Well, as a 32 year union represented, and now retired, non-lazy employee, I'd like to follow up on that. The people I worked with, and supervised, worked their tails off, and many a night were ordered to work extra hours due to workload or critical incidents. Are you saying that police officers, firefighters and dispatchers, who in my area are all unionized, are all lazy? I just don't see that.

I've been involved in negotations with two employers over the years for working conditions, salary, benefits, and even retirement plans. I wouldn't in my wildest dreams assume my employer would give me the days off I wanted, shifts I wanted, or provided me with benefits I deserved, just to be nice to me. You need unions, particularly with shift workers, to determine how shifts are selected, vacations are assigned, who gets holidays off (and who doesn't), let alone salaries. Would you want to work graveyard with Tuesday and Wednesday off your entire life? Having things like this spelled out in a union contract makes it clear to everyone how days off and shifts are assigned, for instance.

The only reason I am retired right now is because my union negotiated an enhanced retirement plan, and we traded off some salary for it.

Why shouldn't any government workers be entitled to the same ability to negotiate working conditions, salary and benefits?

Folks, this is an otherwise interesting topic but let’s dispose with the personal taunts and barbs.

Thanks.

__________________

Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator

Or, if you don't like being forced to hand over your money to muggers and IRS agents, then flee the area or country.

They should be.

They just shouldn't have a violent, coercive group of men (the US government, in this case) threatening others to purchase their labor services when they wish not to (i.e. when union workers organize, strike, etc.).

Coercive threats against moral behavior are evil, destructive, and unnecessary.

In a free world, you and Spiff would be able to agree to disagree and walk away on equal ground. But such a world would mean the removal of the power you hold over him, thus putting you out of your current job. So you refuse to grant him such freedom.

Thus the conflict.

They should be - absolutely.

However; and this is what is irking me - the folks who are at the TSA these days are, NOT even federal employees (at SFO they are "contracted" employees with a PRIVATE firm). There isn't much oversight as to what many of these employees do and there isn't any way to get rid of the bad ones (at least it doesn't appear to be).

I am concerned that with unionization this means that more and more people who are at the TSA will continue their horrible manner and their poor treatment of the public because they will be "protected."

Good.

Interesting, imho, how this has become accepted "wisdom" today.

I'm pretty sure another generation or two from now it will be widely accepted that unions (or, more specifically, government protection of them... since without that none of them would exist in the first place) were never necessary and always counter-productive.

Such progress takes time though and we can at least be thankful that unions are much more negatively viewed today than they were a few decades ago.

Exactly. Its an inane proposal.

You always have a limited number of choices, but there are more than two : suck it up and go along, work for change, go elsewhere or ignore the rules and take your chances. That's pretty much it.

LOL. So much for your economic conservatism.

I hold no power over Spiff, at all.

Unless he breaks the law.

And I just made a rhyme.

I do it all the time.

Remember, economic conservatism unless national security is at stake. I think 9/11 showed what such events can do to our nation, not the least of which is the economy.

And there was a full page ad in USA Today supporting unionization and asking the Senate to pass it.

I agree.

But giving a victim the ability to flee one's aggression against him does not negate the nature of the attacker's behavior.

Government protection of TSA unions is now necessary for national security?

Sigh... :rolleyes: