Tag Archives: Labor Union

Is the TSA more interested in airport security or supporting unions?

Consider this story by Hans Bader in the Washington Examiner.

Excerpt:

The TSA shut the door Friday on a private airport screening program that was making the inefficient agency look bad by outperforming it in safety, innovation, and passenger satisfaction.  The TSA’s action was praised by a liberal union in Washington that expects to unionize the TSA, the American Federation of Government Employees. Its head, John Gage, applauded the Obama Administration for requiring a “federalized” government “work force.”

Previously, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors. 16 airports did so. “But on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement,” TSA head John “Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.” The TSA’s head said he did not see any “clear or substantial advantage” to the TSA in allowing additional airports to use private screeners, although he said that the few other airports that already use private screeners will be allowed to continue to do so.

[…]Earlier, the TSA retaliated against a veteran pilot who exposed the TSA’s security failures, taking away whistleblower Chris Liu’s credentials and firearm.

The Obama Administration is now seeking to unionize the TSA, even though the TSA was originally forbidden to unionize due to security concerns.  Unlike the TSA’s current head, all past TSA Administrators have recognized that collective bargaining and union work rules are inconsistent with the flexibility needed to protect public safety and adapt quickly to changes in terrorist tactics. (Undercover agents have managed to slip bombs past TSA screeners, and the TSA is even less effective at detecting them than the private security firms it replaced after 9/11).  The AFGE union predicted on January 21 that voting to unionize the TSA will begin by mid-March.

The problem with unionizing the TSA is that it leads to the same problems we have in public schools, where there is no concern about pleasing customers because it is impossible to fire teachers no matter how badly they perform. Is it the job of government to provide adult day care to a bunch of poorly-performing layabouts? If the TSA cannot do the job of keeping us safe, then why should be locked into hiring them? We need to have more flexibility to get the best people for the job, and that means that we cannot hire union workers who will not respond to our needs.

Are public sector unions to blame for state and local deficits?

ECM sent me this post from the Manhattan Institute.

Full text:

The economists over at the e21 blog take on the argument being made by some pro-labor groups that public sector compensation (pay and the cost of benefits) is not a significant part of current state and municipal budget woes. In an editorial, e21 notes that state and local spending as a percentage of U.S. GDP has doubled in the last 50 years even as investment by local governments in traditional areas like building roads and bridges has been flat. Where has the money gone? Primarily to Medicaid and to public sector compensation.The editorial notes, for instance, that pension costs alone have increased in California from $2.4 billion per year to $4.8 billion from 2003 to 2009, while  New York City’s pension obligations have tripled over the same period.

The Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas has illustrated how those costs have worked on New York City. Amidst the controversy over the poor snow-cleaning job done by the city’s sanitation department after the Dec. 26 snowstorm, Nicole pointed out that although the department has been shrinking, its personnel costs have been rising rapidly. The average cost of employing a single sanit worker in NYC is now $144,000 annually, up from $79,000 a decade ago. The big driver of costs is sharply rising pension contributions, up from $10 million a decade ago to $200 million today.

The editorial at e21 concludes by comparing public sector pensions with private pensions, using California’s formula for public workers as an example. For a state employee in California earning almost $83,000 at retirement after 25 years of service, e21 estimates that a similar private sector employee with a defined contribution plan would have to put away 23 percent of his pre-tax income every year to amass enough of a pot of money to purchase an annuity that would give him the same kind of retirement benefits.

“Put simply, it is difficult to conceive a way to address the current – and projected – state fiscal crisis without dramatic reductions in state and local employee benefits,’ the editorial concludes.

Somebody has to pay for all this mess.

Are people on the political left more civil than those on the right?

Gateway Pundit finds that the ultra-leftist Daily Kos web site put a bulls-eye on Gabriell Giffords for being too conservative.

The Daily Kos post says:

Who to primary? Well, I’d argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I’ve bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

[…]Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can’t save their jobs, they’ll pay more attention to those who can.

p.s. Four Blue Dogs voted to protect the Constitution — Baron Hill (IN-09), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), and Mike Thompson (CA-01). They apparently realized that being supposed “moderates” didn’t necessitate selling out to Constitution for George Bush’s imperial presidency.

Guess whose name appears in bold in the list of people with bulls-eyes on their districts? Gabrielle Giffords.

A screenshot of the original post is here. I expect it will be pulled soon, like the other Daily Kos post about Gabrielle Giffords being “dead” to the author after voting against Nancy Pelosi.

What about target maps?

Liberty Pundits found that the Democrats also use maps with targets on them.

This is spite of the fact that Paul Krugman says that the left never uses maps with targets on them. (H/T Nice Deb)

In the past, have people on the left been civil?

Consider this post from Michelle Malkin that is a HUGE collection of tons of hateful, threatening and/or violent things that the left has done in the last 10 years. (H/T Mary)

Here’s the table of contents of the post:

  • I. PALIN HATE
  • II. BUSH HATE
  • III. MISC. TEA PARTY/GOP/ANTI-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HATE
  • IV. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE
  • V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
  • VI. OPEN-BORDERS HATE
  • VII. ANTI-MILITARY HATE
  • VIII. HATE: CRIMES — the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection

I caution you about looking at Michelle’s post, although I would call it a must-read if you can handle it. It is all death threats, vulgarity and vitriol from top to bottom. I am talking about guns pointed at the heads of Sarah Palin and George W. Bush, violence, fake blood, signs with death threats. Really sick stuff.

What about Obama? Isn’t he civil?

And more from the Blog Prof.

Excerpt:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama in July 2008

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Obama to Latinos, October 2010

“I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed,” Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010

“A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy,” Obama, October 6, 2010

“Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.”  Obama on banks, March 2009

“I want you to argue with them and get in their face!” Barack Obama, September 2008

I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“ Obama on the private sector, June 2010

Do you ever remember Bush using rhetoric like that? Me neither. Because he wasn’t that kind of guy.

Related posts