TSA leadership vacuum: Case of politics

What does DeMint have against those union firefighters who gave their lives on 9/11?
Shame on him.

Let's see where this administration's terrorism focus has been:

Operation Vigilant Eagle - The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as unionizing the TSA's army of screeners, do they really need to be? Is this an agency that needs rigid workrules or flexibility? Is our federal gov't incapable of providing a decent wage and benefits w/o unionization?

The real reason for the unions is to reward the union bosses with more dues and then the union bosses will reward the democratic politicians with more contributions. As with most things political, follow the money.

If TSA is so awfully important (and believe me, I think it is), then perhaps Obama shouldn't have waited until September to nominate someone. Perhaps Congress should have been more concerned with handling that nomination, instead of rushing through a ruinous health care plan that involved hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes and will bankrupt us all.

Don't blame the GOP, Harry. Look in the mirror and look at the WH.

A red herring.

When and if the failure in this case is dissected publicly it will involve the usual suspects:

bureaucrats protecting their prerogatives and turf

just remember: no one was fired or disciplined over 9-11.

A prior terror commission's recommendations (including locking the cockpit doors) were ignored.

We have met the enemy, as Pogo pointed out, and it is US.

Or U.S. if you prefer.

DeMinted might have found it a better tactic to let TSA unionize:

Then he could bash the unions in an event like this.

Was TSA operating in Amsterdam?

what does it take to get on the no-fly list anyway?

So, Obama wants the TSA workers to unite (and what go on strike?) in order for him to pay them a better wage?

If this makes sense to you, you have overdosed on the kool-aid.

Are you seriously thinking that Obama hasn't played politics with every appointment he's made?

I suppose he choose Janet "man made disaster" Napalitano because she knows what she's doing, is an expert in security, has any experience for the job period, is a complete idiot? Oh wait, she is a complete idiot. That qualifies her for any high level government job and she's not a union member...

So, Obama wants the TSA workers to unite (and what go on strike?) in order for him to pay them a better wage?
Posted by: Free to Watch Whatever I Want | December 30, 2009 11:33 AM

Maybe you would like to tell the families of the union firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11 the same?

Goverment TSA workers don't provide sctreening in Nigeria or Amsterdam (thats where this guy got on and connected in) and didn't hit American soil until AFTER he tried to detonate a bomb so the Democrats fingerpointing makes no sense. The fact that the TSA workers are a bunch of incopetent buffons being non-union, i can only imagine the workers and dept. turning into a complete joke once they unionize.
.
After seeing the moron that Ozero picked to run homeland security Janet Napolitano come out and say that the "system worked" in regard to the bomber only starting a fire instead of blowing up the plane, all these clowns that O' nominates need to be stalled and thoroughly scrutinized so we don't wind up with more incopetent fools protecting us.
.
I guess Obama was wrong when he thought he could apologize for America and the islamic terrorists would just leave us alone. Go figure.....

TSA implement a new security check for people traveling, way back before this attempt, it call cross check, when someone cannot by pass the checking on line or at the airpor, one of the airline employees has to call a number for the TSA, an give all the information from the type of ID the passenger provide you. one more time this type of check it's very unrealistic, because 99% of the time you gave the person the infromation if you try to give them mide initial or second or third name, they tell is not necessari... I think this is a big problem, because if they are looking for somebody, never will be find this person, just there are creating a bigger list.

Maybe you would like to tell the families of the union firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11 the same?

Posted by: bill r. | December 30, 2009 11:44 AM

Maybe you'd like to explain how being in a union had anything to do with whether people died on 9/11. Maybe you can explain how unionizing TSA will do anything to improve national security. Or maybe you can explain who's pockets will be fleeced each time the union decides to extort benefits in exchange for adapting to new security threats.
Spare me the fake compassion for the NYPD, this is all about expanding government control and power.

Maybe you would like to tell the families of the union firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11 the same?

Posted by: bill r. | December 30, 2009 11:44 AM

Maybe you'd like to explain how being in a union had anything to do with whether people died on 9/11. Maybe you can explain how unionizing TSA will do anything to improve national security. Or maybe you can explain who's pockets will be fleeced each time the union decides to extort benefits in exchange for adapting to new security threats.
Spare me the fake compassion for the NYPD, this is all about expanding government control and power.

Maybe you would like to tell the families of the union firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11 the same?

Posted by: bill r. | December 30, 2009 11:44 AM

Maybe you'd like to explain how being in a union had anything to do with whether people died on 9/11. Maybe you can explain how unionizing TSA will do anything to improve national security. Or maybe you can explain who's pockets will be fleeced each time the union decides to extort benefits in exchange for adapting to new security threats.
Spare me the fake compassion for the NYPD, this is all about expanding government control and power.

