The Problem With Government Unions, TSA Workers

[Oldandtired]

Another major problem with unions is that after they have become entrenched, they protect incompetence.

Sort of similar to how municipal labor departments have become entrenched.

Fom 2002-2009, I had fired or laid off a totla of 16 people....all for different reasons......but all based on job preformance.

Most had attendance issues.
One stole from me.
One was caught in the mnens room with his girlfriend...unclothed.
One smoked pot in the mens room.

Of the 16 people......4 were black, 5 hispanic...the rest white or Aisan. One was Jewish (as I am).

Of the 4 black, three of them rthrough the department of employment sued me for discrimination......nothing proven..records showed the real; problems.

Of the 5 hispanic.....2 sued me for dicrimination....nonthing proven and the records revealed the real reasons for termination.

The Jewish one sued me for religious dicrimination....I am a Jew...a reform jew....she is an Orthodox Jew....and in her "complaint" she siad that I am not a real Jew as I am a reform Jew...and that is why it made sense that I discrimninated against her based on religion.

That was thrown out without even a hearing.

Interesting stuff.......business owners know what takes place out there......funny how the non business owners complain about things they no nothing about.

P

 

[Oldandtired]

I see you have never worked in an environment where a person gets a promotion due to office politics or nepotism rather than merit, it is not unheard of for a supervisor singling out somebody who may be a decent worker but they just dont like him or her, I will rely on the fair hearing over giving either party the benefit of the doubt.

Oh...I see......so for the few situations where what you say actually happens, ALL should spend the time and money casting doubt on their higher level employees who were hired FOR THEIR EXPERTISE.

I just dont get how you think. If you have such doubt in Americans....YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE.

The worker getting fired is an American also, you dont like workers having rights you should retire, 1890 was a long time ago.

Yo...they have rights.....right to sue if they believe they were unfairly treated. Right to minimum wage. Right to turn down the job. Right to quit.

Business owners have rights too....but I guess you only care about yourself.

Selfish asshole.

 

[noose4]

Screw the unions - they should all be abolished. They cause more problems than they solve. "Dues" are more like "fees" that members must pay in order to have a job - no one should have to pay for the right to work and support themselves and their families. On top of that unions are just sleezy operations to begin with.

You get some lazy assed member smoking next to oxygen tanks and the company fires him and "Waaaa waaaa - they didn't give me any verbal warnings, waaa-waaa they didn't give me any written warnings ...." Hell, no - they fired your ass before you blew up everybody in the plant. Unions drive up costs to consumers - the companies have to get money from somewhere in order to support union demands. The unions have the NLRB on their side - companies have to pay lawyers out the wazoo to defend them against union bullshit. And on and on. When these unions go on strike, the company should dismiss every one of the strikers and replace them with new employees - because they can do that.

Thank God I always worked in right-to-work states or in jobs that were non-union.

As for the private sector being better at management, you're damned right. They have to account for their business decisions, finances, etc. The government has a bottomless pit of other people's money and doesn't have to account for a dime of it. If the government got rid of about 2/3 of it's employees and actually put the rest in a position of having to work it would be doing everybody a favor and saving a boat-load of wasted tax dollars.

Horse shit.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This Obama nominee for the TSA has already been busted for lying to Congress. That alone should disqualify him. Trying to unionize the TSA is another reason to disqualify him. My God,can't this administration come up with anyone better than this guy? Yikes!

 

[noose4]

Oh...I see......so for the few situations where what you say actually happens, ALL should spend the time and money casting doubt on their higher level employees who were hired FOR THEIR EXPERTISE.

I just dont get how you think. If you have such doubt in Americans....YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE.

The worker getting fired is an American also, you dont like workers having rights you should retire, 1890 was a long time ago.

Yo...they have rights.....right to sue if they believe they were unfairly treated. Right to minimum wage. Right to turn down the job. Right to quit.

Business owners have rights too....but I guess you only care about yourself.

Selfish asshole.

So says the greedy business owner who wants workers to have no rights like it was the year 1900.

 

[Care4all]

When I see a lazy employee, I fire him. No union to stop me...no litigation....no union hearings.

WHen a unionized shop cites an employee for laziness, they must endure 30 days of such laziness before they can begin termination action....and more often than not, such action takes weeks if not months....WHILE THE EMPLOYEE IS STILL ON THE JOB.

