GovernmentExecutive.com

Union representatives and federal airport screeners called on Congress Wednesday to pass legislation that would strengthen the Transportation Security Administration and prohibit the privatization of passenger and baggage screening services.

"Public employees who know how to do their job and who are empowered to do it through enlightened management and collective bargaining are the key to keeping hijackers and bombs off airplanes," said Andrea Brooks, the American Federation of Government Employee's national vice president for women and fair practices.

AFGE released a white paper outlining the problems that screeners face and listing a dozen recommendations for new legislation that would give screeners more rights. The union is seeking congressional support for the legislation, called the Safe Aviation by Empowering Federal Employees (SAEFE) Act.

The act would prohibit airports or the government from privatizing passenger and baggage screening operations.

Congress created a federal screening workforce after the 9/11 attacks. Lawmakers stipulated, however, that starting in November 2004 airports could apply to TSA to use private contractors in place of federal screeners. Only two airports to date have applied to use private screeners.

TSA plans to award private screening contracts this fall. The law requires private companies to provide screening services that are at least as good as federal screeners. TSA would continue to regulate all screening activities.

Union members and some screeners, however, contend that private companies will put profit ahead of passenger safety.

"It's time for Congress to pass, and the president to accept, legislation making the government's responsibility to provide airport security screening permanent," said Tom Brantley, president of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists.

AFGE's proposed legislation would also allow more federal screeners to be hired, and give screeners collective bargaining rights. Congress originally capped the total number of screeners at 45,000. Screeners have never had collective bargaining rights.

Other provisions in the proposed legislation would: improve training, testing and pay practices; eliminate mandatory overtime; require the best available equipment to be used at airports; guarantee protection for whistleblowers and veterans' preference rights; convert screener positions into competitive service appointments, and guarantee screeners due process and constitutional rights.

COMMENTS

• HR Specialist: Politeness forbids me using the popular name we used in conjunction with our fellow Immigration Inspectors. But generally it it used in connection with employees who shuffle mounds of paperwork, never seeming to accomplish much. But, with the unatural unions forced into being via DHS, Immigration and Customs are supposedly merged, so rivalries are merely historic. But this is off-topic...Again, I don't blame the private screeners, they are just trying to make a living. But the average education level is high school (maybe), the wages are typically $6-7/hour, and the screener(not agent, not inspector)lasts about 6-8 months! Add to that the fact that for a company to make a PROFIT, which is all that they care about, they HAVE to cut corners. Properly managed and staffed, the TSA in my personal/professional experience is still the way to go! GovExec.com reader Posted May 25, 2005 4:35 PM
• It absolutely amazes me that the Foggy Bottom Feather Bedders are more concerned in saving lackluster performing screeners than advancing a system that would do the job the way it's supposed to be done. As far as what's going on at airports now, it's security by intimidation, as the (T)housands (S)tanding (A)round agents bump into each other trying to get to lunch on time. As a taxpayer, I'm tired of waiting for DC to get it right! GovExec.com reader Posted May 25, 2005 10:40 AM
• I could go on and on about the embarrassment of internal whistleblower reprisal against Special Counsel Bloch but I think Mr. Bloch said it best: "Bloch said OSC's human resources manager informed him that 10 days was all that was required under federal law for relocating employees and said the agency was aware of how difficult the move would be for workers." All we have to give them is ten days so all they get is ten days-- and good luck to our loyal OSC employees with decades of experience. He should of continued and said when I leave after my political apointment is up I will be so proud of having made the agency a better organization. I really feel for these OSC employees but when I look over the entire federal government horizon I see this management example happening everywhere-- thank you for your loyal service, don't let the door hit you on the way out (only because we don't want an OWCP claim- not that we really care about you as a human being). HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted May 25, 2005 8:33 AM