FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)
-   -   TSA Allowed to Unionize! (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/668164-tsa-allowed-unionize.html)

Superguy Mar 7, 2007 1:33 pm


Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7355386)
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.

Yeah, just spend it into bankruptcy so a foreign power can march right in and repo stuff. :rolleyes:

Superguy Mar 7, 2007 1:34 pm


Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7355439)
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.

Of course, puffers working only in X% of cases is significantly higher than the amount of explosives detected with x-rays: 0%.

Superguy Mar 7, 2007 1:50 pm


Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7358015)
If the business pays for it then it will more than likely be the balancing act of risk versus cost. How much do we risk losing if we're wrong vs. how much are we paying out every day. This is what we saw pre-9/11 with the security forces in place.

Which is what TSA should be doing anyway instead of throwing a bunch of money down the toilet to try to avoid all risk. Instead, it should be allocating more resources to things that truly are a threat (bombs, guns, etc) and less to things that are much less threatening (water, etc). Instead, we see the reverse happening.

But it sure looks good. :rolleyes:

Texas_Dawg Mar 7, 2007 2:15 pm


Originally Posted by Superguy (Post 7359926)
Which is what TSA should be doing anyway instead of throwing a bunch of money down the toilet to try to avoid all risk.

People holding unlimited credit cards backed by their own printing press, guns, and other people's time and money don't usually care too much about economic efficiency or even the efficacy of their actions. I know I certainly wouldn't. Can't really think of anyone who would. Noble and pure in character as Kip Hawley and his 60,000 Christ-like employees are, I still doubt they will ever be any different in this regard.

Superguy Mar 7, 2007 3:03 pm


Originally Posted by Texas_Dawg (Post 7360095)
People holding unlimited credit cards backed by their own printing press, guns, and other people's time and money don't usually care too much about economic efficiency or even the efficacy of their actions. I know I certainly wouldn't. Can't really think of anyone who would. Noble and pure in character as Kip Hawley and his 60,000 Christ-like employees are, I still doubt they will ever be any different in this regard.

Well at least to be fair, I'd have to say inefficiency is endemic to any large organization, government or not. I see a lot of waste, red tape and inefficiency in the company I work for. Very large company in the Fortune 20. You should see how long it takes to get someone a job offer sometimes.

ND Sol Mar 7, 2007 3:18 pm


Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7357706)
I think you have a misconstrued version of how things are in one respect - the airlines wield FAR more power than you believe. They have huge PACs and lobbying firms. They dictate far more policy than you would think.

Not as much as you might believe. They have quite a balancing act to perform. The subsidies that Feds pay for keeping the fleets in standby, the loans that have been made, etc. are matters within the industry that keep the airlines from using full force -- don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.


Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7357706)
For instance, if TSA is so power hungry, then why do they allow most airlines and airports to have their own private security staff check IDs? Why isn't TSA doing that? I mean, if they really want to throw their weight around and have all the power, why do they allow this? Its certainly less efficient (your major standard, according to you) to have two separate entities checking ID that have little or no communication with one another. One-stop shopping would be more efficient and less costly. But that's not the case. Why?

1. The TSA is limited to how many employees it is authorized. So why take on a job it can't handle.

2. The TSA generally has only been able to lease the area beginning past the queue. So the airlines can do what they want on the property they lease.

3. The TSA is taking over the ID checking function at more airports.

4. I haven't seen very many airports where the TSA even cared to double-check ID's. In fact, my travels recently have shown they aren't even looking at boarding passes.


Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7357706)
Also, for the record, the airlines were massively glad that TSA took over the most costly aspect of security. They handed that over quickly, because they didn't want to pay for it! Security is a revenue-drainer. It contributes nothing to the bottom line and costs plenty. Its like insurance - you pay the least possible hoping nothing bad will happen.

What the airlines primarily didn't want was the liability associated with security.


Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7357706)
Any good employee hired to do security would love to be able to take the time necessary to do a thorough job. That time would change, dependent upon the circumstances. Some people warrant more investigation than others. Yet TSA is pressured to handle people as quickly as possible. Where is this pressure coming from? Hmmm, lets see......

Wait until their is a union and the TSO's decide to work to the rules. That will cause a massive slowdown and a ripple effect throughout the airline industry.