SO tell me.......you are OK with a lazy employee sitting around doing a half assed job fopr a couple of months while having the responsibility of national security?

In your business, what protects the employee from being fired under false accusations or for spurious reasons such as political bent?

I do not promote someone to the level of being able to fire someone unless I am confident that they will do the right job for me. There are some pretty expensive ramifications to firing someone. I do not consider it something that someone does on a whim....and if I did, I would fire the supervisor.

when i worked in the private sector, there were a kazillion employees that warranted firing, but we had steps to follow....verbal warning and 3 writeups for the same offense, got them the boot....not before such, because the corporations i worked for did not want to pay their unemployment, so we documented everything before firing them.....even though these jobs were in right to work states...we still followed a procedure on it.

my husband worked for an independent owner once who had no problems hiring one day and firing the next....but with big corporations....they usually follow a protocol for such, just as the gvt.

 

[Oldandtired]

In your business, what protects the employee from being fired under false accusations or for spurious reasons such as political bent?

I do not promote someone to the level of being able to fire someone unless I am confident that they will do the right job for me. There are some pretty expensive ramifications to firing someone. I do not consider it something that someone does on a whim....and if I did, I would fire the supervisor.

when i worked in the private sector, there were a kazillion employees that warranted firing, but we had steps to follow....verbal warning and 3 writeups for the same offense, got them the boot....not before such, because the corporations i worked for did not want to pay their unemployment, so we documented everything before firing them.....even though these jobs were in right to work states...we still followed a procedure on it.

my husband worked for an independent owner once who had no problems hiring one day and firing the next....but with big corporations....they usually follow a protocol for such, just as the gvt.

YUes..we follow that protocol.....but when unions are involved, it is no longer as simple as a warning and probation. It gets much more in depth.....and when we are talking about national secuirity, there is NO ROOM for error......
A union will look for error in the system to protect the employee....even when an error does not exist.

 

[Oldandtired]

The worker getting fired is an American also, you dont like workers having rights you should retire, 1890 was a long time ago.

Yo...they have rights.....right to sue if they believe they were unfairly treated. Right to minimum wage. Right to turn down the job. Right to quit.

Business owners have rights too....but I guess you only care about yourself.

Selfish asshole.

So says the greedy business owner who wants workers to have no rights like it was the year 1900.

Yeah...sure....THATS what I am saying.

Like I said earlier......IT IS NOT A WRITTEN LAW THAT SAYS ONE MUST BE EFFICIENT WHEN DOING ONES JOB.......IT IS BASIC LOGIC.

99 OUT OF A HUNDRED...MAYBE EVEN 999 OUT OF 1000 TIMES, if you do your job as you are taught to do, you will retain employment.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Government unions are another arm of the Democrat Party. Employees can't strike in many cases, there is no need for a union. It is against the law for many of them to strike. So you create a union where Democrats can get rich off of employee wages, do little for the employees themselves, and use pension cash to fund Democrats no matter the issue.

There, I said it out loud. Let's discuss.

I have no idea why the media won't tell the story correctly.

Because they are for Obama and Obama wants the TSA unionized....simple as that.

However here is one editorial that addresses the topic and sums up what some here have been saying:

Examiner Editorial: Unionizing TSA is bad for national security

December 31, 2009 As 2009 comes to a blessed close, let us pause and give thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican who placed a legislative hold on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Erroll Southers to head the U.S. Transportation Security Administration. DeMint won’t withdraw his hold until Southers answers a simple question: Should TSA employees be allowed to collectively bargain with the government on workplace rules and procedures?

To date, Southers has declined to give a definitive response to DeMint’s question, even though its importance was highlighted by the attempted Christmas Day massacre of nearly 300 people aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The 23-year-old Nigerian Muslim terrorist boarded the Detroit-bound flight despite having explosives sewn into his knickers.

.....

These things should not have to be explained, but here are four common-sense reasons why collective bargaining would cripple the TSA:


1)-- The agency would lose its flexibility to move people and equipment and change protocols when it believes there’s a terrorist threat to airliners.

2)-- Collective bargaining would force TSA managers to share sensitive intelligence information with union negotiators every time new workplace procedures are needed, thus increasing the possibility of damaging leaks about those procedures.

