The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Teresa Heilevang on November 17, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
-
Oh Sure, The TSA Is Hated and Inneffective Now, But Things Will Get Better When They Unionize, Right?
By: Mark Hemingway
Washington Examiner
Lost in all the hoopla about TSA’s turn-your-head-and-cough security checks and so-called new “porno-scanners” is the news that TSA is about to unionize:
In a significant victory for federal employee unions, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decided Friday that Transportation Security Administration staffers will be allowed to vote on union representation.
The decision clears the way for a campaign by the government’s two largest labor organizations, the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union, to represent some 50,000 transportation security officers.
“It is no secret that the morale of the TSO workforce is terrible as a result of favoritism, a lack of fair and respectful treatment from many managers, poor and unhealthy conditions in some airports, poor training and testing protocols and a poor pay system,” said AFGE President John Gage. “The morale problems are documented by the government’s own surveys. TSOs need a recognized union voice at work, and the important decision of the FLRA finally sets the process in motion to make that right a reality.”
When the Homeland Security Department was founded under Bush, the TSA was expressly forbidden from unionizing due to security concerns. TSA effectiveness depends on rapid response to emerging threats. After a British bomb plot was broken up in 2006, TSA overhauled its policies in 12 hours to deal with new concerns about liquid explosives. It’s hard to imagine that kind of flexibility under union rules. Then according to DHS’ website, in 2007 the newly Democratic Congress cleared the way for unionization:
“We appreciate the decision by Congress to eliminate the collective bargaining provision for the Transportation Security Administration from the 9/11 bill. This provision would not have advanced our security efforts but we appreciate Congress’ bipartisan recognition of the importance of the transportation security officers’ role.
“TSA will continue to vigorously pursue activities in support of active employee engagement and a participative workforce. All of us agree on the goal of a well-prepared, well-motivated team of officers.”
Once Democrats took control of the executive branch, they immediately began pushing to unionize the TSA, as the taxpayer is merely a host organism for unions that funnel campaign cash to Democrats. Last December, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., somewhat heroically made a stand on this issue and got DHS Secretary Janet “The system worked” Napolitano to admit that she supports unionization despite safety concerns:
Sen. DeMint: My question to you is not whether or not you’ve seen it work at a state or local level, but the whole point of homeland security and particularly TSA is the security of our — of the passengers, and if — in the beginning — and our debate — and every previous administrator at TSA has said that collective bargaining is not consistent with the flexibility and the need to change. You were telling us that you’re going to collectively bargain, even though there’s apparently no reason to protect workers. There’s not any reason to standardize various work requirements. Why do we need to bring collective bargaining into this process when we see TSA making the improvements that it needs to make our passengers more secure?
Sec. Napolitano: Well, thank you, senator, for noting the improvements of our — of TSA and the employee workforce we have there, but again, I go back to the basic point that I do not think security and collective bargaining are mutually exclusive, nor do I think that collective bargaining cannot be accomplished by an agency, such as TSA, should the workers desire to be organized in such a fashion.
Sen. DeMint: Okay. Thank you for answering my question.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/oh-sure-the-tsa-is-hated-and-inneffective-now-but-things-will-get-better-when-they-unionize-right-108245164.html#ixzz15S48PKwB
-
I am so going to be driving a lot more now.
-
I am so going to be driving a lot more now.
That's going to be the case with a LOT of people. I see another bailout coming very soon.
Swoop
-
So, does this mean the Army can Unionize?
-
So, does this mean the Army can Unionize?