JUST KEEP DRIVING IT IN THE DITCH, DEMONCRATS!!!
Election 2012: Nebraska Senate
*
Health Care Vote Puts Nelson 30 Points Down in Reelection Bid
*
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/nebraska/election_2012_nebraska_senate

Maybe you would like to tell the families of the union firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11 the same?

Posted by: bill r. | December 30, 2009 11:44 AM

Maybe you'd like to explain how being in a union had anything to do with whether people died on 9/11. Maybe you can explain how unionizing TSA will do anything to improve national security. Or maybe you can explain who's pockets will be fleeced each time the union decides to extort benefits in exchange for adapting to new security threats.
Spare me the fake compassion for the NYPD, this is all about expanding government control and power.

bill r,

I know it's hard for you, but try and make sense.

That's quit a twist you have going: Unionizing government workers equals heroic NYC firefighters. ????

Memo to Senator DeMint:

Workers have the right to form a union in this country if they choose. It isn't something that needs to be debated in the Senate.

TSA moved with commendable speed after the Christmas incident. For the new airport security rules, look here:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/flying-home/

Maybe you'd like to explain how being in a union had Maybe you can explain how unionizing TSA will do anything to improve national security.

Posted by: Hans | December 30, 2009 12:53 PM
;
I doubt anything I say will make you pause for one second and consider the other side but at any rate...unionizing does protect the employees from being fired because of politics. Heck, my instinct would be to fire any and every mouthbreathing Republican who voted for Sarah Palin, and a Democrat could do that because they aren't unionized.

BillyR,

The question is, is it the fact that the firefighters are unionized that caused them to be heroes? I doubt it. They would have acted heroic if they had been non-union.

Sens, And not being able to fire workers will improve national security how exactly? They are not yet a Daley patronage army but if and when they are used to strongarm votes then I would surely want to be able to get them fired without some union protecting them. You are right, there are two sides to this. National security vs. poor performance and high costs protected by unions extorting dues to perpetuate their ineptitude.

I think the union excuse is EXTREMELY LAME. I wonder if any of these people commenting including DeMint has ever been part of a union. They aren't all bad. And to those of you who think a union member can never be fired, you don't know what you are talking about. So long as you have DOCUMENTED proof of insubordination, misbehavior or slacking off, that person can be fired. I've seen it happen. Most times if a person is not doing their job, the other union members want them out because they have to take up the slack and work harder and resentment sets in.

Now lets join hands and sing America the Beautiful.

MEMO to: Senator DeMint

It is legal in the United States for workers to organize and join a union if they elect to do so. This is not something that needs to be debated in the U.S. Senate.

Funny how the rabid worry so about poor performance with unions, but praise the mighty CEOs and bankers who not only were not fired, they were inhanced by millions to run their companies into the ground. Capitalism=flawless
Unions=undeserving lowlifes. Hans wants to know who's pockets were fleeced by the firefighters unions. Tell me why the firefighters union is good but others are bad. Free....it doesn't take much intelligence to make the connection.

Heck, my instinct would be to fire any and every mouthbreathing Republican who voted for Sarah Palin, and a Democrat could do that because they aren't unionized.

Posted by: sensible | December 30, 2009 2:24 PM

In case you haven't heard: it's a secret ballot when you vote in the USA.

Union government workers...that's worked out so well for California. Democrats pander to the unions, the unions make sure to deliver the votes to the Democrats. The Democrats give ridiculous pay raises to the unions and guaranteed retirement benies. SO MUCH SO THAT THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS GOING TO CRASH. Then those poor democrats state workers will lose all those excessive benefits, their jobs and homes.

Shouldn't be so greedy with taxpayers money.

* * * * *
“… my instinct would be to fire any and every mouthbreathing Republican who voted for Sarah Palin, and a Democrat could do that because they aren't unionized.”
.
Posted by: sensible | December 30, 2009 2:24 PM
.
Wow, you really ARE ignorant. Under federal law, and the laws of most States, an at-will employee (i.e. one without a definite employment contract) has the right to be free from firing, demotion or other detrimental employment action because of, or in retaliation to, his or her political activities and affiliations. Thus, firing someone for being a Republican (or Democrat, Libertarian, Communist, Green Party member, etc.), or for voting for a particular candidate, is grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit in most jurisdictions.
.
And, BTW - a person’s political beliefs, actions and affiliations are protected under the First Amendment against action by the federal and state governments. As such, government retribution for engaging in these protected activities could result in a federal civil rights action.
.
In the unlikely event that you do have management level power over hiring and firing at your workplace, I and my lawyer buddies would like to know where you work. We could all stand a good laugh and a few new cases.

