TSA Employees Secure Union Contract

Lamarr

Star
Registered
TSA Employees Secure Union Contract

Airport security screeners for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have formally ratified a union contract that will add some 45,000 members to the ranks of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a labor union representing over 650,000 employees of the federal government. Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the AFGE is the largest union for non-postal federal employees and the largest union for District of Columbia workers who report directly to the mayor.

Passenger screeners and other associated employees voted 17,236 to 1,774 in approval of a contract settled to in principle by the TSA and AFGE in August, and made a formal agreement on November 9. AFGE president David Cox said the union is proud that TSA employees finally have union protection that will enhance their professional lives while offering stability to the workforce.

The massive public-sector conglomerate coerces members to fork over between $14 and $16 out of each paycheck, providing the organization with up to $16 million more in revenue per year. Portions of this influx of money will go to subsidizing Democratic election campaigns and funding a number of liberal agendas.

In 2012 alone, AFGE members funneled about $1 million to Democrats, including lawmakers like Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan — while a meager three percent of those funds went to Republican candidates. The union doled out $2 million on lobbying to the government largely to guarantee that federal employees get paid more to work less. The Washington Times reported on the contract:

Under the new TSA contract, employees will win annual leave based not on their performance, but how long they’ve held on to the job. They’ll also be able to wear shorts when it’s hot, with the tab for the new wardrobe picked up by the taxpayers. House Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica, Florida Republican, blasted the deal for focusing on “tie tacks and tattoos” instead of issues that actually matter. Those tie tacks can’t exceed 1/2-inch in diameter and must be gold or silver in color. Tattoos must be covered by a sports sleeve or band that does not detract from the uniform. TSA must also provide office space for designated TSA union officials to work on union business at taxpayer expense.

The TSA was established in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with a number of special personnel policies, including a management discretion provision over whether to bargain with employees. During the George W. Bush administration, the AFGE and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) began organizing locals within the airport security organization, but without bargaining rights their execution was limited to efforts such as representing workers in appeals of disciplinary issues.

Early last year, TSA administrator John Pistole agreed to allow bargaining, although it was much more limited than those permitted for other federal workers eligible for union representation. Meanwhile, the AFGE overpowered the NTEU for the right to represent a national bargaining unit of over 40,000 employees.

The three-year contract not only revises the performance pay system, but also institutes policies for dress codes, shift scheduling, uniform allowances, and vacation time. "The completion of today's agreement between TSA and AFGE is a milestone in our relationship with our workforce and AFGE," Pistole affirmed in a statement. "Together, we will continue to secure our nation's transportation systems and keep the traveling public safe."

Over the years, American taxpayers have been forced to shell out $57 billion to an agency that has made it unpleasant to travel. Many travelers have come to detest the agency, as groping and other grievances passengers have been subjected to have actually deterred people from traveling by plane.

Furthermore, hundreds of TSA employees have been fired for allegedly stealing from travelers. According to figures recently released by ABC News, the security organization has fired almost 400 workers for engaging in passenger theft, with 16 of the top 20 busiest airports in the country harboring such employees.

Meanwhile, the invasive organization has caught not a single terrorist, yet it continues to spend billions of dollars on what some people are calling “pornographic” or “X-rated” scanning machines. Interestingly, the European Union has refused to utilize the technology, largely due to the alleged health concerns they might cause.

In a report published earlier this year, the EU’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks found that “at the population level the possible effect cannot be ignored in the assessment of acceptability of the introduction of the security scanners using X-rays for passenger screening. Due to the substantial uncertainty regarding the potential occurrence of any health effects, risks for special groups within the population could not be evaluated meaningfully, although a higher risk related to exposure in childhood was noted.”

Interestingly, the “X-rated” X-ray machines were implemented following a prominent lobbying campaign from the companies that ultimately secured the lavish security contract. “This is how Washington works,” a recent Washington Times editorial read. “Instead of focusing on what needs to be done to improve safety, we have a jobs program designed to re-elect Democrats and enrich lobbyists.”
 
This is pretty consistent with the way the rest of government is run. This is what people voted for.

I should have started a thread noting all the things like this that just happened to be announced after the election.
 
Good. Now they will have a more professional, better trained work force.
Remember Lamarr, you can't think people's ignorance of facts explains the world.

You have to acknowledge people's efforts that got us to this point. They've won due to their hard work. If you're not willing to work just as hard to reverse their gains, then you might as well give up.
 