3)-- TSA managers would no longer be able to reward high-performing screeners or fire those unable or unwilling to perform their duties in an efficient manner. Being able to do so is critical to the TSA’s ability to defend American air travelers against future terrorist attacks.

4)-- Hundreds of TSA screeners would have to be diverted from the jobs they were hired to do in order to set up the negotiating infrastructure required by collective bargaining.


DeMint should keep his hold on Southers’ nomination in place until these issues are addressed in a public hearing

Examiner Editorial: Unionizing TSA is bad for national security | San Francisco Examiner

 

[Ravi]

Screw the unions - they should all be abolished. They cause more problems than they solve. "Dues" are more like "fees" that members must pay in order to have a job - no one should have to pay for the right to work and support themselves and their families. On top of that unions are just sleezy operations to begin with.

You get some lazy assed member smoking next to oxygen tanks and the company fires him and "Waaaa waaaa - they didn't give me any verbal warnings, waaa-waaa they didn't give me any written warnings ...." Hell, no - they fired your ass before you blew up everybody in the plant. Unions drive up costs to consumers - the companies have to get money from somewhere in order to support union demands. The unions have the NLRB on their side - companies have to pay lawyers out the wazoo to defend them against union bullshit. And on and on. When these unions go on strike, the company should dismiss every one of the strikers and replace them with new employees - because they can do that.

Thank God I always worked in right-to-work states or in jobs that were non-union.

As for the private sector being better at management, you're damned right. They have to account for their business decisions, finances, etc. The government has a bottomless pit of other people's money and doesn't have to account for a dime of it. If the government got rid of about 2/3 of it's employees and actually put the rest in a position of having to work it would be doing everybody a favor and saving a boat-load of wasted tax dollars.

Government employees aren't required to belong to unions...it is their choice.

There is no constitutional reason to forbid them forming unions.

 

[Oldandtired]

Government unions are another arm of the Democrat Party. Employees can't strike in many cases, there is no need for a union. It is against the law for many of them to strike. So you create a union where Democrats can get rich off of employee wages, do little for the employees themselves, and use pension cash to fund Democrats no matter the issue.

There, I said it out loud. Let's discuss.

I have no idea why the media won't tell the story correctly.

Because they are for Obama and Obama wants the TSA unionized....simple as that.

However here is one editorial that addresses the topic and sums up what some here have been saying:

Examiner Editorial: Unionizing TSA is bad for national security

December 31, 2009 As 2009 comes to a blessed close, let us pause and give thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican who placed a legislative hold on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Erroll Southers to head the U.S. Transportation Security Administration. DeMint won’t withdraw his hold until Southers answers a simple question: Should TSA employees be allowed to collectively bargain with the government on workplace rules and procedures?

To date, Southers has declined to give a definitive response to DeMint’s question, even though its importance was highlighted by the attempted Christmas Day massacre of nearly 300 people aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The 23-year-old Nigerian Muslim terrorist boarded the Detroit-bound flight despite having explosives sewn into his knickers.

.....

These things should not have to be explained, but here are four common-sense reasons why collective bargaining would cripple the TSA:


1)-- The agency would lose its flexibility to move people and equipment and change protocols when it believes there’s a terrorist threat to airliners.

2)-- Collective bargaining would force TSA managers to share sensitive intelligence information with union negotiators every time new workplace procedures are needed, thus increasing the possibility of damaging leaks about those procedures.

3)-- TSA managers would no longer be able to reward high-performing screeners or fire those unable or unwilling to perform their duties in an efficient manner. Being able to do so is critical to the TSA’s ability to defend American air travelers against future terrorist attacks.

4)-- Hundreds of TSA screeners would have to be diverted from the jobs they were hired to do in order to set up the negotiating infrastructure required by collective bargaining.


DeMint should keep his hold on Southers’ nomination in place until these issues are addressed in a public hearing

Examiner Editorial: Unionizing TSA is bad for national security | San Francisco Examiner

There you go again. Inserting facts based on history and basic logic into a debate. How dare you. How partisan of you. How immature.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Government unions are another arm of the Democrat Party. Employees can't strike in many cases, there is no need for a union. It is against the law for many of them to strike. So you create a union where Democrats can get rich off of employee wages, do little for the employees themselves, and use pension cash to fund Democrats no matter the issue.

There, I said it out loud. Let's discuss.

I have no idea why the media won't tell the story correctly.