The question is, is it the fact that the firefighters are unionized that caused them to be heroes? I doubt it.
Posted by: Terry | December 30, 2009 3:08 PM

Funny...I see the question as how could they have acted as heroes in a union. That seems to be the point the rabid are making. To them a union is for only lazy bums looking to beat the system.

Sens, And not being able to fire workers will improve national security how exactly?

Posted by: Hans | December 30, 2009 3:16 PM
;
Man you are being dumb. Suppose I fire highly competent security professionals because I don't like their politics and I want my friends nephew and his frat brothers to take their place. Don't you think that can impact security negatively?

Maybe you would like to tell the families of the union firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11 the same?

Posted by: bill r. | December 30, 2009 11:44 AM
***************************************************************************************************************************************************
bill r. poor little bill, do you really think you are fooling anyone with your liberal claptrap. No one wants to do anything to the firefighters union or the police union. It has nothing to do with the TSA workers getting better pay it all has to do with the union bosses paying off the Democrats in the form of contributions. Most people with half a brain (meaning non-liberals) know this.
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************
I doubt anything I say will make you pause for one second and consider the other side but at any rate...unionizing does protect the employees from being fired because of politics. Heck, my instinct would be to fire any and every mouthbreathing Republican who voted for Sarah Palin, and a Democrat could do that because they aren't unionized.

Posted by: sensible | December 30, 2009 2:24 PM
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
Poor little sensible it was seen you have not a clue about big unions. They are already part of the Democratic political party all you have to do is look at the money and who they give it to. You can even follow how the unions bought and paid for Democrats vote the way the union masters tell them to. Once again I state anyone with half a brain (meaning non-liberals) know this.
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************

Most big unions today are nothing more than a political slush fund for the Democrats. They do not protect their workers the way they once did. What they do protect is lazy unproductive slogs in most cases. I should know I was in a union when they did this and it would turn my stomach. I was a postal carrier! Just look at the teachers unions protecting underperforming teachers who should be no more than janitors in the schools they teach in. Do I even need to go into Cook County or the state of Illinois and the unions there.

bill r.
Go take your meds, then back to bed.

Paulo

Most people with half a brain (meaning non-liberals) know this.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | December 30, 2009 4:31 PM

Sorry to hear of the lack of half a brain...that would explain much.

Poor little bill r. I thank my post might have gone over his head. I guess satire is too much for his liberal mind. I also noticed that he cannot debate just hurtle insults at people that call him out for his ignorance. It's people like bill r. that make it easy to understand why liberals are outnumbered 4 to 1 seeing how that my be too hard for bill r to get to say one in five or 20% is that easier for you bill r.

In the unlikely event that you do have management level power over hiring and firing at your workplace, I and my lawyer buddies would like to know where you work. We could all stand a good laugh and a few new cases.

Posted by: John W. | December 30, 2009 4:07 PM
;
I know this and so do employers but you're ignorant if you don't think political firings or firing for personal reasons don't happen and employers get away with it. Suppose I hate your politics. I can fire you and say it's because you were late punching in. You have little recourse to fight this when you're an at will employee. If you have union protection then removing you from your job becomes a process and all sides get to make their case.

Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | December 30, 2009 4:31 PM
;
There are lazy and worthless workers everywhere. I know. I work with some And they don't get fired.
Keep typing like a good little robot.

Poor little bill r. I thank my post might have gone over his head.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | December 30, 2009 5:32 PM

They're your words. No thanks needed!

