Countdown Until Republicans Stop DELIBERATELY Putting the Saftey of Americans at Risk

lets see..... the guy wants to make sure that the employees don't unionize and double salaries so the gov ends up only being able to afford half the security people we could before.... and we have to get rid of the good ones, because the lousy ones have seniority.

Yes, thats sounds like MUUUUUCH better security.

And let me get this straight.... republicans should support a bad candidate for the TSA because... safety is important? You've got to be kidding me.

Alpo, once again, you manage to impress us with your idiocy.

lol , great come-back!

"lets see..... the guy wants to make sure that the employees don't unionize and double salaries so the gov ends up only being able to afford half the security people we could before.... and we have to get rid of the good ones, because the lousy ones have seniority.

Yes, thats sounds like MUUUUUCH better security."

Right.

Because $8.00/hour TSA screening jobs attract a much higher-quality worker than the $16.00/hour positions.

the pres posted what i would call a self-discrediting post....

pres -- did keith olberman put you up to this?

yes, let's pay the screeners $7.25 an hour. somewherelese is right. Just pary that the ticking you hear on the plane is someone's watch.

*pray*

"republicans should support a bad candidate for the TSA because... "

Why is he a bad candidate? HE is an ex FBI agent and is curently in charge of the police department at LAX. Seems like a much better person than that Arabian Horse Owner's Association guy Bush put in charge of FEMA.

Hey Prez... not really RE-related but I'll give it a whirl :)

He is a bad candidate because he is supportive of unionizing the TSA. On principle any appointee that supports growing the federal monster anymore than it is deserves a no-vote or at least a second/third/fourth look.

For its part the TSA has grown in the most flagrant and immoral fashion since the start of the recession. For example there are over 1700 employees making over 170K/year as opposed to 1 employee at the start of the recession. The average total federal comp package dwarfs the equivalent package in the private sector by almost 100% (~71K to 41K). This is well documented in USA Today's article "Boom Times in the Beltway".

Regardless of the messenger (Republicans in this case), opposing the current TSA nominee based on his admitted desire to unionize the TSA is the correct and respectable position. I honestly question the seriousness of anyone that does not want a deeper look into Mr Southers in this regard.

Unions exist to promote and expand the power of their membership. Government exists to serve the proper interests of its citizens. It is plain to see the inevitably negative effects of unionizing the TSA or any other civil service organization...particularly at the federal level under an administration that shows such heavy animosity towards private institutions.

Or no?

"Unions exist to promote and expand the power of their membership."

Wrong.

Unions exist to promote and expand the control and voice its members have in the workplace.

The "union" is not an institution; it's the sum of its individual members.

>> Wrong The "union" is not an institution;
>> it's the sum of its individual members.

Well, you've definitely proved your point I guess ;) Whatever man; Can't it be both? Semantics are never the point anyway. And with respect you really aren't being serious if you contend that a primary objective of any union isn't to promote and expand the power of *itself*. Freely interchange *itself* with "sum of its individual members". Fair enough? Unions certainly don't exist to degrade or maintain the status quo of their membership now do they? Come on now...

Government exists to serve me and you, not to serve itself. And unionization by definition runs counter to that proper role in my opinion. As a non-unionized taxpayer I have an interest in how government entities operate, especially in the face of unsustainable public sector debt, the huge disparity between public and private sector comp packages, and the frailty of the public pension system at all levels local, state, and federal.

My opposition to Mr Obama's policies in this respect and to *this* appointee is that our President seems to think that our federal sector should be a make-work shop for his cronies, supporters, & malcontented constituents. I don't. Make-work doesn't actually benefit anybody except those that are on the payroll you see? The dangers of this kind of self-serving policy-making should be obvious if you look at the pay scale abuse currently going on at the Transportation Administration since this administration started running the country.

In my opinion the TSA should be concerned with securing the country, not with enhancing the power of it's employees, the bureaucracy, or this president.

The headline of this OP was right out of MSNBC, and I'm just tired of this kind of idiotic partisan hype. Equally I am tired of Fox News.

Unionizattion would be a catastrophe, and is a perfectly legitimate reason to block this nominee.

"Unionizattion would be a catastrophe"

Why?

"Unionizattion would be a catastrophe"

Why?

Ummm. Look at every single unionized industry in this country. If they can't build cars, they certainly can not be trusted with the safety of every single flyer. Unions destroy everything they touch. If you are honest with yourself you will see this too. And I say all of this as a card carrying liberal. Some things are so obvious that they should transcend party lines.

660 explained it, and so did daniel1926,

I'm for workers getting good jobs, pay, etc. But unions have a corrosive impact on the work ethic, ability to discipline workers, featherbedding, ability to innovate, ability to dynamically adjust staffing responsibilities and functions, etc..etc..etc..

Had some experience in a hosptical in P Rick earlier this year. Unionized nurses were nice people as individuals but a disaster overall compared to what you would expect in any normal hospital. Doctors were not unionized and were excellent and simply had to manage the morass of the union. That is a typical story.