That is a large question. How far do we want to privatize the "power of the sword". Private prisons? Private "defense contractors"? Private cops? I call BS on all of it. If we are to grant police or military powers, it should only be to sworn officers. I will not quietly accede to "mall ninjas" weilding police or military powers. Blackwater, Halliburton, the TSA etc. can all KMA. If you've got a badge, I'll listen. Otherwise, you're just a rent-a-cop. I'm serious about this. You should have to take the oath before you get the badge, gun, and the power of arrest. I've been flamed for this before, but I don't care. I don't like mercenaries. If you want me to respect you, take the oath, not just the paycheck. You want to know where your blue helmeted stormtroopers wil come from? Look at Kellogg, Brown and Root. A mercenary force (unionized no less) operating with the full authority of law is no one's friend. Just sayin' (again). ::)
FQ13 who has seen republics fall when they subcontract out the dirty work to those who fight for pay, not country and law. Not opinion, just historical fact.
-
Sen. DeMint: My question to you is not whether or not you’ve seen it work at a state or local level, but the whole point of homeland security and particularly TSA is the security of our — of the passengers, ..........
Actually, the primary point of screening aircraft passengers isn't for their safety, but for the safety of potential ground targets if hi-jackers were to turn the aircraft into a weapon.
Passenger safety is secondary in all of this, only because the passengers would become collateral damage.
-
Shut down and disband the TSA to reduce government spending is a win-win for the flying public!
-
Government unions! Say thank you to JFK for that. He wrote the executive order. I would love a president to rescind that order!
-
You are all just jealous, look at the efficiency and quality that Unions have brought to the auto industry and education.
My god, what racists. ::)
-
TSA Unionization: A $30 Million Annual Gift to Union Bosses
When we have an administration more concerned about rewarding its union cronies than the U.S. Constitution (see ObamaCare for reference), giving union bosses access to the wallets of TSOs was only a matter of time. Now, the Transportation Security Agency’s blue shirts who are doing Janet Napolitiano’s bidding frisking, groping, molesting and seemingly sexually assaulting the American public, are about to get license for further abuse—a union card.
* Number of TSA employees eligible for unionization: 50,000
* TSA budget for FY 2010: $7.8 billion
* Estimated Union Dues TSA unionization will provide union bosses at $50 per month: $2,500,000/month or $30,000,000/year.
* Number of Americans whose Fourth Amendment rights have allegedly been violated: Thousands and still counting.
* NUMBER OF TERRORISTS CAUGHT BY THE TSA: 0
Entire article here: http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2010/11/17/tsa-unionization-an-32-million-annual-gift-to-union-bosses/
-
TSA Unionization: A $30 Million Annual Gift to Union Bosses
* NUMBER OF TERRORISTS CAUGHT BY THE TSA: 0
That's the key stat!
-
That's the key stat!
But, lets try a little Cheney logic: "There hasn't been a sucessful terrorist attack on the US since the war in Iraq".
TSA version: "There hasn't been another 911 since those brave and unionized men and women started feeling your junk". :P
FQ13
-
But, lets try a little Cheney logic: "There hasn't been a sucessful terrorist attack on the US since the war in Iraq".
TSA version: "There hasn't been another 911 since those brave and unionized men and women started feeling your junk". :P
FQ13
(http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp244/bchiaravalle/funnymonkey.gif) (http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp244/bchiaravalle/blowup.gif)
-
(http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp244/bchiaravalle/funnymonkey.gif) (http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp244/bchiaravalle/blowup.gif)
Am I wrong?
A crisis occurs.
The government overeacts (TSA, Patriot Act, War in Iraq etc.)
The crisis does not reoccur.
THEREFORE the over reaction was justified. ::)
Its the "Stick a bannana in your ear to prevent an elphant attack" plan. "Why should I keep the bannana in my ear"?
"Well, you haven't been attacked by an elephant have you"?
Or if you prefer latin: "Cum hoc ergo proptor hoc". Translation: Correlation between variables does not prove causality, merely correlation.
This isn't a partisan issue, just historical experience. If you must have a Democrat as the villian, try Rahm's quote that "you should never let a crisis go to waste". Thing is, that's not liberal thinking or conservative thinking, that's the way ALL politicians and bureacrats think.
Save the partisanship for those who care about either party. Politicians and bureacrats are a different breed from the rest of us who choose to make an honest living.