Remember Lamarr, you can't think people's ignorance of facts explains the world.

You have to acknowledge people's efforts that got us to this point. They've won due to their hard work. If you're not willing to work just as hard to reverse their gains, then you might as well give up.


Greed, if someone is going to pay you $8/hr to do a job or $15/hr to do a job. Which job would you work harder to keep?
 
8/hr job where I can get fired.

15/hr job where I can't get fired.

People will work harder at the 8/hr job.

But TSA is full of incompetence at either wage.
 
8/hr job where I can get fired.

15/hr job where I can't get fired.

People will work harder at the 8/hr job.

But TSA is full of incompetence at either wage.

Having worked at both, that's not true.
One, there is no such animal as a job where you can't get fired. It might be harder but it can happen. Two, an $8/hr job is seen by many of those in those positions as disposable so they do just enough to not get fired but usually lack the training or professionlism of their higher paid/better benefit having brethren, who can't afford to lose their "good" job.

This is good for TSA employees. Now it's on TSA to demand better performance and training for their money.


We're using the Washington Times as a source? :smh:
 
Starting pay for tso depend on your state , ny is 16hr part time is 13,, there is no cola ,

the uninon is need for other reason i wont post on here ,, but tsa is not what is used to be back in 2001,,
 
The Underworked Public Employee

The Underworked Public Employee
The cliché is true: Government workers do tend to take it easier than their private counterparts.
By ANDREW G. BIGGS
AND JASON RICHWINE

With state and local governments struggling to balance budgets in a still sluggish economy, government employment has fallen by 562,000 jobs since September 2008, a decline of 2.6%. In response, the Obama administration has called for more federal aid—on top of the $250 billion doled out in the 2009 Recovery Act—to help keep state and local government payrolls near prerecession levels.

But supporters of more federal aid implicitly assume that the size of the public sector was optimal before the recession. On the contrary, overstaffing is a serious problem in government, and the best evidence is a simple empirical fact: Government employees don't work as much as private employees. If public-sector employees just worked as many hours as their private counterparts, governments at all levels could save more than $100 billion in annual labor costs.

How do we know that? Are we just dredging up well-worn stereotypes of government employees enjoying shorter work days, prolonged sick leave and extended vacation breaks? In fact, new evidence from a comprehensive and objective data set confirms that the "underworked" government employee is more than a stereotype.

In the past, researchers have measured work time with what are called "contract hours," meaning the time that employers require their employees to work. But many people routinely take work home with them, or skip lunch breaks, or pass up vacation days, or go to the office on weekends. Others may regularly come to the office late and duck out early. Little of this variation is captured by contract hours.

Alternatively, researchers have used surveys that ask individuals how many hours they usually work each week. But answers are susceptible to exaggeration and subjectivity regarding what each respondent defines as "work."

To address these problems, we turned to the American Time Use Survey, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics administers to a large and representative sample of American households each year. Interviewers construct a comprehensive "time diary" for each respondent that describes activities that occurred during the entire 24-hour day before the interview. Survey administrators then place each respondent's raw answers into a detailed set of activity categories, one of which is work for a primary job.

The time-use survey's data on work time are far more comprehensive and objective than any other available data source. The survey doesn't undercount working at home versus working at an office, or working evenings rather than working regular business hours. If, for example, an individual was working at 2 a.m. on the weekend, the American Time Use Survey will account for it.

The data allow us to analyze both the number of hours individuals work during a typical workweek and the total number of hours they work during the year. Thus, we can capture differences in both weekly work hours and the amount of time off that employees enjoy throughout the year.

What we found was that during a typical workweek, private-sector employees work about 41.4 hours. Federal workers, by contrast, put in 38.7 hours, and state and local government employees work 38.1 hours. In a calendar year, private-sector employees work the equivalent of 3.8 more 40-hour workweeks than federal employees and 4.7 more weeks than state and local government workers. Put another way, private employees spend around an extra month working each year compared with public employees. If the public sector worked that additional month, governments could theoretically save around $130 billion in annual labor costs without reducing services.

We've excluded teachers from the full-year comparison because of their naturally shorter work year. But could public-private differences in work time be due to other occupational differences between the sectors? Large differences in work hours actually persist even when comparing workers with similar jobs and similar skills in each sector.