Texas_Dawg Mar 7, 2007 3:40 pm


Originally Posted by Superguy (Post 7360393)
Well at least to be fair, I'd have to say inefficiency is endemic to any large organization, government or not. I see a lot of waste, red tape and inefficiency in the company I work for. Very large company in the Fortune 20. You should see how long it takes to get someone a job offer sometimes.

Of course. The market isn't inherently perfect. Just inherently better than state monopoly.

If I am paying the credit card bill, I might not use that card with perfect efficiency, but I sure as fonk am going to use it a lot more efficiently than if I know you are paying the bill (and will be forced to do so no matter what I do).

Consider how panicked you'd be if you learned I had your credit card, and, for some reason, you were going to be forced to pay it no matter what I did. Seriously think about that, and you'll understand why I hate the US government. Because it has my "credit card" (and yours)... and a whole, whole, whole lot more.

Texas_Dawg Mar 7, 2007 3:42 pm


Originally Posted by Superguy (Post 7359804)
Yeah, just spend it into bankruptcy so a foreign power can march right in and repo stuff. :rolleyes:

War (or, "national security"), is the health of the state.

Global_Hi_Flyer Mar 7, 2007 3:42 pm


Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 7360479)
What the airlines primarily didn't want was the liability associated with security.

DING DING DING DING we have a winner.

The reason that airlines accept the TSA (and FAA regulation, for that matter) is to move liability off of them and on to the FAA. That and having Federal regulations provide pre-emption of state/local regs. It's a time honored technique for large industries.

And, in part, having such a Federal system allows the airlines to be insurable at a reasonable cost.

The recent moves by the airlines to try and make the FAA privatize ATC come because the airlines figure 1) that the savings to them by pushing fixed/sunk costs onto GA will offset any potential liability, and 2) they believe that the control of the system (and the ability to control airspace access) will gain benefits. By making it a quasi-Federal corp, the liability won't fall back on the airlines.

Bart Mar 8, 2007 3:49 am


Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7357787)
Hm, not exactly. National security positions, generally TS clearance and above, do not have that right.

For those of us low in the food chain, we don't have a TS clearance. Hell, I don't know if what we have even qualifies for a clearance. I've been told that we are in a "public trust" position. All I know is that the background check TSA performed rivaled the old SBIs I had for my TS/SCI clearances when I was in the Army. At any rate, when we first started at TSA, we weren't necessarily told we couldn't join unions; but we certainly were discouraged. This week we received an email from Kip Hawley reminding us that we've always been able to join unions and in not so many words were encouraged not to join. It's a masterfully written piece that keeps him out of legal hot water yet subtly gets the message across.

Texas_Dawg Mar 8, 2007 6:17 am


Originally Posted by Bart (Post 7363383)
I've been told that we are in a "public trust" position.

LOL. I bet you have.

whatsinyourbag Mar 9, 2007 10:45 am


Originally Posted by Spiff (Post 7354087)
Tough cookies.

If you can't handle the heat, by all means get out of the kitchen.

There you go with your famous quote of heat an kitchen...

I think the heat feels good, how bout you? :)

whatsinyourbag Mar 9, 2007 10:51 am


Originally Posted by Spiff (Post 7354402)
Too bad.

If you can't handle the heat, please feel free to leave the kitchen.

Meanwhile, I'm still flying and filling out that form everytime I pass though a checkpoint.

What form would that be???

Oh, yes, the I am a chronic complainer form... :)

DL4EVR Mar 9, 2007 2:02 pm


Originally Posted by whatsinyourbag (Post 7372077)
There you go with your famous quote of heat an kitchen...

I think the heat feels good, how bout you? :)

You make this already horrible agency look even more pathetic.:rolleyes:

whatsinyourbag Mar 11, 2007 11:29 pm


Originally Posted by DL4EVR (Post 7373526)
You make this already horrible agency look even more pathetic.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

GMill Dec 30, 2009 4:42 am

Will unionization improve the TSA?
 
From The Wall Street Journal

But during last year's Presidential campaign, Mr. Obama sent a letter to the AFGE seeking an endorsement and expressing support for collective bargaining for TSA employees. He got the endorsement, and now he's trying to pay the union back with 50,000 new dues-paying members. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said earlier this year that she was exploring whether she had the legal authority to give TSA workers the right to bargain.

UALOneKPlus Dec 30, 2009 5:31 am

Holy crap.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:07 am.


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.