FQ13 who would note that the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA were created under the Bush and Cheney administration.
-
Am I wrong?
A crisis occurs.
The government overeacts (TSA, Patriot Act, War in Iraq etc.)
The crisis does not reoccur.
THEREFORE the over reaction was justified. ::)
Its the "Stick a bannana in your ear to prevent an elphant attack" plan. "Why should I keep the bannana in my ear"?
"Well, you haven't been attacked by an elephant have you"?
Or if you prefer latin: "Cum hoc ergo proptor hoc". Translation: Correlation between variables does not prove causality, merely correlation.
This isn't a partisan issue, just historical experience. If you must have a Democrat as the villian, try Rahm's quote that "you should never let a crisis go to waste". Thing is, that's not liberal thinking or conservative thinking, that's the way ALL politicians and bureacrats think.
Save the partisanship for those who care about either party. Politicians and bureacrats are a different breed from the rest of us who choose to make an honest living.
FQ13 who would note that the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA were created under the Bush and Cheney administration.
Touchy, aren't we? First of all, what's a "bannana"? That was a really long-winded response to 2 gifs. Can you please just once post something without turning it into an attack on Bush, Cheney, Rove, (insert evil republican here)... and then coming back with "it's not a democrat or republican thing"? That's all I ask. Otherwise, we'll NOT send you to the corner. ;)
-
Touchy, aren't we? First of all, what's a "bannana"? That was a really long-winded response to 2 gifs. Can you please just once post something without turning it into an attack on Bush, Cheney, Rove, (insert evil republican here)... and then coming back with "it's not a democrat or republican thing"? That's all I ask. Otherwise, we'll NOT send you to the corner. ;)
You've got a deal. All I ask is that you understand that as a Libertarian, my attacks are on government power in general, not a party. I'm just attacking those who wielded it at a particular time. Here's how it will go. Unless names are relevant for the post, I will refer to all politicians as "Bob". As in "Bob logic supports the Patriot Act". Or "Bob supports comprehensive immigration reform". This isn't sarcasm either, as both parties tend to support the same agenda. Henceforth, I will try to leave names out of it. No sarcasm, and I make no guarantees, but I'll try to keep partisanship out of it. Just understand, I hate the Dems as much as the GOP. :-\
FQ13
-
TSA Unionization: A $30 Million Annual Gift to Union Bosses
* NUMBER OF TERRORISTS CAUGHT BY THE TSA: 0
That's the key stat!
No it isn't Mitch, The Key stat is how many the passengers have apprehended, let's see,
The shoe bomber and the underware bomber come to mind off the top of my head,
That makes it TSA - 0 Citizens 2+
-
For now, airports can "opt out" of TSA, and contract with other security firms. Smaller regional airports may not be able to afford it, but larger ones are considering it. (some of them)...
Had to fight through two admin's for a "Passenger Bill Of Rights",.....maybe as a flying public we can unionize. >:(
-
Had to fight through two admin's for a "Passenger Bill Of Rights",.....maybe as a flying public we can unionize. >:(
We are unionized. We negotiate our contract every two years. I don't like all of the right wingers the Tea Party put in office. However I LOVE, that a grassroots movement sent a big honking wake up call to DC. Maybe they'll listen. Its less about policies and more about arrogance. The Dems and GOP don't get it yet. This was made manifest in the GOP keeping Boehner and McConell and the Dems Reid and Pelosi. Hopefully they'll get the message though. Because if they don't? I'll be investing in tar, feathers and pitchforks. ;)
FQ13
-
We need a viable third party the existing 2 are focused on getting reelected, we need a Party that actually represents the Constitution instead of Socialism or big business.
As it stands we are no better than the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany except that both ballots are the same color,There are only the lesser of evils, neither one represents We the People.