Based on the most detailed and objective data set available, the private sector really does work more than the public sector. This fact may hold different lessons for different people, but our own take is simple: Before we ask private-sector employees to work more to support government, government itself should work as much as the private sector.

Mr. Biggs is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Richwine is a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443854204578058660248073962.html
 
Objective, i.e agreeable.

No, I meant what I said.
A more objective researcher could come to the same conclusion but not having an agenda, they would explain why. Maybe the fact that public sector workers are often unionized plays into them not having to slave away for their employer even in what should be their off time but there isn't any real explanation, just partisan posturing.
 
No, I meant what I said.
A more objective researcher could come to the same conclusion but not having an agenda, they would explain why. Maybe the fact that public sector workers are often unionized plays into them not having to slave away for their employer even in what should be their off time but there isn't any real explanation, just partisan posturing.
If you want to post an article by the Huffington Post about this survey, then go right ahead. My guess is they won't give this survey, depicting less working hours for government worker, much attention if any.

The article cited a survey by Bureau of Labor Statistics. Do you have a problem with the way the BLS does surveys or feel the WSJ article is lying or misleading about the results.

Tell me again how people value right or wrong and doesn't just blindly go with their the side.
 
If you want to post an article by the Huffington Post about this survey, then go right ahead. My guess is they won't give this survey, depicting less working hours for government worker, much attention if any.

The article cited a survey by Bureau of Labor Statistics. Do you have a problem with the way the BLS does surveys or feel the WSJ article is lying or misleading about the results.

Tell me again how people value right or wrong and doesn't just blindly go with their the side.

Are you being purposely obtuse on what I said?
My issue is the person who did the survey and the group he represents and he exposes the very bias and agenda in the article in the closing:

This fact may hold different lessons for different people, but our own take is simple: Before we ask private-sector employees to work more to support government, government itself should work as much as the private sector.

When people and groups looked at why public sector employees are often better paid than private sector it was fleshed out that public sector employees are more often better trained and more educated. It wasn't just "they make more money and that's all to it".
If a "survey" gives a conclusion but doesn't explain the "why", it should be looked at skeptically, even if it agrees with your own bias.

Oh, stop projecting.
 
Are you being purposely obtuse on what I said?
My issue is the person who did the survey and the group he represents and he exposes the very bias and agenda in the article in the closing:



When people and groups looked at why public sector employees are often better paid than private sector it was fleshed out that public sector employees are more often better trained and more educated. It wasn't just "they make more money and that's all to it".
If a "survey" gives a conclusion but doesn't explain the "why", it should be looked at skeptically, even if it agrees with your own bias.

Oh, stop projecting.
The people who did the survey were the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same people you were defending right before the election when they put out an unemployment report that helped Obama.

Your priorities are clear.
 
The people who did the survey were the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same people you were defending right before the election when they put out an unemployment report that helped Obama.

Your priorities are clear.

:hmm:Okay, now you're boring me.

I'm not questioning the BLS or even the Wall Street Journal, I'm questioning Biggs and Richwine, who work for the AEI and Heritage, far from objective observers.
So you see an agenda from me that doesn't exist but you have no questions for the authors who work for long found dishonest partisan organizations?
 
Okay, now you're boring me.

I'm not questioning the BLS or even the Wall Street Journal, I'm questioning Biggs and Richwine, who work for the AEI and Heritage, far from objective observers.
So you see an agenda from me that doesn't exist but you have no questions for the authors who work for long found dishonest partisan organizations?
I asked whether you thought they were lying and misleading about the results.

Doesn't sound like you're stating that. It just sounds like you're saying not being on your side is the equivalent to lying and misleading. Which is typical of this board.
 
You're finally are catching on.
With this troll snipe, in comes the perfect example of what's wrong with people.

When you casually use words like dishonest, you are saying that people who disagree with you are instantly lacking legitimacy and have no good intentions when they dissent.

I'm sure whatever problem you have with AEI, Heritage, or WSJ can be repeated by Republicans about MoveOn or MSNBC.
 
I asked whether you thought they were lying and misleading about the results.

Doesn't sound like you're stating that. It just sounds like you're saying not being on your side is the equivalent to lying and misleading. Which is typical of this board.

It only sounds like that because of whatever is going on in your head, not because of what I'm actually posting.
AEI and Heritage have been shown to repeatedly massage any information to fit their agenda even if it's involved blatant lying.
This isn't a "Right vs Left" battle with me and never is. It's always a "Truth vs Lie" battle and AEI and Heritage are proven liars and unlike a lot of people, once a source has been proven untrustworthy, I don't keep putting faith in anything they say.

