It is a TOTAL myth that the open shops are full of meritocracy. That is a very scarce exception to the rule. Merit is a distant second to being liked by the boss. Don't know if this applies in TSA, but once and for all stop spreading the BS that "if it weren't for that union, we could reward our stars".
|
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 13662041)
Nope. Ron made the assertion that the vast majority of Americans agreed with him rather than you. I asked Ron for the citation to back up his claim.
I'm been thinking about it today. TSA is already pretty much a screwed up organization and adding a union could only foul things up more. Might be a win win!:p |
Originally Posted by TerminalBliss
(Post 13661955)
Anyway, just nitpicking
|
Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance
(Post 13661913)
"Oh, please. Nearly my entire work life has been spent in non-union businesses. It is a TOTAL myth that the open shops are full of meritocracy. That is a very scarce exception to the rule. Merit is a distant second to being liked by the boss. Don't know if this applies in TSA, but once and for all stop spreading the BS that "if it weren't for that union, we could reward our stars"."
|
Originally Posted by tom911
(Post 13661218)
Your friends union experience is very different than mine. I worked with police/fire dispatchers that all did the same job and rotated among positions. It didn't matter whether you were the most junior employee or the most senior employee. Everybody worked, and I, as a supervisor, could easily identify those that were not carrying the load and deal with that.
Sounds like your friends work crew is not being properly supervised. To me that would indicate poor management versus the consequences of a union. Why aren't the managers out there making everyone shovel? I worked in one police agency that has a performance step built into the salary schedule. It could be taken away if you did not meet standards. I did see it taken away from those that abused sick leave, for instance. No reason that TSA couldn't have something like that, and poor performers don't get the extra salary. You need to have effective managers, though. My experience was better (was in one 4.5 years), but I can't say they really seemed to do much but collect my dues. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 13652209)
I'm hoping for a good ol' strike or two which would cripple air travel and place the blame squarely on the TSA.
Originally Posted by secretbunnyboy
(Post 13658455)
Happy workplaces need little union attention.
|
Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance
(Post 13661913)
Oh, please. Nearly my entire work life has been spent in non-union businesses. It is a TOTAL myth that the open shops are full of meritocracy. That is a very scarce exception to the rule. Merit is a distant second to being liked by the boss. Don't know if this applies in TSA, but once and for all stop spreading the BS that "if it weren't for that union, we could reward our stars".
However, if the place that promotes brown nosers then the place typically has problems keeping good people. In the companies I've seen, the ones that reward the good performers and recognize their efforts are the ones that had the happiest and highest performing employees. I've been rewarded for my efforts at certain companies and I'm definitely not a brown noser. Politics are involved to some degree, that's true. However, if it all becomes political then like the union, it all comes down to ... kissing and good people won't put up with that. YMMV.
Originally Posted by LoganTSO
Of course, TSA has never been a happy workplace. Otherwise, we wouldn't be b**chin' for a union would we?
|
From where I am only, I would not want to think of how bad the pay would be with out the union.
|
Here's a strange thought. What would happen if ...
1. TSA unionizes. 2. The union, dissatisfied with (pick an issue), strikes. 3. The federal government, in response to the illegal strike, fires all the strikers, thereby disbanding TSA, and hires external contractors to handle security at all airports. 4. The strikers, like the air traffic controllers thirty years ago, are out of luck. A few a hired back, but only at the discretion of TSA management. Some FTers have called for the disbanding of TSA and a return to screening provided by private contractors. Would unionization actually be a bizarre way of achieving that end? (Disclaimer. I've never called for the disbanding of TSA and have no opinion on TSA unionization. I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there.) |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 13665715)
Here's a strange thought. What would happen if ...
1. TSA unionizes. 2. The union, dissatisfied with (pick an issue), strikes. 3. The federal government, in response to the illegal strike, fires all the strikers, thereby disbanding TSA, and hires external contractors to handle security at all airports. 4. The strikers, like the air traffic controllers thirty years ago, are out of luck. A few a hired back, but only at the discretion of TSA management. Some FTers have called for the disbanding of TSA and a return to screening provided by private contractors. Would unionization actually be a bizarre way of achieving that end? (Disclaimer. I've never called for the disbanding of TSA and have no opinion on TSA unionization. I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there.) FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 13680504)
With the union comes standardization of how things are done in order to ensure each employee gets treated equally. You may get the consistency you want.FB
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:13 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.