Unions in Japan and Korea can build the excellent cars that their management tells them to build; unions in the US build the crappy cars that their management tells them to build. So what's your point?

TSA employees, the nonunion ones, are patently incompetent, which nobody can deny. So what's your point?

Alan, I guess it's just a fundamental difference in how we see what's happened in this country. I don't think this is left vs. right. Teachers unions, auto unions have caused tons of waste and problems, If you don't acknowledge that I guess we see the world differently. Security is a serious issue where the last thing we need is union demands about work conditions or whatever interfering with the function, impeding displining workers, etc.

Actually, I don't think it's fair to say the tsa employees are incompetent. More, I think they are working in an environment where they are constrained from using profiling, hence lots of dumb activities (searching a grandmother from iowa) that distract from the real function.

Oh, please. TSA provides no security whatsoever. And you know it. They couldn't find the picture of the french fries on a McD's cash register.

And teachers? Wouldn't it be nice to have pink-collar workers, and pay them accordingly for practically volunteering for those jobs, at least until they found husbands. Ah, the good old days!

All I know when I rent a US car is that there are scores of incredibly annoying design features. If that's the case, the best, lowest-paid, no-pension assemblers in the world would still output shit.

If unions had one great negative impact on this country and its competitiveness, it's that they kept health insurance in the union/employer realm, instead of lobbying the federal government for a national health program ... that's an expense that Japanese car companies haven't had to pay any attention to.

Timothy McVeigh

Alpo:

I'm confused about your OP. If this nominee is so important to the security of the Country, why wouldn't Obama simply guarantee that Unions will not be allowed in the TSA, period. The appointment would sail through. I think everyone would agree to that. The Army and Navy don't have a union, why should the TSA?

"Because $8.00/hour TSA screening jobs attract a much higher-quality worker than the $16.00/hour positions."

Which is more than counteracted by the fact that crappy people still get hired, but then you CAN'T GET RID OF THEM.

Just look what happens with the teacher's unions in NYC. Better teachers leave; you can't give them merit pay. The ones who stink can't be fired and get paid top dollar.... for nothing other than seniority.

Do you really think that lousy candidates aren't more attracted by higher levels as well?

straw man: "Just look what happens with the teacher's unions in NYC. Better teachers leave; you can't give them merit pay. The ones who stink can't be fired and get paid top dollar.... for nothing other than seniority."

that is not a straw-man argument...geez..

it is a quite serious and relevant example of what happens with unions....

Fwiw, I've been trying to unionize re borkers, not much success. They like to eat their own. When I tried it with adult entertainers, they were all for it, till the $2 crack heads started undercutting the Jenna Jameson of the world.

What I've learned from both is mc = mb. -shrug-

Back to airport security. How about we just make sure noone puts a gps device in Fedex package and sets it to detonate when it starts moving at 500 miles per hour. Better yet they could set it to go off on coordinates, like above a major city.

You guyz are arguing over the wong cargo.

Sorry for my Chinese homies with the 'wong' surname.

hey..the whole airport security apparatus is an inefficient joke...agreed...and meanwhile, innumerable other targets are ignored...

but..specifically..if we are going to have a tsa doing anything , unionizing them is ridiculous

Do cost benefit analysis. Time saved from flying vs. Not. We'd still be flying if 50 planes blew up every year.

Same with cars. Hell, id argue elminaing smkoing would more than balance out a few terrorist bombing, but our govt chooses to focus on cap and trade. Flmao.

More ranting. Herez it comez.
How about just taking out some of these countries that are trying to get nukes. For wahtever reason that scares me more than some random idiot blowing up his penis.

>> straw man:

you wish

...btw accusing someone of making a straw man argument is one of the *worst* straw man fallacies going :)

"Better teachers leave; you can't give them merit pay."

All merit pay does is reward teachers who teach in rich suburban distrcits and punish those in inner cities. Merit pay is GREAT for a teacher in a rich town in Nassua, Bergen, or Westchester county. Their students already perform good so they will be getting a bonus without ever having to work for it. Not so with city teachers.

alpo, are you this dumb?

extra pay doesn't help teachers in inner cities?

And, of course, improved pay for good teachers should be matched by less increases (dare I say decreases) for crappy teachers. Or, dare I say, being able to get rid of them.

Just getting rid of half the rubber room teachers - including the one who PUNCHED SOMEONE IN THE FACE - could pay for the merit increases.

> that is not a straw-man argument...geez..

Yeah, alan, you're one of the best posters here... but your post about a strawman doesn't make much sense....

> ...btw accusing someone of making a straw man argument is one of the *worst* straw man fallacies
> going :)

Actually, accusing someone of a strawman is not in itself a strawman argument. Its actually almost the opposite, it takes work to disprove.

If you want classic strawman, besides some special posters on this board, try obama. I like the guy but.... "they'll tell you that poor kids don't deserve an education".... "they'll..."

