GovernmentExecutive.com

Legislation granting Transportation Security Administration workers collective bargaining rights would be costly and would hinder managerial flexibility, the agency's chief told senators Monday.

Kip Hawley told members of a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee focusing on workforce issues that costs associated with implementing collective bargaining rights would be about $160 million. He did not provide details on what types of costs would be involved.

The legislative language in question would be part of a massive bill to implement unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 commission. The House granted federal screeners collective bargaining rights in its version of the bill. The Senate has yet to complete the measure, but the White House has threatened a veto if the final version contains the provision.

Hawley argued that collective bargaining would hamper the flow of information between managers and other employees. Lawmakers told the TSA chief he should present the subcommittee with details of what opportunities would be denied to managers.

Administration and Homeland Security Department officials also have said that granting such rights would cut into TSA's flexibility to respond quickly to emergencies.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., presented a similar argument against the language, and also charged that Monday's hearing was needless. All parties with an interest in the language have revealed their intentions, except for the individual lawmakers, who likely will vote Tuesday, he said.

"The president already said he'll veto the bill," Coburn added.

But John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, one of the largest federal labor unions, said the administration's opposition is unfounded. "Opponents of collective bargaining rights for [TSA employees] invoke September 11th as if the lesson of that terrible day were to deprive Americans of their rights at work," Gage said.

In a separate line of questioning, Hawley rejected claims that TSA has been able to reduce employee injury rates and Equal Employment Opportunity complaint filings through intimidation and the threat of firings.

"The injury reduction has been remarkable," Hawley told lawmakers.

He also credited the agency's pay for performance management system for making "attrition ... one area that has dropped."

COMMENTS

• Kip says the PASS is keeping attrition down? Where does he work? At Newark, we keep losing people left and right. And PASS isn't that great. Those who made achieves were supposed to get a 1% pay raise, then TSA took it away. Dual function screeners were supposed to get a mere $300 for being dual function, but never got it. Many of us were forced to take dual function testing last year for pass, but were not even certified in one of the areas we were being tested in. So if we failed one part, we could not get more than achieves standards, even though we not supposed to take the test anyway due to not being certified. I was out of baggage for seven months, due to injury. TSA recertified me in passenger but never sent me to baggage, They said I didn't have to be recertified even though I did not do the job in over seven months. These are some of the reasons people leave. Kip, stop saying the attrition rate is down. Now that the five year mark is coming up and Customs is hiring, you will see even more people leaving. GovExec.com reader Posted March 6, 2007 10:08 PM
• I wish that there was some way to separate (1) the legitimate concerns of the TSA to be able to react, manage resources and deal with the good and the bad front line customer relations folks, (2) the legitimate needs of employees - to be and to feel that they are being treated fairly, to have access and to be heard and the clear advocacy for membership and dues that has much more to do with political funding and pay-offs for supporting this legislation than it does the employees or security at airports. Maybe this could wait until we are not under attack. GovExec.com reader Posted March 6, 2007 4:51 PM
• Having the ability to move people around in an emergency is one thing. To do it just because you can is wasteful and counterproductive. Why would anyone who was married want to work for TSA if they never knew where they were going to be working from one day to the next just because their boss(es) thought they should be able to be "flexible." Michelle Posted March 6, 2007 3:51 PM