We are unionized. We negotiate our contract every two years. I don't like all of the right wingers the Tea Party put in office. However I LOVE, that a grassroots movement sent a big honking wake up call to DC. Maybe they'll listen. Its less about policies and more about arrogance. The Dems and GOP don't get it yet. This was made manifest in the GOP keeping Boehner and McConell and the Dems Reid and Pelosi. Hopefully they'll get the message though. Because if they don't? I'll be investing in tar, feathers and pitchforks. ;)
FQ13
That's crap FQ, when was the last time either party actually overturned a bad law ?
The last one I can think of was 1930 when Prohibition was repealed.
-
For now, airports can "opt out" of TSA, and contract with other security firms. Smaller regional airports may not be able to afford it, but larger ones are considering it. (some of them)...
Had to fight through two admin's for a "Passenger Bill Of Rights",.....maybe as a flying public we can unionize. >:(
Did you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.
Mica, one of the authors of the original TSA bill, has recently written to the heads of more than 150 airports nationwide suggesting they opt out of TSA screening. "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," Mica writes. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law."
In addition to being large, impersonal, and top-heavy, what really worries critics is that the TSA has become dangerously ineffective. Its specialty is what those critics call "security theater" -- that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. "That's exactly what it is," says Mica. "It's a big Kabuki dance."
Now, the dance has gotten completely out of hand. And like lots of fliers -- I spoke to him as he waited for a flight at the Orlando airport -- Mica sees TSA's new "naked scanner" machines and groping, grossly invasive passenger pat-downs as just part of a larger problem. TSA, he says, is relying more on passenger humiliation than on practices that are proven staples of airport security.
For example, many security experts have urged TSA to adopt techniques, used with great success by the Israeli airline El Al, in which passengers are observed, profiled, and most importantly, questioned before boarding planes. So TSA created a program known as SPOT -- Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques. It began hiring what it called behavior detection officers, who would be trained to notice passengers who acted suspiciously. TSA now employs about 3,000 behavior detection officers, stationed at about 160 airports across the country.
The problem is, they're doing it all wrong. A recent Government Accountability Office study found that TSA "deployed SPOT nationwide without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment." They haven't settled on the standards needed to stop bad actors.
"It's not an Israeli model, it's a TSA, screwed-up model," says Mica. "It should actually be the person who's looking at the ticket and talking to the individual. Instead, they've hired people to stand around and observe, which is a bastardization of what should be done."
In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mica noted that the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists ... have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.
Mica and other critics in Congress want to see quick and meaningful changes in the way TSA works. They go back to the days just after Sept. 11, when there was a hot debate about whether the new passenger-screening force would be federal employees, as most Democrats wanted, or private contractors, as most Republicans wanted. Democrats won and TSA has been growing ever since.
But the law did allow a test program in which five airports were allowed to use private contractors. A number of studies done since then have shown that contractors perform a bit better than federal screeners, and they're also more flexible and open to innovation. (The federal government pays the cost of screening whether performed by the TSA or by contractors, and contractors work under federal supervision.)
TSA critics know a federal-to-private change won't solve all of the problems with airport security. But it might create the conditions under which some of those problems could indeed be fixed. With passenger anger overflowing and new leadership in the House, something might finally get done.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/11/amid-airport-anger-gop-takes-aim-screening#ixzz15n4rXzI0
-
Due respect to El Al. BUT its a small airline with heavy government subsidies. Can Delta and South West do this? Or the rent a cops hired by say, the Orlando airport? Not saying TSA is any better, and its probably worse. I'm just pointing out what I think is a false comparison. Besides, shouldn't a terrorist be trained to blend in? Do this, eat that, wear this, sit here, and read a book and speak to no one. PS, leave the prayer rug at home and shave the beard. ::). Its all just a busy guy, who's nervous about "flying" with a pound of C-4 up his wazoo. Not arguments, just questions.
FQ13
-
FQ, It would be doable if the money wasted on the ineffectual bad joke known as TSA were spent to implement things that would actually work.