The Problem With Government Unions, TSA Workers

[Wry Catcher]

It seems most of you on this thread are opposed to unions, collective bargining and professional organizations.
It makes me wonder what you all do, or did, to earn a living; and if anyone of you had ever taken a history course, or have the ability to think critically about an issue.

 

[DiamondDave]

Unionizing TSA is about as good of an idea as unionizing the military or the CIA...

On the scale for bad ideas, this ranks near the top

The CIA doesn't have a Union? LOL Just google that. Interesting results about what Unions the CIA "has!"

A credit union is not a union... unions for cafeteria workers at the CIA does not make the CIA unionized.... but nice try

So please cite reference to CIA operatives and agents and the unions they have representing them

 

[rightwinger]

Our Police and Firemen have unions. FBI has a union. What the hell difference does it make if TSA workers have a union representing them?
They still are prohibited from striking, it does not mean they should not have someone standing up for the work environment, safety and well being of the TSA workers

Because there are no profits to share.

BTW...Who represents the taxpayer here?

TSA management represents the taxpayer. They have a budget to work within and are allocated a certain number of workers within that budget.
Just because a worker does not have a right to strike does not mean he does not need union representation. If anything, a union is needed more. If TSA management says they want workers to work 60 hour weeks, or work under unsafe conditions or work without proper protections then someone should be able to represent the rights of the workers.

As much as people on this board hade the idea of unions and how bad they are....Unions are responsible for the 40 hour work week, workplace safety, anti discrimination. Things we take for granted today

 

[DiamondDave]

Our Police and Firemen have unions. FBI has a union. What the hell difference does it make if TSA workers have a union representing them?
They still are prohibited from striking, it does not mean they should not have someone standing up for the work environment, safety and well being of the TSA workers

Because there are no profits to share.

BTW...Who represents the taxpayer here?

TSA management represents the taxpayer. They have a budget to work within and are allocated a certain number of workers within that budget.
Just because a worker does not have a right to strike does not mean he does not need union representation. If anything, a union is needed more. If TSA management says they want workers to work 60 hour weeks, or work under unsafe conditions or work without proper protections then someone should be able to represent the rights of the workers.

As much as people on this board hade the idea of unions and how bad they are....Unions are responsible for the 40 hour work week, workplace safety, anti discrimination. Things we take for granted today

Certain jobs involving security (I.E. TSA, covert agent, military personnel, DEA agent, etc) cannot have a union hindering or thwarting necessary moves with rules to be hashed out in collective bargaining...

'Agent Joe, we need you to immediately travel to this site to handle a potential situation.'
'Boss, you need to take that up with the union or union representation, for I have already worked my 40 hours and in our union agreement, it says I should not have to travel outside of my home range without 30 days notification'
BOOM

 

[Wry Catcher]

"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."
Jay Gould
US financier & railroad businessman (1836 - 1892)

 

[Care4all]

Because there are no profits to share.

BTW...Who represents the taxpayer here?

TSA management represents the taxpayer. They have a budget to work within and are allocated a certain number of workers within that budget.
Just because a worker does not have a right to strike does not mean he does not need union representation. If anything, a union is needed more. If TSA management says they want workers to work 60 hour weeks, or work under unsafe conditions or work without proper protections then someone should be able to represent the rights of the workers.

As much as people on this board hade the idea of unions and how bad they are....Unions are responsible for the 40 hour work week, workplace safety, anti discrimination. Things we take for granted today

Certain jobs involving security (I.E. TSA, covert agent, military personnel, DEA agent, etc) cannot have a union hindering or thwarting necessary moves with rules to be hashed out in collective bargaining...

'Agent Joe, we need you to immediately travel to this site to handle a potential situation.'
'Boss, you need to take that up with the union or union representation, for I have already worked my 40 hours and in our union agreement, it says I should not have to travel outside of my home range without 30 days notification'
BOOM

Got any examples of THIS example of yours ACTUALLY happening?

 

[Alvin]

Because there are no profits to share.

BTW...Who represents the taxpayer here?

TSA management represents the taxpayer. They have a budget to work within and are allocated a certain number of workers within that budget.
Just because a worker does not have a right to strike does not mean he does not need union representation. If anything, a union is needed more. If TSA management says they want workers to work 60 hour weeks, or work under unsafe conditions or work without proper protections then someone should be able to represent the rights of the workers.