I like the guy and, I guess it works as motivation speech, but WOWZAH...

no, it does not. When a kid goes home, the teacher has no control over what they do. If they're watching tv, the teacher cannot turn off the tv and make them do their homework.

>> Actually, accusing someone of a strawman is not in itself a strawman
>> argument. Its actually almost the opposite, it takes work to disprove.

Being baseless while accusing someone of making a straw man is a silly tactic on it's face. That's all I'm saying. It is those who support unionization of the TSA who make no sense and have no reasoning as to why this would benefit the organization.

The UFT *is* a federal public sector union with ~200,000 members.
A TSA union would be a federal public sector union ~50,000 members.
There's been a 1/2 dozen reasons suggesting why TSA unionization would be a *BAD* idea.
There have been *zero* reasons suggesting why it would be a *GOOD* idea.

The UFT to TSA-union comparison is a *direct* one as we're discussing the merits of public sector unions and the effectiveness in promoting desired outcomes.

well said, 660.

"no, it does not. When a kid goes home, the teacher has no control over what they do. If they're watching tv, the teacher cannot turn off the tv and make them do their homework."

By your logic, the teacher is then not relevant. So why not pay then the $8 an hour, if they don't really matter.

If teacher's don't affect student performance, why the hell are we paying so much for them?

Let's look at who's in the "rubber room" ... is it ever about bad teaching, per se? I've yet to hear of an example of that. It's always the guy who steals drinks and punches an obnoxious girl on a scripted reality TV show in Seaside Heights (not admirable on any count, but zero to do with teaching) ... or the twenty-something teacher who makes love with her 17-year-old student (also not good, but I bet it was good) ... as for non-union, is it really such a good thing that, for example, you can fire a charter-school principal for selling t-shirts that mention "the struggle" (regardless of your own political views)? I'd have preferred that one received the due process that unions impose, rather than a wave-of-the-hand off-with-her-head.

Seriously, give me any evidence that a majority of the teachers that the City tries to dismiss are "bad teachers" or incompetent ... not just dreary institutional politics. And make an argument that any of the metrics they're using are so strongly indicative of success that they should be used for hiring, firing, or raises. It's all Bloomberg bullshit, from a land where a 2-term limit means 3 terms, et cetera.

"It's always the guy who steals drinks and punches an obnoxious girl on a scripted reality TV show in Seaside Heights (not admirable on any count, but zero to do with teaching) ... or the twenty-something teacher who makes love with her 17-year-old student (also not good, but I bet it was good)"

So do we call these good teachers?

The funny part is, yes, many of the lousy teachers don't even make it to the rubber rooms. The CRAZY examples go there, but the regular lousy teachers are just.... teaching students. It would be great if they weren't, but the sad truth is they are!

> I'd have preferred that one received the due process that unions impose

Have you actually seen this process? Its crazy, there are something like 100 steps. John stossel documented it. Yes, fine, have a process. But the process should make firing possible if conditions are met, not just be a giant waste of time.

"Seriously, give me any evidence that a majority of the teachers that the City tries to dismiss are "bad teachers" or incompetent"

I didn't say this was the case... because its worse than that. They DON'T try and get rid of the bad teachers, they just transfer them from school to school.

"And make an argument that any of the metrics they're using are so strongly indicative of success that they should be used for hiring, firing, or raises."

hmmm.... the ability of your kids to read. You think that might a metric for teacher success?

"Look at every single unionized industry in this country."

OK:

Health care. The best in the world. (Perhaps not the cheapest, but definitely the best.)

Television. There's a reason why America exports its television programming globally, but doesn't import foreign programs. Ever watch foreign television shows? They make you want to gouge your eyes out with an oyster fork.

Movies. See above.

Education. Again, there's a reason why foreigners flock to America to LEARN.

Engineering. The best in the world.

Airlines. (And don't go blaming the unions for their economic woes -- it's mostly three decades of mistakes by MANAGEMENT.)

Musicians.

Stage Actors. (Ever hear of an industry collectively called "Broadway"? Foreigners have -- and they flock here by the thousands to see live performances right HERE in America.)

Electrical workers. Protections put forth by the UNION decades ago for worker safety are now written in stone in building codes WORLDWIDE. You're welcome.

Teamsters. Faithfully delivering your food, clothing, and just about everything you see, touch, taste, and smell for the past 100 years.

Miners. Think of them every time you flip a light switch or turn on your espresso maker.

And the list goes on and on an on.

These are all solid industries employing union workforces.

What was your point again?

W67: You're not clear on what scares you:
1. the notion that the West might nuke unfriendly countries so as to de-nuke them
or
2. unfriendly countries with nukes or plans for nukes

(I ask because I've noticed that certain young white males of high self-confidence seem to have this fear of unfriendly countries with nukes ........................... and I think it's just a sign of your dewy youth .........)

poorish. damn, girl, don't go away again. you miss too much. w67th is not a "young white male" although he does seem to have a lovely self-confidence level. and he would like to be a nurse to his wife's doctor upon retirement.