Who's Running the TSA...No One

[Col Hogan]

The TSA was created and run by the Bush administration until 2009.

And the current administration has done nothing but go downhill with it by trying to let a union take it over...

[Gil Dobie]

The TSA was created and run by the Bush administration until 2009.

And the current administration has done nothing but go downhill with it by trying to let a union take it over...

I'm really not seeing a lot of differences between the current administration and the previous administration far as running this country.

CHANGE ........................NOT

[kalm]

The TSA was created and run by the Bush administration until 2009.

And the current administration has done nothing but go downhill with it by trying to let a union take it over...

I'm neutral when it comes to unions, but...

Would the administration be unionized as well?

Our police seem to do a good job while being unionized.

Unionization would help the economy by increasing wages.

[Gil Dobie]

And the current administration has done nothing but go downhill with it by trying to let a union take it over...

I'm neutral when it comes to unions, but...

Would the administration be unionized as well?

Our police seem to do a good job while being unionized.

Unionization would help the economy by increasing wages.

Unions have their place and currently need some reform.

I see 7 people standing around watching 1 person work on the street here locally. Great wages for doing nothing but waste tax payer money.

[CID1990]

And the current administration has done nothing but go downhill with it by trying to let a union take it over...

I'm neutral when it comes to unions, but...

Would the administration be unionized as well?

Our police seem to do a good job while being unionized.

Unionization would help the economy by increasing wages.

Kalm, take it from an ex-cop... there are a lot of issues about police unions, too many to list here, but I'll make a couple points-

Police unions are not traditional labor unions in that police do not have the right to strike. That's actually a good thing. Reagan upheld the precedent in the 1980s when he fired all the striking air traffic controllers. The idea is that the right to strike does not trump public safety. As a result, police unions are actually just the bargaining units for contract employment. That being said, nothing is nicer for bad cops than a strong contract. It makes it exceedingly difficult to get rid of the bad eggs. This is the same as with the teachers' unions that keep sh!theads in the classrooms. The pay benefits that come from contract employment are nice, but they come at the expense of quality. This is one fundamental truth of organized labor. There is a tradeoff, and you have to decide where the cons are outweighed by the pros. In the case of public safety, the public is generally not well served by organized labor.

When I was with CPD, I was actually pretty vocal against a contract or a push for madnatory arbitration because there were just too many problems that would have come from it in the area of discipline and integrity. Look to the New Orleans PD as a glowing example of what happens when you have collective bargaining with bad contracts. NOPD has a LOT of corruption, and their pay is worse than in Charleston where the cost of living is less.

Right now, TSA can sack people for cause. Throw in a labor contract and a lot of people who would not otherwise be working there for incompetence or misconduct will remain.

[houndawg]

Awww, Colonel, you'd deny a guy a living wage?

[kalm]

I'm neutral when it comes to unions, but...

Would the administration be unionized as well?

Our police seem to do a good job while being unionized.

Unionization would help the economy by increasing wages.

Kalm, take it from an ex-cop... there are a lot of issues about police unions, too many to list here, but I'll make a couple points-

Police unions are not traditional labor unions in that police do not have the right to strike. That's actually a good thing. Reagan upheld the precedent in the 1980s when he fired all the striking air traffic controllers. The idea is that the right to strike does not trump public safety. As a result, police unions are actually just the bargaining units for contract employment. That being said, nothing is nicer for bad cops than a strong contract. It makes it exceedingly difficult to get rid of the bad eggs. This is the same as with the teachers' unions that keep sh!theads in the classrooms. The pay benefits that come from contract employment are nice, but they come at the expense of quality. This is one fundamental truth of organized labor. There is a tradeoff, and you have to decide where the cons are outweighed by the pros. In the case of public safety, the public is generally not well served by organized labor.

When I was with CPD, I was actually pretty vocal against a contract or a push for madnatory arbitration because there were just too many problems that would have come from it in the area of discipline and integrity. Look to the New Orleans PD as a glowing example of what happens when you have collective bargaining with bad contracts. NOPD has a LOT of corruption, and their pay is worse than in Charleston where the cost of living is less.

Right now, TSA can sack people for cause. Throw in a labor contract and a lot of people who would not otherwise be working there for incompetence or misconduct will remain.

I have a family member in police administration and the politics of dealing with the police guild, the ineptitude of certain officers, and members being a pain in the ass just because they can are similar to your opinions. That being said, I think our police do a good job for the most part so why couldn't a TSA union be structured in a similar fashion?

Like I said, I'm neutral on the issue but I don't neccessarily think that unions doing more harm than good is the slam dunk that Demint and some of the posts on this thread suggest it is.

[CID1990]

Kalm, take it from an ex-cop... there are a lot of issues about police unions, too many to list here, but I'll make a couple points-

Police unions are not traditional labor unions in that police do not have the right to strike. That's actually a good thing. Reagan upheld the precedent in the 1980s when he fired all the striking air traffic controllers. The idea is that the right to strike does not trump public safety. As a result, police unions are actually just the bargaining units for contract employment. That being said, nothing is nicer for bad cops than a strong contract. It makes it exceedingly difficult to get rid of the bad eggs. This is the same as with the teachers' unions that keep sh!theads in the classrooms. The pay benefits that come from contract employment are nice, but they come at the expense of quality. This is one fundamental truth of organized labor. There is a tradeoff, and you have to decide where the cons are outweighed by the pros. In the case of public safety, the public is generally not well served by organized labor.

When I was with CPD, I was actually pretty vocal against a contract or a push for madnatory arbitration because there were just too many problems that would have come from it in the area of discipline and integrity. Look to the New Orleans PD as a glowing example of what happens when you have collective bargaining with bad contracts. NOPD has a LOT of corruption, and their pay is worse than in Charleston where the cost of living is less.

Right now, TSA can sack people for cause. Throw in a labor contract and a lot of people who would not otherwise be working there for incompetence or misconduct will remain.

I have a family member in police administration and the politics of dealing with the police guild, the ineptitude of certain officers, and members being a pain in the ass just because they can are similar to your opinions. That being said, I think our police do a good job for the most part so why couldn't a TSA union be structured in a similar fashion?

Like I said, I'm neutral on the issue but I don't neccessarily think that unions doing more harm than good is the slam dunk that Demint and some of the posts on this thread suggest it is.

Maybe it could be a good thing. My experience tells me that it would not be. This is mainly because the real meat of a contract would do very little to improve wages/working conditions (the Federal government actually already has a fairly good track record in this area, so there would not be much to improve). Where the real changes would come in would be in the disciplinary process. It would be much more diffifcult to get rid of the bad eggs. That would be the major change, and that's why I would generally oppose this.

We'd be spending money to make things worse. (Which is what we do a lot in government)

[kalm]

Good thoughts cid you've convinced me