For the children... and the troops... and national security... but NOT the AFL-CIO and bigger paychecks and easier work requirements for TSA workers, of course.

No, the TSA is necessary for national security, IMO.

Unionizing them is simply protecting the protectors.

Say, for instance, a whistleblower comes forward with some info about how the puffer machines only work in X% of cases, far lower than needed, when gov't stats say that they work in y% of cases. With no protection you know they'll be terminated. Its already happened.

The terminating for whistleblowing, not the puffer machines specifically.

Who paid for the ad?

It's not simply that, of course.

Not sure how this makes government protection of TSA unions necessary.

Can you give me some real-life examples of such terminations then?

Do you think your economic self-interest (in addition to your interest in national security, of course) could be factoring in your decision to abandon what you believe works best everywhere else in life? Can you see why someone in my situation, with no motivation but the protection of my own liberty (however misguided you may think it is), might suspect that this is the case?

These are the Covenant Security folks (their web site also provides "nuclear security"). I wonder if they're union. IIRC, there's supposed to be two other U.S. airports with contracted security, but right now I can't think of where they are.

Money, salaries, power over others, etc. have nothing to do with this.

The TSA and every single thing each one of its members does is all about national security.

The phenomenon of human beings acting primarily in their own economic self-interest now magically stops once they put on government uniforms.

9/11 changed everything.®

So does that mean you don't know who paid for the ad?

Not quite true.

The checkpoints' regulations largely do not carry force of law. That's why penalties meted out for violations are civil and not criminal.

LOL. Nice caveat.

Same difference.

And even if you don't personally, you support the people who do, by word and by action.

Which leaves us right where I said. You can denounce your being in such a situation over him though. (True "agreeing to disagree", fwiw.) You choose not to though.

How much does such an ad cost?

And would anyone wish to join me in purchasing a counter-ad?

He asserts a right to power over you here by supporting people that force you and others (i.e. airline/airport operators) to act in a way that they and not you will. You are not doing the same to him.

While you ask simply to be left alone to choose to interact with airport and airline operators as you and they so choose, he is not content to grant you such liberty. He supports, in the name of national security, imposing his will (or that of others with whom he's in agreement) upon you.

It's just a power and money thing. If the situation involved his personally having to make you do what he wills for you to do, without his having the ability to outsource such dirty work to more powerful others and your having the ability to defend yourself from him or them, the two of you would part with just a simple disagreement. Instead, we are left with his asserting a right to power over you, and therefore, a much more serious conflict (especially once we multiply law dawg and his action out over the millions of times his government allies carry this out on others every day).

A bad deal and totally unnecessary, sadly.

Amazing is what you call a post that complains about a system put in place by a party that was just kicked out of office for their incompetancy for setting up megalithic agencies like the TSA and home land security. Instead of complaining to the party trying to clean up the mess try writing the Pres and party who set the mess up in the first place.

So you are of the opinion that if one works for the TSA you should have fewer rights than say the border patrol. Oh, I forgot terrorists are only allowed to arrive by air now. No jumping the border and the sea anymore. Maybe if we stopped awarding security contracts on a no bid basis to companies like Haleburton we could get decent people at decent wages to work for the TSA.

Thanks for the post I just wrote my Democratic senator and said keep up the good work.

No disagreement; he claimed that his power over me was only in force if I broke the law. The reality is that the power is there if I violate an arbitrary and possibly secret set of rules that do not necessarily carry the force of law. That's the difference I was pointing out.

What amazes me is how somebody who does not know me and/or my politics jumps to assumptions so quickly and imo rudely. Please do not determine what my "opinion" is before asking me.

And FYI - as stated in my first post, I have already contacted my congresspeople, Nancy Pelosi's office, and the press over the TSA. No response from anybody.

No wonder I rarely post in this forum. :rolleyes:

Unskilled (to say the least) labor
 

The TSA isn't even qualified to do the job their assigned. Their own "secret shoppers" give them a failing grade. What makes them think that a union would make them any better? Just ask Ford, GM or Chrysler how their union agreements are working out. Unfortunately we can't outsource airport screening to Mexico.

(Most) Unions have run their course. While I agree that there are skilled trades that can probably still merit organization (pilots come to mind), the under-skilled TSA employees need no union. In fact, their status in the ever-growing federal employee payroll is dubious to begin with.

We might as well unionize all the workers of Burger King. Only the results would be better.