Because they are for Obama and Obama wants the TSA unionized....simple as that.

However here is one editorial that addresses the topic and sums up what some here have been saying:

Examiner Editorial: Unionizing TSA is bad for national security

December 31, 2009 As 2009 comes to a blessed close, let us pause and give thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican who placed a legislative hold on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Erroll Southers to head the U.S. Transportation Security Administration. DeMint won’t withdraw his hold until Southers answers a simple question: Should TSA employees be allowed to collectively bargain with the government on workplace rules and procedures?

To date, Southers has declined to give a definitive response to DeMint’s question, even though its importance was highlighted by the attempted Christmas Day massacre of nearly 300 people aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The 23-year-old Nigerian Muslim terrorist boarded the Detroit-bound flight despite having explosives sewn into his knickers.

.....

These things should not have to be explained, but here are four common-sense reasons why collective bargaining would cripple the TSA:


1)-- The agency would lose its flexibility to move people and equipment and change protocols when it believes there’s a terrorist threat to airliners.

2)-- Collective bargaining would force TSA managers to share sensitive intelligence information with union negotiators every time new workplace procedures are needed, thus increasing the possibility of damaging leaks about those procedures.

3)-- TSA managers would no longer be able to reward high-performing screeners or fire those unable or unwilling to perform their duties in an efficient manner. Being able to do so is critical to the TSA’s ability to defend American air travelers against future terrorist attacks.

4)-- Hundreds of TSA screeners would have to be diverted from the jobs they were hired to do in order to set up the negotiating infrastructure required by collective bargaining.


DeMint should keep his hold on Southers’ nomination in place until these issues are addressed in a public hearing

Examiner Editorial: Unionizing TSA is bad for national security | San Francisco Examiner

There you go again. Inserting facts based on history and basic logic into a debate. How dare you. How partisan of you. How immature.

yeah....more of that stupid "tea bag talk"......

 

[Oldandtired]

Screw the unions - they should all be abolished. They cause more problems than they solve. "Dues" are more like "fees" that members must pay in order to have a job - no one should have to pay for the right to work and support themselves and their families. On top of that unions are just sleezy operations to begin with.

You get some lazy assed member smoking next to oxygen tanks and the company fires him and "Waaaa waaaa - they didn't give me any verbal warnings, waaa-waaa they didn't give me any written warnings ...." Hell, no - they fired your ass before you blew up everybody in the plant. Unions drive up costs to consumers - the companies have to get money from somewhere in order to support union demands. The unions have the NLRB on their side - companies have to pay lawyers out the wazoo to defend them against union bullshit. And on and on. When these unions go on strike, the company should dismiss every one of the strikers and replace them with new employees - because they can do that.

Thank God I always worked in right-to-work states or in jobs that were non-union.

As for the private sector being better at management, you're damned right. They have to account for their business decisions, finances, etc. The government has a bottomless pit of other people's money and doesn't have to account for a dime of it. If the government got rid of about 2/3 of it's employees and actually put the rest in a position of having to work it would be doing everybody a favor and saving a boat-load of wasted tax dollars.

Government employees aren't required to belong to unions...it is their choice.

There is no constitutional reason to forbid them forming unions.

Not sure of the constitutionality...I will leave that to the attorneys.
Logically....a union can only hamper the efficency opf the cause. Yes, when it comes to business it is easy to say that the people MUST come before profit. I do not necessarily agree with unions, but I repsect that premise.

But when it comes to our safety......should the rights of the employees who are governed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT come beofre the lives of the citizens that pay their salaries?

Bear in mind...we are not talking about some greedy little employer out there who may do the worng thing.....we are talking about the federal government.......so we should risk the lives of the people so we can have a union ensure the government does the rfight thing for their emplyees?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Screw the unions - they should all be abolished. They cause more problems than they solve. "Dues" are more like "fees" that members must pay in order to have a job - no one should have to pay for the right to work and support themselves and their families. On top of that unions are just sleezy operations to begin with.

You get some lazy assed member smoking next to oxygen tanks and the company fires him and "Waaaa waaaa - they didn't give me any verbal warnings, waaa-waaa they didn't give me any written warnings ...." Hell, no - they fired your ass before you blew up everybody in the plant. Unions drive up costs to consumers - the companies have to get money from somewhere in order to support union demands. The unions have the NLRB on their side - companies have to pay lawyers out the wazoo to defend them against union bullshit. And on and on. When these unions go on strike, the company should dismiss every one of the strikers and replace them with new employees - because they can do that.