* * * * *
Posted by: sensible | December 30, 2009 5:46 PM
.
Don't confuse the substantive law with evidentiary issues. Your substantive observation that such firing can be done because Republicans aren’t unionized is simply false. That was the point of my post.
.
And, yes, it's easier to allege a wrongful termination case than it is to prove it. But that doesn't make it impossible. There have been numerous cases where direct and circumstantial evidence has sustained verdicts for wrongful termination despite the employer’s protests of a lawful, non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory motive for firing, demoting or otherwise. Some people just have big mouths. There have been cases, like the example you have given, where an employer made the mistake of saying out loud something like: it was their "instinct" to "fire any and every mouthbreathing Republican who voted for [X candidate] ..." - and it sunk them.
.
Also, the circumstances of a person’s work record and performance - if it is good - can also be strong circumstantial evidence that a firing, demotion or other inflicted detriment was undertaken for an improper purpose. In the same vein, if a person is fired for punching in late (to use your example), but the employee manual and the standard practice of the company is not to fire or demote someone for punching in late, then these facts also circumstantially demonstrate that the excuse is a sham.
.
Once the former or demoted employee has come forth with some evidence that the firing, demotion (or etc.) was for an illegal purpose, the burden then shifts to the employer to prove that it would have fired, demoted or taken the detrimental action complained of against the employee for other, legitimate reasons. I will admit that, in some instances, employees have bad enough work records that employers can get away with firing them, even for illegal reasons. Then again, the law always favors the vigilant. The lesson to be learned is that, if you don’t want to get fired for political activities, do your job well.
.
Regarding Unions: You may be placing too much faith in their ability to protect workers. The permissible reasons for firing a worker under a union contract, and the procedures that must be followed, can differ widely from union to union and business to business. But they don’t completely protect workers from being fired. In the case of a government employee, the reasons for firing, demoting or taking disciplinary action can (and have been) much broader than in the private sector. Significantly, striking can be (and has been) a cause for termination in collective bargaining agreements with government entities. Besides, I wouldn’t be so sure that a union worker always has the same chance of prevailing before an arbitration board - as specified in many union contracts - as he or she would have in a court of law.

BillyR,

The point is the union had nothing to do with their heroics. They would be just as much heroes if they were non-union as they were as union firefighters.

Nessy,

I was part of a union for 4 years - the pay was great, but the work rules made absoultely no sense.

Memo to Hans:

Those union firefighters on 9/11 at the WTC.

What was it they said?

We are from the government and we are here to help you.

So put a big sock in it, Hans.

The point is the union had nothing to do with their heroics. They would be just as much heroes if they were non-union as they were as union firefighters.
Posted by: Terry | December 30, 2009 7:05 PM

So your saying that being in a union wouldn't prevent those good people from doing good work.

There are lazy and worthless workers everywhere. I know. I work with some And they don't get fired.
Keep typing like a good little robot.

Posted by: sensible | December 30, 2009 5:48 PM
*********************************************************************************************
What's the problem sensible?
Is it that I called out union workers for being lazy. Yes there are worthless workers everywhere I just need to look at state ran universities to find a lot or a government program. In the real world a worthless worker does not last long unless they are protected by a family member. But union workers have a whole system built upon the ideal of protecting the inefficiencies and laziness of the worst employee in that union. And nowhere in the real world does that go on for long without something being done which is the total opposite of what happens in a union shop. No little robot here just somebody that has lived in the real world and not the politically correct public aid government controlled nanny state that the liberals would love America to become. Right now the unions are being exposed for what they are. Right now the unions enjoy the protection of the administration and a Democratic controlled Congress along with Acorn. In the coming year papers will be released showing how corrupt a few big unions and Acorn really are. Acorn tried to hide the paperwork in question in a dumpster from the California State Atty. Gen. but, it was found and now will be released to the public leading up to the midterm elections. 2010 is going to be a fun time watching the Democrats and liberals squirm under a spotlight.

TSA needs to...oops...put DeMint on a no-fly list. DeMint is playing politics with a lot of American lives. Repuglicans don't have to worry about Obama's campaign promise re the TSA union--since so few of his campaign promises become reality anyway. The Repuglican Party really is the Obstructionist Party--obstructing safety. If any Americans die on planes--we'll know to tar and feather DeMint.

bill r,

Some only need spell check; you need REALITY check. Find it in an office, or government sponsored program that will assist you with the payments, or heck just check yourself in for a month or two, near you...

BillyR,

I'm saying being in a union wouldn't prevent them from being heroic.

Being in a union could prevent them from doing efficient work. Depends how work rules are written.

Poor Little Billy R.

Still having a hard time there Billy. It would seem you were not on your debate team back in high school. It would be nice if you could actually argue one of your points of view. And it would seem that satire is beyond your grasp. Unions have in most cases outlived their usefulness. And have become political slush funds for the Democrats and now more people are seeing this.

hey ornery, unionizing the TSA does not improve national security. It will reduce efficiency, flexibility in work rules and increase costs just as it has for firefighters and all other organized labor. We are here from the government, open your wallet. I'm grateful that we have people willing to run into burning buildings, both the union and non-union people. I'm not grateful for libs stuck in the 1920's pushing their outdated agendas pretending they care about people.

Terry....can't have it both ways.
Crook...keep flailing son. I consider the source.

BillyR,

I'm not having it both ways. Sorry you can't follow a simple cause and effect arguement.

Poor Little Billy R.

Still you got nothing. So sad how the schools now days turns out people out who can not even form a debatable answer at all. But, does know how to become more childish with (billy r.) every new post they make. But, we still let them vote is not the USA a great place.