GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Fight over collective bargaining threatens to derail security bill

• 21860
  

  Secretary Chertoff comment on comparing screeners from U.S. Marines is totally based on ignorance. I join and serve in the military with the knowledge that I can be sent out to war. When I join the military, I gave my freedom of speech and just follow orders when sent to the Gulf War. Screeners on the other hand were not soldiers but civilians. Secretary Chertoff should read more about military history for he will never find a single word of collective bargaining in the military.

  Danny Jones Posted March 20, 2007 3:17 PM
• 21808
  

  Without collective bargaining, retention of personnel is impossible. TSA is nothing but a workforce full of assumed federal employees providing security to the nation on a discount rate.

  Danny Posted March 17, 2007 11:39 PM
• 21642
  

  Union membership isn't incompatible with protection of the public or response to emergencies. The police officers and firefighters who bravely answered the call on 9/11 were union members working under collective bargaining agreements, and that fact obviously did not interfere with their performance of their duties. As regards the employees of most federal agencies, title 5 U.S. Code, section 7106 states that "nothing in this section shall affect the authority of any management official of any agency. . . (D) to take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out the agency mission during emergencies." (I don't work for DHS, so I don't know if DHS is still covered by this provision. If it isn't, the reason is that the Administration successfully sought to exempt DHS from many of the provisions of title 5.)

  Charles Caloia Posted March 8, 2007 12:32 PM
• 21478
  

  "Chertoff was equally forceful talking to reporters after he met with senators Tuesday. "I'm not going to negotiate our national security or subject our national security to arbitration," he said. "Marines don't collectively bargain over whether they're, you know, going to end up being deployed in Anbar province or Baghdad." "

  Isn't he clever - "Marines don't collectively bargain." Marines sign up to put their lives on the line and they know it. But - civilian employees should be able to say "I can't move on such short notice, I have a family with kids in school." Besides, if there's an emergency, people will be glad to do short-term travel to fill in. Having the arbitrary ability to move people just because you can is wasteful.

  Michelle Posted March 1, 2007 10:47 AM
• 21475
  

  So fire them all and replace them with Marines. Chertoff is just another Republican boil on our Democracy's behind. I'm impatiently waiting for all of them to be lanced in 2008!

  Cracked & Wired Posted March 1, 2007 10:01 AM
• 21473
  

  Apples and Oranges! Stop thinking of civilian employees as soldiers. That is their master plan. Involuntarily put civilians in harm's way. We have the right to bargaining.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 1, 2007 9:36 AM
• 21471
  

  Secretary Chertoff should let loose the bonds of insanity and try and try and try to understand that TSA screeners are window dressing and nothing more. They are uniformed civilians who work in conditions that are warm when it's cold out, cool when it's hot out and dry when it's rainy out. They can call in sick, take a day of vacation, or just quit. Marines fight everyday and are killed or maimed just as often. Marines by the sheer force and magnitude of their presence save thousands of lives everyday.

  TSA screeners inconvenience thousands with a ridiculous and unjustified sense of self-importance. Because they are tiny insignificant cogs in the great machine of federal bureaucracy they absolutely should have collective bargaining rites this administration has done enough union busting under the very transparent guise of national security.

  From OMB to DoD workers rites are fodder for political pundits with no sense, common or otherwise that the lives affected are citizens who have chosen a life of public service. They should not be penalized by feckless, hapless power hungry lame duck dimwits with just under two years to secure for themselves a cushy university professorship.

  Hans N. Weiffenbach Posted March 1, 2007 9:22 AM
• 21470
  

  Will someone else (besides me) please write to Mr. Chertoff and Mr. Chaney and advise them that civilian employees aren't the same as military members? You can't compare apples and oranges, and the argument is just plain wrong! As I've mentioned before, CBP officers (ex-Customs/INS)have always had unions, so how is TSA different? Wake up America, we're still losing!

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 1, 2007 9:03 AM
• 21466
  

  Chertoff is typical of this administration; He's clueless. Civil Servants are not U.S. Marines.

  Richard Aulenbacher Posted March 1, 2007 8:48 AM
• 21453
  

  There would be no need for TSA to strike as long as the TSA employees have binding arbitration if they ever go to impasse.

  I think TSA should have the right to bargain for their benefits and pay, but give them binding arbitration along with it.

  Dennis Porter Posted March 1, 2007 3:32 AM
• 21441
  

  What a crock!

  Congress, giving screeners the right to bargaining collectively won't hurt management's ability to react. The Heritage Foundation's dream is to eliminate all places where workers can whistle blow, and hold Management accountable.

  Senators, Congressman, please give TSA screeners their right to bargain collectively. America will be safe. And workers will be protected from abuse.

  Jim Posted February 28, 2007 2:11 PM