With this troll snipe, in comes the perfect example of what's wrong with people.

When you casually use words like dishonest, you are saying that people who disagree with you are instantly lacking legitimacy and have no good intentions when they dissent.

Okay, you were talking to T1 right here but in case any of that shit was meant to splatter on me, I've good track record on this board of not being that kind of person, it even says so in my sig. Disagreeing with me doesnt' disqualify a person or organization from having good intentions or even from being right but lying does.

I'm sure whatever problem you have with AEI, Heritage, or WSJ can be repeated by Republicans about MoveOn or MSNBC.

So what?
See here the difference, when people accuse FNC, Limbaugh, Heritage or AEI of lying, there's a long list of occasions to choose from to make the case, the same can't be said of MSNBC or MoveOn. The false equivalency arguement is made by people with foul motives and believed by the ignorant, lazy and gullible.
 
It only sounds like that because of whatever is going on in your head, not because of what I'm actually posting.
AEI and Heritage have been shown to repeatedly massage any information to fit their agenda even if it's involved blatant lying.
This isn't a "Right vs Left" battle with me and never is. It's always a "Truth vs Lie" battle and AEI and Heritage are proven liars and unlike a lot of people, once a source has been proven untrustworthy, I don't keep putting faith in anything they say.



Okay, you were talking to T1 right here but in case any of that shit was meant to splatter on me, I've good track record on this board of not being that kind of person, it even says so in my sig. Disagreeing with me doesnt' disqualify a person or organization from having good intentions or even from being right but lying does.



So what?
See here the difference, when people accuse FNC, Limbaugh, Heritage or AEI of lying, there's a long list of occasions to choose from to make the case, the same can't be said of MSNBC or MoveOn. The false equivalency arguement is made by people with foul motives and believed by the ignorant, lazy and gullible.
It's definitely not a left v right argument for me because all of you supported giving bankers trillions of dollars because of some perceived "death spiral."

It's also wrong to call it truth v lie. It's more like "truth v truth doesn't matter." That's why you mention WSJ before anything else. And earlier in the thread you mentioned the Washington Times.

You're very typical of current voters when you talk about who has a monopoly on truth. I'm sure there are 20 conservative outlets going over what democrats say while there are 20 liberals doing the same for republicans. And they're all busy repeating an abundance of nonsense to you and whoever else gives a shit about nonsense.

News flash, you're all wrong and everything you do is geared towards pleasing a side.
 
With this troll snipe, in comes the perfect example of what's wrong with people.

When you casually use words like dishonest, you are saying that people who disagree with you are instantly lacking legitimacy and have no good intentions when they dissent.

I'm sure whatever problem you have with AEI, Heritage, or WSJ can be repeated by Republicans about MoveOn or MSNBC.

Troll snipe?

No secession, no Civil War.

Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery by force until secession, and now your article brings up the thought that he may have let slavery exist until Sumter happened.


I can legitimately respect reasoned, intelligent and informed debate. I welcome those that disagree with me. I can always learn from opposing points of view. But arguments for the sake of idealogical disagreements are to me, a waste of time.

The only justification most of the right has to argue facts is to set up phony fact sources.

Faux News is a perfect example of this. The American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation are others. Their goal is to support and further corporate interests exclusively. Most of their funding comes from big business.

What I don't understand is how a person like Greed, who is nowhere close to having the money those crooks have defend them.
 
Troll snipe?




I can legitimately respect reasoned, intelligent and informed debate. I welcome those that disagree with me. I can always learn from opposing points of view. But arguments for the sake of idealogical disagreements are to me, a waste of time.

The only justification most of the right has to argue facts is to set up phony fact sources.

Faux News is a perfect example of this. The American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation are others. Their goal is to support and further corporate interests exclusively. Most of their funding comes from big business.

What I don't understand is how a person like Greed, who is nowhere close to having the money those crooks have defend them.
What defend? I'm saying they are just as horrible as you.

You call the right crooks, but democrats gave just as much of your money to banks as the republicans did.

You and the right are hypocrites.
 
It's definitely not a left v right argument for me because all of you supported giving bankers trillions of dollars because of some perceived "death spiral."

It's also wrong to call it truth v lie. It's more like "truth v truth doesn't matter." That's why you mention WSJ before anything else. And earlier in the thread you mentioned the Washington Times.