As much as people on this board hade the idea of unions and how bad they are....Unions are responsible for the 40 hour work week, workplace safety, anti discrimination. Things we take for granted today

Certain jobs involving security (I.E. TSA, covert agent, military personnel, DEA agent, etc) cannot have a union hindering or thwarting necessary moves with rules to be hashed out in collective bargaining...

'Agent Joe, we need you to immediately travel to this site to handle a potential situation.'
'Boss, you need to take that up with the union or union representation, for I have already worked my 40 hours and in our union agreement, it says I should not have to travel outside of my home range without 30 days notification'
BOOM

'Agent Joe, I need you to go to this Klan meeting'
'Boss, I'm black'
'Best try to keep that quiet then'.

 

[Care4all]

Wasn't our security at airports done by the PRIVATE SECTOR during the time of 9/11 and this is why it was CHANGED?

 

[DiamondDave]

TSA management represents the taxpayer. They have a budget to work within and are allocated a certain number of workers within that budget.
Just because a worker does not have a right to strike does not mean he does not need union representation. If anything, a union is needed more. If TSA management says they want workers to work 60 hour weeks, or work under unsafe conditions or work without proper protections then someone should be able to represent the rights of the workers.

As much as people on this board hade the idea of unions and how bad they are....Unions are responsible for the 40 hour work week, workplace safety, anti discrimination. Things we take for granted today

Certain jobs involving security (I.E. TSA, covert agent, military personnel, DEA agent, etc) cannot have a union hindering or thwarting necessary moves with rules to be hashed out in collective bargaining...

'Agent Joe, we need you to immediately travel to this site to handle a potential situation.'
'Boss, you need to take that up with the union or union representation, for I have already worked my 40 hours and in our union agreement, it says I should not have to travel outside of my home range without 30 days notification'
BOOM

Got any examples of THIS example of yours ACTUALLY happening?

Do you know how things actually work in an essential position, in the military, or in a government security agency?? I do.. and what you do not need is a union having that kind of power held over jobs involving national security

 

[Alvin]

Certain jobs involving security (I.E. TSA, covert agent, military personnel, DEA agent, etc) cannot have a union hindering or thwarting necessary moves with rules to be hashed out in collective bargaining...

'Agent Joe, we need you to immediately travel to this site to handle a potential situation.'
'Boss, you need to take that up with the union or union representation, for I have already worked my 40 hours and in our union agreement, it says I should not have to travel outside of my home range without 30 days notification'
BOOM

Got any examples of THIS example of yours ACTUALLY happening?

Do you know how things actually work in an essential position, in the military, or in a government security agency?? I do.. and what you do not need is a union having that kind of power held over jobs involving national security

Sooner or later, everything envolves national security.

 

[Care4all]

Certain jobs involving security (I.E. TSA, covert agent, military personnel, DEA agent, etc) cannot have a union hindering or thwarting necessary moves with rules to be hashed out in collective bargaining...

'Agent Joe, we need you to immediately travel to this site to handle a potential situation.'
'Boss, you need to take that up with the union or union representation, for I have already worked my 40 hours and in our union agreement, it says I should not have to travel outside of my home range without 30 days notification'
BOOM

Got any examples of THIS example of yours ACTUALLY happening?

Do you know how things actually work in an essential position, in the military, or in a government security agency?? I do.. and what you do not need is a union having that kind of power held over jobs involving national security

And my point is Dave, that WE DON'T have that scenario....even with unions.

 

[DiamondDave]

Got any examples of THIS example of yours ACTUALLY happening?

Do you know how things actually work in an essential position, in the military, or in a government security agency?? I do.. and what you do not need is a union having that kind of power held over jobs involving national security

Sooner or later, everything envolves national security.

Um... sorry to burst your bubble.. but no, it does not

That is probably the most idiotic statement I have heard today.. and on a board filled with the likes of rdean and rightwinger, that is saying something

 

[DiamondDave]

Got any examples of THIS example of yours ACTUALLY happening?

Do you know how things actually work in an essential position, in the military, or in a government security agency?? I do.. and what you do not need is a union having that kind of power held over jobs involving national security

And my point is Dave, that WE DON'T have that scenario....even with unions.

Then what do you need a union for??