Thank God I always worked in right-to-work states or in jobs that were non-union.

As for the private sector being better at management, you're damned right. They have to account for their business decisions, finances, etc. The government has a bottomless pit of other people's money and doesn't have to account for a dime of it. If the government got rid of about 2/3 of it's employees and actually put the rest in a position of having to work it would be doing everybody a favor and saving a boat-load of wasted tax dollars.

Government employees aren't required to belong to unions...it is their choice.

There is no constitutional reason to forbid them forming unions.

Not sure of the constitutionality...I will leave that to the attorneys.
Logically....a union can only hamper the efficency opf the cause. Yes, when it comes to business it is easy to say that the people MUST come before profit. I do not necessarily agree with unions, but I repsect that premise.

But when it comes to our safety......should the rights of the employees who are governed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT come beofre the lives of the citizens that pay their salaries?

Bear in mind...we are not talking about some greedy little employer out there who may do the worng thing.....we are talking about the federal government.......so we should risk the lives of the people so we can have a union ensure the government does the rfight thing for their emplyees?

Yes, this is all about protection of America....we should not unionize a security force....

or should we also unionize the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, etc........?

 

[Oldandtired]

Government employees aren't required to belong to unions...it is their choice.

There is no constitutional reason to forbid them forming unions.

Not sure of the constitutionality...I will leave that to the attorneys.
Logically....a union can only hamper the efficency opf the cause. Yes, when it comes to business it is easy to say that the people MUST come before profit. I do not necessarily agree with unions, but I repsect that premise.

But when it comes to our safety......should the rights of the employees who are governed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT come beofre the lives of the citizens that pay their salaries?

Bear in mind...we are not talking about some greedy little employer out there who may do the worng thing.....we are talking about the federal government.......so we should risk the lives of the people so we can have a union ensure the government does the rfight thing for their emplyees?

Yes, this is all about protection of America....we should not unionize a security force....

or should we also unionize the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, etc........?

Here in NYC, our MTA is unionized. With the coimfort of protection, our bridge securtiy officers have been found sleeping while working....
And their punishment? Paid leave of absense and a course that mnust be taken to educate one on the importance of a good night sleep before going to work.
Gee....ya think that maybe a "paid vacation" for working "lazy"is an incentive to work hard?

 

[Ravi]

Screw the unions - they should all be abolished. They cause more problems than they solve. "Dues" are more like "fees" that members must pay in order to have a job - no one should have to pay for the right to work and support themselves and their families. On top of that unions are just sleezy operations to begin with.

You get some lazy assed member smoking next to oxygen tanks and the company fires him and "Waaaa waaaa - they didn't give me any verbal warnings, waaa-waaa they didn't give me any written warnings ...." Hell, no - they fired your ass before you blew up everybody in the plant. Unions drive up costs to consumers - the companies have to get money from somewhere in order to support union demands. The unions have the NLRB on their side - companies have to pay lawyers out the wazoo to defend them against union bullshit. And on and on. When these unions go on strike, the company should dismiss every one of the strikers and replace them with new employees - because they can do that.

Thank God I always worked in right-to-work states or in jobs that were non-union.

As for the private sector being better at management, you're damned right. They have to account for their business decisions, finances, etc. The government has a bottomless pit of other people's money and doesn't have to account for a dime of it. If the government got rid of about 2/3 of it's employees and actually put the rest in a position of having to work it would be doing everybody a favor and saving a boat-load of wasted tax dollars.

Government employees aren't required to belong to unions...it is their choice.

There is no constitutional reason to forbid them forming unions.

Not sure of the constitutionality...I will leave that to the attorneys.
Logically....a union can only hamper the efficency opf the cause. Yes, when it comes to business it is easy to say that the people MUST come before profit. I do not necessarily agree with unions, but I repsect that premise.

But when it comes to our safety......should the rights of the employees who are governed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT come beofre the lives of the citizens that pay their salaries?

Bear in mind...we are not talking about some greedy little employer out there who may do the worng thing.....we are talking about the federal government.......so we should risk the lives of the people so we can have a union ensure the government does the rfight thing for their emplyees?

No. And as you probably saw when air traffic controllers went on strike they got fired.

