I am. I believe in liberty, not statist coercion.

If you look at my point again, you'll see it's a condemnation of the statist enforcement of "collective bargaining" everywhere.

Under an FAA regulation, TSA can retaliate against employees with total impunity. Unless this lop-sided MSPB decision is appealed and overturned, wronged TSA employees such as whistleblowers have absolutely no protection from wrongful terminations:
http://mspb. gov/decisions/ 2007/mitchell_ ny050235x1. pdf

or

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2331806

or

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...69/detail.html

or

http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2005/pr05_04.htm

or

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGIVJPJR91.DTL

and I could go on and on and on......

By the way, federal unions are not allowed to arbitrate pay or work duties. They can only arbitrate things like shift allocation and rotations, grievances, overtime equity, etc.

Pay and policy are set by the Agency.

FYI virtually no one pays those rates. If you plan on more than 5 ads, expect a negotated package.

Just a friendly comment :)

That needs to be fixed bigtime.

I don't work the checkpoint. I am not a TSO. I am a fed LEO.

Nor should they or any other person have such "protection."

If I no longer wish to purchase the labor service you are selling, I should not be forced at gunpoint to do so. Whatever my reasons. Same goes for everyone else. Such behavior leads to all kinds of unnecessary problems.

Why?

I'm in full agreement with you there.

Airlines should be permitted to compete on security and security procedures.

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.

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?

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.

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......

C'mon man, the airlines are not victims here. They have the juice to get pretty much whatever they want. And what they want is to not pay for the bulk of security.

So, in essence, you're getting exactly what the business chooses for you to get.

There you go again introducing common sense and logic into this debate. ^

Hm, not exactly. National security positions, generally TS clearance and above, do not have that right.

I know this. Not sure what I said that contradicts this.

Because they haven't gained the political power to do so yet. The airlines have been able to hold them off. Not sure what your argument is here.

Of course. No argument here from me.

Government is for the powerful, to the disadvantage of the less powerful. Always has been, always will be. Many people with the more powerful larger airline firms love having the state force others to pay for this. Many less powerful people wishing to enter the market don't though as such restrictions limit the size of the market and increase barriers to entry.

Government is a racket that benefits its controllers and the people with whom it shares its ill-gotten loot. In this case, many airline execs.

Then why mandate anyone having to pay for or allow the TSA? If it's what the market wants anyway, then no regulations from you are necessary.

I think you know this isn't, in essence, the case though.

Except that it's an illogical statement, of course.

If all airlines and aiport operators would freely choose to have the TSA anyway, then government establishment and protection of it wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Thank you for clearing that up.

You are correct, I would have to break the law.

So there might be some employees that belong to this union? If that's the case, seems like they're lobbying for their members, and that can include newspaper ads. I don't see anything wrong with that.