Hell.. I work in a government entity now.. and I have unions over some of my employees... and the hindrances over what certain employees can be asked to do in an emergency situation is simply amazing... I cannot ask an employee to cover extra hours because of another employee being out because of a health issue, without asking at least 14 days prior to change their schedule (and this is a 24/7 operation).... I cannot get an employee to go to a nearby building with replacement equipment, to fix an outage in a government network, because it is outside of their work zone... and these are indeed union rules

With unions... you can have conflicts interfering with national security situations... there are zero good reasons for unionizing anything in a national security entity/agency/department

 

[Oddball]

Wasn't our security at airports done by the PRIVATE SECTOR during the time of 9/11 and this is why it was CHANGED?

That's the excuse given, which had little to nothing to do with reason.

But when you need even more failure, so you can rationalize creating more bureaucrats and inconvenience for the traveling public, then the gubmint takeover of airport security makes perfect sense.

 

[Care4all]

Wasn't our security at airports done by the PRIVATE SECTOR during the time of 9/11 and this is why it was CHANGED?

That's the excuse given, which had little to nothing to do with reason.

But when you need even more failure, so you can rationalize creating more bureaucrats and inconvenience for the traveling public, then the gubmint takeover of airport security makes perfect sense.

I was responding to the post that stated the Private sector is always more efficient than the government....

TSA is a NEW dept, created after 9/11....

Two months after the 9/11 attacks, Congress enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). This law created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), initially as part of the Depart*ment of Transportation but later folded into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Among its most significant provisions, the ATSA federalized airport security under the TSA, creating a large government workforce of passenger and baggage screeners to replace the private contract screeners pre*viously employed by airlines.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/bg1955.cfm

And yes, I agree....the airport security was not necessarily part of the failure of 9/11....the NON-UNION government employees of the CIA, FBI, and NSA and their lack of urgency and communications with eachother were the ones at FAULT for 9/11 happening!

 

[bodecea]

Personally, i think all and I do mean all government security should be carried out by the military.

The TSA, border patrol etc should all be absorbed into the military and if the Union hacks of the TSA don't like it, they can quit.

We should protect our borders;air land and sea, with diligence and zeal so as to deter our enemies.

How about court system? That is apart of our security. Should we push all court cases under military jurisdiction as well?

A good police state is efficient

Before the unpleasantness called WWII, the Republicans in Congress admired Hitler and Mussolini for the efficient ways they ran their countries.

 

[noose4]

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.

No such thing as the Democrat party

 

[Wry Catcher]

Certain jobs involving security (I.E. TSA, covert agent, military personnel, DEA agent, etc) cannot have a union hindering or thwarting necessary moves with rules to be hashed out in collective bargaining...

'Agent Joe, we need you to immediately travel to this site to handle a potential situation.'
'Boss, you need to take that up with the union or union representation, for I have already worked my 40 hours and in our union agreement, it says I should not have to travel outside of my home range without 30 days notification'
BOOM

Got any examples of THIS example of yours ACTUALLY happening?

Do you know how things actually work in an essential position, in the military, or in a government security agency?? I do.. and what you do not need is a union having that kind of power held over jobs involving national security

I know how "things actually work" in a government law enforcement agency (and what doesn't work). I'm curious if you do. Please tell us what you believe.

 

[Oldandtired]

Got any examples of THIS example of yours ACTUALLY happening?

Do you know how things actually work in an essential position, in the military, or in a government security agency?? I do.. and what you do not need is a union having that kind of power held over jobs involving national security

I know how "things actually work" in a government law enforcement agency (and what doesn't work). I'm curious if you do. Please tell us what you believe.

Laziness is an intangible and therefore rarely allowed as a reason for firing in a union situation.
One falls asleep...maybe. But basic laziness and therefore less efficiency is very difficult to overcome in a termination case....and usually resultrs in a minor reprimand.

That being said...we have lazy people on assembly lines...maybe 1 out of 100 of them (just a guess)....but such is why we open boxes with missing parts. Big deal...they will send us the missing parts.

But you want the chance of one single lazy person involved in national security?

 

[Care4all]

and laziness doesn't occur in the private sector? Well darn, the private sector should have no ability to improve productivity if laziness did not exist there as well....

both groups have bad apples that they don't replace imo.