Unionizing the TSA?
 

How would unionizing the TSA workforce affect security of our traveling pubic? More comments from Robert Hardings confirmation hearings:

"President Barack Obama's second nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration side-stepped questions Wednesday about whether he supports unionizing the nation's 40,000 airport screeners, but acknowledged the president's support for unionization of screeners and said any such plan should be done in a way that would not hurt national security."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/24...ominee.senate/

A unionized Communist Party? Wow, one wouldn't normally think there are worse things than the Communist Party but there you are.

Cops and firemen have unions. Why not TSA?

Because they don't deserve one. @:-)

Because they already aren't held accountable for their actions. @:-)

Because they already bleed enough tax dollars. @:-)

I share the concern that a unionized TSA will result in yet more waste of money in the name of "security" and less accountability for TSA actions/failures.

I generally oppose unions, typically they cause far more problems than they are worth. Unionizing the TSA would be an error in my opinion. Not because of less accountability but because of the need for the TSA to be able to adjust to circumstances. Terrorists are becoming more sneaky, and TSA needs to be able to adjust their procedures with little or no notice to meet whatever threat our (The USA’s) intelligence agencies find. Can’t do that if you have to confer with union heads (civilians) before changes can be made.

There are several Unions competing for the TSA’s workforce. AFGE and another large union (cant remember the name), plus a few smaller ones. I suppose the competition is a good thing, but that does not tell me what they offer that would make them worth the problems they would cause.

All good reasons. ^

^^

:D
Hell has officially frozen over.

What, TSORon isn't allowed to be right, ever? ;)

No, Ron is still defending TSA from what he sees as external threats. He is actually being consistent. ;)

I'm hoping for a good ol' strike or two which would cripple air travel and place the blame squarely on the TSA.

The problem with unionizing the TSA is that doing so requires the TSA to exist.

Ron while I generally agree with you on this point I think you need to realize that the whole of TSA is a civilian agency. So that would be civilians conferring with civilians.

The unions are competing for TSA for one simple reason, whoever gets TSA should it happen will make lots of money in union dues.

That is the motivation of the unions.

I don't really see it mattering one way or the other, but the argument that any agency that is unionized could not respond quickly is shot down pretty much every day when a police department or other law enforcement agency that is unionized has to implement changes quickly based on the situtation.

The NYPD for example is not less responsive when immediate procedural changes are needed while they wait for a union vote.

The only group that would benefit from it would probably be the union they went with if it were to happen, unions need a huge influx of dues, and getting 40,000 new members would most certainly help. Not sure the individual workers would get anything more then another payroll deduction.

On the other hand maybe if the TSA goes on strike and planes don't start falling out of the sky people will start to notice how completely useless an agency it is.

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". :rolleyes:

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.

From the outside, maybe. From the inside, nope.

Case in point: Police and firemen (persons) do not consider themselves to be civillians, and pretty much the same with most uniformed government agencies. TSA is a uniformed government agency.

Oh, boy, is that comment going to wind some people up.

There's no reason TSOs shouldn't have the right to join a union (and the right not to join a union). There's no reason for a union to do much if managers are adept. Happy workplaces need little union attention.

And therein lies the crux of the problem with TSA. :(

I guess that would make the United States Post Office a uniformed government agency also....

:rolleyes:

Ron, for the record, there are seven uniformed services here in our United States of America. Although from different departments, all receive appropriations and authorizations from the armed services committees and the defense appropriations subcommittees. All have equivalent rank structures, pay & benefits, and the 20-year retirement:

1. United States Army
2. United States Navy
3. United States Air Force
4. United States Marine Corps
5. NOAA Commissioned Officer Coprs (Department of Commerce)
6. United States Coast Guard (DHS, should be Department of Transportation, but that's another issue)
7. U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (HHS)

TSA is a government agency that requires wearing a uniform at its lowest employee levels. Many restaurants including chains, and many service and retail businesses, even sports teams, require their employees or members to have a standardized code of dress or a uniform, or an apron, or vest. Even a business suit can be considered a uniform of sorts. ;) It makes them easy to spot in a crowd.

Even further it makes an individual part of a group which is expected to adhere to a certain set of rules and boundaries. It implies consistency in obediency, thoughts and actions.

Burger King employees wear uniforms.

Police and firemen serve the public, TSA no so much.

TSA is a civilian agency. But I agree, it's employees wear uniforms, but only in an attempt to display a false police like appearance.

That's just more smoke and mirrors like the TSA's concept of security.

So, your going to tell a cop that he is a civillian? Hmmm, let us know how that goes please. :rolleyes:

That’s your opinion. And like certain body parts, everyone has one. The difference is that the vast majority of the citizens of the United States agree with mine, not with yours.

The following are not uniformed government agencies:

Burger King
Retail businesses
Sports teams
Service business’
United States Postal Service

The following ARE uniformed government agencies:
United States Air Force
United States Army
United States Navy
United States Coast Guard
United States Marine Corps
Municipal Police Departments
Municipal Fire Departments
United States Secret Service
Transportation Security Administration Employee’s

See the difference? Government agencies. USPS is not a government agency.

Facts is facts. If that upsets people then they need to get over it, life is full of these little disappointments.

I don’t support unions on other grounds. If folks want to join one then let them have at it. I don’t have a problem with their decision. Personally, I have seen far too many problems caused by Unions over the years, too many to make up for what small bit that they do for their members.

TSA may wear uniforms but are not in any way shape or form equal to the military services.

USSS agents that I know wear suits. Is that a uniform?

Your ego is getting in the way of clear thinking.

^^ I'm sure all of the 1811 FBI agents, DEA agents, and ICE agents will be pleased to know that because they don't wear a uniform, they don't rate on Ron's uniformed pantheon of government heroes. :rolleyes:

The uniform that TSO's wear mean absolutely nothing. Contrast this with the uniform of the Armed Forces, which if you are lawfully wearing it, entitles the wearer to certain protections under the law of war as set forth in the Geneva Conventions.

The only thing a TSA uniform provides is recognition that the wearer belongs to an agency that routinely exceeds the authority they operate under, and gives life to the South Park character Eric Cartman - "respect mah authoritay!"