Unions Head for Showdown With Senate Over TSA Representation

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Vendor

Unions that want to represent thousands of airport screeners are heading for a showdown with the Senate as early as Monday, with some lawmakers looking to revoke the collective-bargaining rights the Transportation Security Administration just granted them.

TSA Administrator John Pistole announced for the first time Friday that he would allow security officers to bargain over certain workplace conditions like shifts and assignments. The decision follows months of lobbying by the two unions vying to represent them -- screeners are set to vote next month on whether to unionize and, if so, with whom. In making his decision, Pistole vowed that the TSA "will not negotiate on security."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...presentation/#


Note: Published February 05, 2011

Hopefully the Senate will not give in, less unions in America the better.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Hopefully the Senate will not give in, less unions in America the better.

Are you sure that they would like to have his finger in too often,

[Growler]

So what happens when TSA unionizes, then decides to strike?

[August]

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who supports giving the workers union rights, said Pistole's announcement marks a step toward "higher job performance and, therefore, better security for our nation."

When have unions EVER increased job performance?

[Growler]

Originally Posted by August

When have unions EVER increased job performance?

Exactly. And a TSA that walks sure makes the nation more secure.

[Tchocky]

Essential services usually have a no-strike clause in their contract, and I guess better working conditions can lead to increased productivity. I'd say that the air transport security industry is one where you'd want to have more than minimum-effort working.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I guess better working conditions can lead to increased productivity.

That hasn't been my experience when it comes to unionized workers. Unions protect the lazy.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Essential services usually have a no-strike clause in their contract, and I guess better working conditions can lead to increased productivity. I'd say that the air transport security industry is one where you'd want to have more than minimum-effort working.

While I understand what it is you're saying, I also can vividly recall the near-chaos in the US when the air traffic controllers walked early in the 80's - another place where you'd expect better than minimum effort.

I've also seen many a TSA "agent" who really called into question the validity of the entire effort: slovenly, unkempt, inattentive, lackadaisical... and more than one story has been released of things that just should not have gotten by making it to the aircraft - things like .40 cal handguns. I would argue that the quality of work needs to vastly improve before we even allow the discussion of the idea to unionize the current crop of TSA clowns.

Why is it that we entrust national security to the hands of 18 year olds only after a minimum of eight weeks of intense basic training, but we hire rent-a-cop rejects on the basis of the warm-body principle, then wonder why TSA gets bad press?