The union contract being proposed addresses grievances, salary, over time pay, etc. There will be no contract that allows employees to not do their jobs.

And I doubt that you disagree with me, but bashing unions and Democrats has become such second nature that you've no problem peddling untruths.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not sure of the constitutionality...I will leave that to the attorneys.
Logically....a union can only hamper the efficency opf the cause. Yes, when it comes to business it is easy to say that the people MUST come before profit. I do not necessarily agree with unions, but I repsect that premise.

But when it comes to our safety......should the rights of the employees who are governed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT come beofre the lives of the citizens that pay their salaries?

Bear in mind...we are not talking about some greedy little employer out there who may do the worng thing.....we are talking about the federal government.......so we should risk the lives of the people so we can have a union ensure the government does the rfight thing for their emplyees?

Yes, this is all about protection of America....we should not unionize a security force....

or should we also unionize the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, etc........?

Here in NYC, our MTA is unionized. With the coimfort of protection, our bridge securtiy officers have been found sleeping while working....
And their punishment? Paid leave of absense and a course that mnust be taken to educate one on the importance of a good night sleep before going to work.
Gee....ya think that maybe a "paid vacation" for working "lazy"is an incentive to work hard?

A course to teach someone the importance of a good night's sleep? hahahahaha
The bum should be fired, period.

Another example of the dumbing down of America....while we're becoming nothing more than sitting ducks...

 

[Ravi]

Government employees aren't required to belong to unions...it is their choice.

There is no constitutional reason to forbid them forming unions.

Not sure of the constitutionality...I will leave that to the attorneys.
Logically....a union can only hamper the efficency opf the cause. Yes, when it comes to business it is easy to say that the people MUST come before profit. I do not necessarily agree with unions, but I repsect that premise.

But when it comes to our safety......should the rights of the employees who are governed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT come beofre the lives of the citizens that pay their salaries?

Bear in mind...we are not talking about some greedy little employer out there who may do the worng thing.....we are talking about the federal government.......so we should risk the lives of the people so we can have a union ensure the government does the rfight thing for their emplyees?

Yes, this is all about protection of America....we should not unionize a security force....

or should we also unionize the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, etc........?

TSA isn't a military force. Perhaps if it was, with all the bennies and perks that service personnel enjoy they wouldn't bother thinking about unionizing.

 

[DiamondDave]

Government employees aren't required to belong to unions...it is their choice.

There is no constitutional reason to forbid them forming unions.

Not sure of the constitutionality...I will leave that to the attorneys.
Logically....a union can only hamper the efficency opf the cause. Yes, when it comes to business it is easy to say that the people MUST come before profit. I do not necessarily agree with unions, but I repsect that premise.

But when it comes to our safety......should the rights of the employees who are governed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT come beofre the lives of the citizens that pay their salaries?

Bear in mind...we are not talking about some greedy little employer out there who may do the worng thing.....we are talking about the federal government.......so we should risk the lives of the people so we can have a union ensure the government does the rfight thing for their emplyees?

No. And as you probably saw when air traffic controllers went on strike they got fired.

The union contract being proposed addresses grievances, salary, over time pay, etc. There will be no contract that allows employees to not do their jobs.

And I doubt that you disagree with me, but bashing unions and Democrats has become such second nature that you've no problem peddling untruths.

Yeah.. because the government is known for underpaying, not compensating for overtime, not giving advances even to the incompetent, or having enough regulations to deal with grievances or discrimination ...

And those things are ALL the union will want

 

[DiamondDave]

Not sure of the constitutionality...I will leave that to the attorneys.
Logically....a union can only hamper the efficency opf the cause. Yes, when it comes to business it is easy to say that the people MUST come before profit. I do not necessarily agree with unions, but I repsect that premise.

But when it comes to our safety......should the rights of the employees who are governed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT come beofre the lives of the citizens that pay their salaries?

Bear in mind...we are not talking about some greedy little employer out there who may do the worng thing.....we are talking about the federal government.......so we should risk the lives of the people so we can have a union ensure the government does the rfight thing for their emplyees?

Yes, this is all about protection of America....we should not unionize a security force....

or should we also unionize the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, etc........?

TSA isn't a military force. Perhaps if it was, with all the bennies and perks that service personnel enjoy they wouldn't bother thinking about unionizing.

And if they were on the same military pay?