TSA Allowed to Unionize!
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021501811.html

Unbelievable. . is the Congresss so "out of touch" with what is going on with this agency that they're now allowing them to unionize? This would mean nobody would be let go, the costs would be even more astronomical for the absolute incompetence of these people, and there would be no recourse. . .this is a sad day.

I've called my congresspeople, Nancy Pelosi's office, and the media about the most recent incident that occurred to me in SFO 2 weeks ago. No return calls/no action.

This is just amazing. Now their wages will be more, their benefits more, and yet we continue to receive horrendous service by people on a "power trip" thinking that they are protecting our country.

My solution: Bring the folks home from Iraq and give them these jobs instead of the current batch of incompetents.

Get a clue!
 

Before you put all 43,000 screeners under one "incompetent" umbrella you might wwant to do a little research. Sure there are those screeners that are on a powertrip, and I am sorry that you might be a little incovenienced by their actions.

The truth is there are many screeners who take their jobs seriously, and many of them have served in the armed forces the the first two gulf wars. The TSA gives hiring preference to veterans. My father is one of them.

I have had many discussions with him concerning TSA policy and the many absurd policies currently in place. I don't agree with many of them and neither does he.

However, as a veteran he appreciates the opportunity the TSA has given him and does his job with pride. Despite the fact that he has been verbally abused and physically threatened by overzealous frequequent fliers who think they are so important they are exempt from the rules. His pay is peanuts and the benefits are not on a par with the other Federal agencies. Their human resources department is outsourced and completely useless and the TSA senior management does not care about their people.

That is why they need a collective bargaining agreement...............

If it's that bad, he should quit and find something better. If he's not skilled enough for something better, too bad.

Monopolizing the workforce to artificially inflate wages does nothing but raise costs and lower returns for everyone. Unions are for the lazy (and the late 1800's).

The post title is a bit misleading. The proposal simply passed a committee, not signed or approved by Senate or House yet, and the president has vowed to veto it. So we're a ways away from "TSA allowed to unionize".

Don't forget reducing the quality of output.

Ah, the same love it or leave it rationale that people on the forum get all riled up about when used against them.

As in, if you don't like the TSA, then don't fly!

Tough cookies.

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

This is exact! Next time dont read the Washington Post and watch something that offers "fair and balanced" like Fox News...They will tell you the WHOLE story.

Sorry if the title is "misleading" but to even have this considered is just continuing the "theatre of the absurd" known as the TSA that continues to occur imo.

I find it astounding that somebody would say you don't like the TSA, don't fly! :rolleyes: That to me is part of one of the largest problems with the TSA - lack of customer service and civility! FYI - it's also not because of "one TSA agent" but many over the last 5 years.

Sure, just as soon as you quit your whining.

For those not paying attention I'll say it again - the argument was made if the TSA father of one of the poster's should quit his job with TSA or suck it up. The same argument could go - quit flying or suck it up.

If you find that line of reasoning uncivil then where's the outrage at lack of civility to that man's father?

I am always flying out from PHX when I am like with TSA is much better than old security before 9/11. I remember when 9/11 attacks the security is very bad the old security does not good enough. Now on, WSA has been took over all terminals when they need to get a better security. I think last 5 years ago some US Airports has been improvement the security checkpoint. I know few airports has been terribly security: CVG, JAX, SMF, and few others. I remember when I was gotten through checkpoint at JAX in October 2001. The security is very bad when my carry on bag is go through again the x-ray machines. He didn't look it up the monitor after I told him that I don't have anything sharp object. I hear over the news sometimes in mid-2002 when aviation security is improved some few airports is MIA, FLL and few others.

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.

The TSA needs to be disbanded, not unionized.

We're closer than you think. The measure has already passed the House.

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:

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?