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
This is another way to get power and control over workers.
It is their right to assemble, including to unionize and choose to represent themselves.
Quote from: jerry wagner on November 17, 2010, 05:55:12 PM
It is their right to assemble, including to unionize and choose to represent themselves.
Remind me jerry.... didn't you move out of country? Or was that just a pleasant daydream?
Quote from: Patriot on November 17, 2010, 06:33:05 PM
Remind me jerry.... didn't you move out of country? Or was that just a pleasant daydream?
And that is relevant how? I am still a citizen of the United States of America. Teresa has never sent me a PM asking me to rescind my membership on this forum.
Quote from: jerry wagner on November 17, 2010, 08:00:57 PM
And that is relevant how? I am still a citizen of the United States of America. Teresa has never sent me a PM asking me to rescind my membership on this forum.
COPO. Citizen On Paper Only. Otherwise known as an Expatriate. As a resident of Canada, you don't vote in US elections do you?
I would hope Teresa doesn't do so either! Having people around who are irrelevant to the Elk County area community helps many of us keep focused on why we love living here, reinforces our resolve to stand by the vision of the founders of the USA, and reminds us of how much more grounded we are in our Judeo-Christian values than many who have given themselves over to Marxist utopian worldviews and 'The World'.
"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." – James 4:4
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" – 2nd Corinthians 6:14-15
Quote from: Patriot on November 18, 2010, 09:31:39 AM
COPO. Citizen On Paper Only. Otherwise known as an Expatriate. As a resident of Canada, you don't vote in US elections do you?
I would hope Theresa doesn't do so either! Having people around who are irrelevant to the Elk County area community helps many of us keep focused on why we love living here, reinforces our resolve to stand by the vision of the founders of the USA, and reminds us of how much more grounded we are in our Judeo-Christian values than many who have given themselves over to Marxist utopian worldviews and 'The World'.
"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." – James 4:4
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" – 2nd Corinthians 6:14-15
Expatriates pay taxes.... if I were to win the lottery tomorrow, I would have to pay a huge chunk to the US Treasury even though in Canada we do not pay taxes on lotteries. Also, I am still registered for the draft and if there were a draft, I am liable to serve.
Quote from: jerry wagner on November 18, 2010, 09:42:39 AM
Expatriates pay taxes.... if I were to win the lottery tomorrow, I would have to pay a huge chunk to the US Treasury even though in Canada we do not pay taxes on lotteries. Also, I am still registered for the draft and if there were a draft, I am liable to serve.
That's nice... now the answer to my question is????????
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/
Quote from: Patriot on November 18, 2010, 11:30:14 AM
TSA Unionization: A $30 Million Annual Gift to Union Bosses
* NUMBER OF TERRORISTS CAUGHT BY THE TSA: 0
THAT is the key stat ~~
Actually....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+.
I'm just wondering... I think airports can "opt out" of TSA... and contract with other security firms.
Smaller regional airports may have a hard time being able to afford it.. but I think larger ones might be able to ..
I wonder if that might start to happen................
Just a thought here, the shoe bombers' flight originated in Paris, and the underwear bombers' flight originated in Amsterdam. TSA must be doing something right no matter how distasteful it might be, it is a fact that there have been no domestic incidents since the implementation of the screening technics. Foriegn rules and regs may look attractive from Elk County Ks, small countries like Isreal do not have the number of passengers to deal with, not the destinations, or origins like the United States does. It is easy to become painted with a wide brush even though undeserving, an example would be a friend whom I often partnered with in continuing education classes. We were both shift supervisors, he worked for the newspaper in the production room. He was from Jamaica, born of East Indian parents. He told me how he was chased down the street during the Iran hostage situation. Raj was not Muslim or Iranian, but was profiled because of his appearance. Personally I would worry about the threat from the south more than the aircraft coming from over seas. I dislike going through a metal detector or having my purse inspected; but because of a few loonies we all must be inconvenienced in order to be safe.
Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screeningDid 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
Quote from: sixdogsmom on November 19, 2010, 09:35:28 PM
...Personally I would worry about the threat from the south more than the aircraft coming from over seas. I dislike going through a metal detector or having my purse inspected; but because of a few loonies we all must be inconvenienced in order to be safe.
Inconvenienced??...You call having your genitals and breasts groped inconvenienced?? Thats funny, because by law thats called Sexual Assault.
Quote from: Varmit on November 19, 2010, 09:51:02 PM
Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening
Inconvenienced??...You call having your genitals and breasts groped inconvenienced?? Thats funny, because by law thats called Sexual Assault.
Thanks for the information.. ....
and also... its not an inconvenience..
Inconvenience is having to take off my shoes, belt, jewelery , phone and unload and take out of all the cases, all of my filming and computer equipment..Then having the 8 or so boxes that it all is run through the ex ray shaft ... come out the other end stacking up with everyone else waiting to get through while I am trying to put everything back in that they so unceremoniously took out... exactly right so it will not be damaged..
THAT is inconvenience
The rubbing on my breasts and vagina by someone who I don't know at all..( did it ever occur to you that just becasue it is a woman that she also might "LIKE" other women? ) kinda makes me a tad uncomfortable..
But it doesn't matter.. Strangers rubbing me down 4 times while everyone stands and watches is a total invasion of my personal rights!
But for those who don't fly.. I guess you can sit back and tell those of us who do..to just deal with it cause we will be safer..
Safer my ass............
What a crock of BS!
And why would you ever need to have those areas checked? Hmmmm???? :o
Thats a good question, espcially when you consider that all the "extra" security hasn't stopped even a single would-be terrorist.