You're very typical of current voters when you talk about who has a monopoly on truth. I'm sure there are 20 conservative outlets going over what democrats say while there are 20 liberals doing the same for republicans. And they're all busy repeating an abundance of nonsense to you and whoever else gives a shit about nonsense.

News flash, you're all wrong and everything you do is geared towards pleasing a side.

Actually, I mentioned AEI first.
There could be innumerable outlets on either side but when sources are creditably exposed, they shouldn't used as sources anymore. AEI and Heritage are on that list, not because they're "conservative" but because they lie.

What defend? I'm saying they are just as horrible as you.

You call the right crooks, but democrats gave just as much of your money to banks as the republicans did.

You and the right are hypocrites.

This is part of your problem and why you can't seem to grasp what I'm posting without projecting. I am a liberal, a member of the Left but not a Democrat. Like Bernie Sanders, I align with them when convenient but I'm not a member.
 
This is part of your problem and why you can't seem to grasp what I'm posting without projecting. I am a liberal, a member of the Left but not a Democrat. Like Bernie Sanders, I align with them when convenient but I'm not a member.


That's Greeds cover so he doesn't vote.
 
Actually, I mentioned AEI first.
There could be innumerable outlets on either side but when sources are creditably exposed, they shouldn't used as sources anymore. AEI and Heritage are on that list, not because they're "conservative" but because they lie.



This is part of your problem and why you can't seem to grasp what I'm posting without projecting. I am a liberal, a member of the Left but not a Democrat. Like Bernie Sanders, I align with them when convenient but I'm not a member.
If you really valued liberal ideals, you would never support a Democrat.

You pretend your Democratic support is a matter of convenience, but it just happens to be convenient every time an election comes up. That's call being a Democrat. You're just rightly ashamed of it.
 
If you really valued liberal ideals, you would never support a Democrat.

You pretend your Democratic support is a matter of convenience, but it just happens to be convenient every time an election comes up. That's call being a Democrat. You're just rightly ashamed of it.

This is more projection and having not participated on this board as long or as often as I have so you just say things that fit in your narrow imagination that have no relation to reality.
As I've stated often, I've voted for Republicans and an occasional third party candidate in national and local elections.
By stating I would "never" support a Democrat reveals that you are far more caught up in "R"s and "D"s than I am but you can't accept that and continue to project your limitations on me. You should stop, it hampers dialogue.

I don't vote because people with your values have already achieved such an overwhelming victory.

Then you're just a whiner. If you and those like you actually participated instead of sitting back smugly (and ignorantly) patting yourself on the back then you could effect significant change.
 
This is more projection and having not participated on this board as long or as often as I have so you just say things that fit in your narrow imagination that have no relation to reality.
As I've stated often, I've voted for Republicans and an occasional third party candidate in national and local elections.
By stating I would "never" support a Democrat reveals that you are far more caught up in "R"s and "D"s than I am but you can't accept that and continue to project your limitations on me. You should stop, it hampers dialogue.



Then you're just a whiner. If you and those like you actually participated instead of sitting back smugly (and ignorantly) patting yourself on the back then you could effect significant change.
Yes, that's everyone mantra about how sensible they are. Every voter's perception of themselves is of a rational citizen. If voters are always so willing to switch between parties, then why have the parties become so polarized? They're more entrenched to their base interest groups than they've ever been.

You pretend it's some benefit to voting between these guys because there is some stupid and inconsequential issue that you want advanced? When it comes down to it, the entire Democratic Party and the entire Republican Party vote to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top.

You like to help yourself sleep at night by thinking there is some nuance in the party membership. These pro-business votes aren't even close. Do the people you vote for help give trillions of dollars to corporations. Yes, yes they do. Is that in your your best interest? Fuck no. Do you and the others reelect them at a 98% rate no matter how low their approval rating go? Yup.

It's such a dumb statement to counter-argue against an accusation of hyper-partisanship with a declaration of bipartisanship.

People like you and trollone pride yourself on voting for people who are bleeding you dry at a faster and faster pace. You're the reason this country is shit. You and the 120 million other self-destructive assholes are what I'd be voting against, not Obama or Romney, not the Republican/Democratic machine.

You call it whining, but I call it extolling your victory. Every post you people make drips with pride regarding what you've "achieved." I'm just acknowledging what you've done as well.
 
Back
Top