Could we expect that at least one or two union members might have some moxy and refuse to work at the backscatter machines until an independent third party study is made of the radiation danger to those who work next to it all day? If the union busts the TSA on this one issue it could really help bust TSA on a lot of isues.

Wow. A lot of anti-union sentiment here. Maybe my union is different, I don't know since I've only ever been in one union. I will tell you this -- I don't think my union has ever proposed something that would be bad for the customer. I guess you could argue that our pay and benefits would be lower. But as far as the actual experience when we're doing our job, not so. In my 21 years, management has proposed hundreds of ideas that were shot down by the union that would have made your flying experience worse. Unity and solidarity have created a self-policing atmosphere where we're constantly on each other to work harder and better. I hear "come on brother!" quite a bit at work. Maybe we're unique, I don't know.

Don't look at better pay and benefits as an excuse for poor workers. Look at it as an incentive to attract better workers. A good union wants good workers because it makes their job easier when it comes time to negotiate. We have had roughly 25 new-hires in my area in the past 4 years. Exactly ZERO of them have certified and only 3 still work here. If you can't cut it, you're outta here. Yes, they all were in the union.

A good union doesn't promote keeping bad workers early in their career. Of course, once tenured, the union will try to protect your job -- you've already "proven" yourself is the standard dogma. Sometimes that's a good thing. Not always of course.

I can almost promise that the pat-downs would practically disappear. Touching the customer's privates? No union will stand for that -- they will fight that for decades if necessary.

SR

I don't believe that a union for TSA employees would benefit the public in any manner and that is who TSA serves.

We already have a problem with TSA employees who should have been fired long ago yet TSA does nothing to correct such problems. Union representation would only aggravate an already bad situation.

I say no to TSA unions.

There are even less protective measures for pax.

I think that's a valid point, considering the "old school" style unions and the way that they have behaved in the past.

Newer unions realize they have to work smarter and harder. The public doesn't support labor like it did 50 years ago and they are quick to blame the union for any problems (whether the blame is deserved or not). I feel that we are proud of the way that we serve our customers, and we're always holding ourselves to a higher standard.

Case in point:

I work LAX arrivals. There's an airport about 3 miles southeast of LAX that is used quite a bit by commercial and private operators. Up until about 6 months ago, we ran arrivals into that airport simultaneously with LAX. Then someone from headquarters came down and took that permission away. The reason? An interpretation of an obscure paragraph in an FAA order. The union wants the permission back, but apparently whoever writes the application for permission (another non-union employee) put a comma in the wrong spot or some such, so it's going to take longer.

In the meantime, we have to STOP arrivals into the 4th busiest airport in the country (LAX) to the let a guy into the little airport (Hawthorne) or deny him entry and let the LAX arrivals keep running. Neither option is fair to the customer.

The upshot of all this is: If someone would simply declare that Hawthorne is actually another runway at LAX, the operation would be perfectly legal. The union knows this is nonsense and is fighting hard. If it weren't for the union, Hawthorne would probably have to close or LAX would experience delays until the end of time.

Keep in mind, it would be far easier for us to keep it like it is now and just shoo the Hawthorne arrival away. Unions aren't always on the anti-customer side.

SR

Exactly who pulled the plug on simultaneous landings at LAX and HHR? Was it FAA or a union person or someone else altogether?

Who is trying to prevent both airports from landing traffic at the same time? Do the approach paths cross or conflict in any way? Are they both controlled or is HHR an uncontrolled field?

If HHR is controlled is it an FAA tower or contract?

I don't know the rule you speak of and would have to read it to see what the intent was.

1. FAA Headquarters personnel (non-union)

2. They are slightly converging runways (no conflict) centerlines about 5000 or 6000 feet apart at the closest point.

3. FAA tower

4. What happened is that the definition of converging and parallel runways contains the word "airport". Since Hawthorne is not the same airport as LAX, the FAA says the rules pertaining to converging and parallel runways do not apply, and therefore we must use standard separation criteria. If Hawthorne were declared as "runway 26 at LAX" on a piece of paper somewhere, the operation would be perfectly legal.

The union thinks the whole issue is silly and we are embarrassed that our customers are getting delayed and/or denied service.

I should probably say that our local facility management agrees with the union on this issue.

SR

Solution is simple. Build a new facility out in the desert and close LAX.

LAX is out moded, expansion room is gone and is to close to the city.

True enough about no more expansion (although they did find room for the new int'l terminal under construction).

But don't move it!!!

I love airports that are convenient to the city. I live in downtown San Diego and it's a 3 or 4-minute taxi ride to the airport.

Sorry for the off-topic, but I had to respond to that.

SR

Our union rep just sent this yesterday via e-mail, it's 2 years old, but the similarities between here and BOS are very similar.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.as...3040&catid=339

And this is how many travelers feel about their treatment by TSA employees.

Where is our protection?

Workers in general, really has nothing to do with the union:

If there's one or two bad eggs, that's the employee's fault. If it seems like every worker you run into is a problem, that's the employer's fault.

The FAA went through some growing pains about four years ago. We had a lot of folks quit. I used to go to a bar/restaurant frequented by pilots. Apparently one of them had a bad experience and was venting on me. He finally broke out the "if you don't like it, just quit your job" card. I just said "they did all quit. this is the best we could find to replace them for the pay and benefits they're offering." You lose a lot of talent when you don't offer much. We have some good kids that came in during that period, and many of them will make some fine talent when they have more experience. But they're trying to rush them through because too much of the seasoned workforce quit.

I think TSA is facing the same thing. How can you get good people if the pay and benefits are bad and you treat them badly? These guys probably do need better working conditions, and they need to act like they deserve it.

SR

If tsa unionizes does anyone know if it will be a "closed shop",union only or allow workers that choose to "opt out"?
If "closed" what about "right to work" States or are Fed employees exempt?

In federal government employment, everyone has the right to not join. That's the way it is in the FAA. We don't have many non-members, but we do respect their right not to join.

SR

Just a guess, but you're probably not a Teamster, NALC, APWU, or IBEW, are you?