…so let’s unionize it. Glad to see the administration has its priorities straight.
[Update a while later]
…does anyone standing in a labrythine airport security line look at the TSA personnel and say, “boy, all of this would go smoother if these guys were unionized?” As one of these guys is getting to third base on you, do you look at them and think, “boy, if only they had the job protections and collective bargaining rights that made America’s automakers the efficient, well-run economic powerhouses that they are today?”
Apparently, judging by comments here, some do.
You know, we’ve had unionized police in America since 1919, including the vaunted New York Police Department, and somehow they’ve managed a flexible response to criminal threats. Unions cover hours and pay, not who gets searched and how.
…they’ve managed a flexible response to criminal threats.
They have?
I guess that would explain those low crime rates in the inner cities.
One of those things is not like the other, Chris, but it doesn’t surprise me that you, like the administration, think that this is a law-enforcement problem.
Rand:
The vast majority of failed domestic terrorist threats in this country that have been stopped, were investigated and stopped by ordinary everyday police department law enforcement officers.
So, if its not a law enforcement problem then what is it?
Support your local police department – they may just save your life when you need them the most.
So, if its not a law enforcement problem then what is it?
It is an asymmetric war.
Support your local police department – they may just save your life when you need them the most.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away…
Police and law enforcement have their place, but we are at war, and unionizing the warriors isn’t going to help. Particularly when their primary role is to pretend to be protecting us while inconveniencing us.
You know, we’ve had unionized police in America since 1919, including the vaunted New York Police Department, and somehow they’ve managed a flexible response to criminal threats.
Are you trying to be serious, Chris? Sure unionizing the NYPD didn’t destroy New York City (what you term euphemistically call “managed a flexible response”), but that’s not particularly comforting nor a very high standard. There’s two things to remember here. First, the NYPD’s police union was up to its eye sockets in the corruption of NYC, for example, they probably helped make the Mafia the powerful nationwide oligopoly that it was up to the 70’s (NYC being a major smuggling port and market for illicit products like heroin from Europe and elsewhere). Second, they probably contributed to the crime wave of the 70’s and 80’s with their “flexible response”.
“domestic terrorist threats” Blackrockburner? Those evil Christian fanatics crashing airliners into buildings, beheading captives and setting of bombs in crowded malls etc.? Is that the “domestic” terror threat we face?
If the terror threat we faced were of such nature the FBI / civilian police agencies would be the correct responce to such a threat, but given that our most serious terrorist threat is NOT domestic but is instead organized, funded and trained by FOREIGN powers/individuals out of the reach of the FBI the correct response is by our national security organizations that are intended to deal with external threats. You know, the US Military, CIA etc. Those agencies that performed that job so well under the administration of Bushitler.
Unions are monopolies sponsored by the government to increase government power. They are no better than the salt monopoly that Gandhi fought against before India became independant. I’m sure the proponents of the salt monopoly also thought it beneficial.
Now if we applied anti-trust laws to unions so that no one union provided more than say, 12% of the labor for a given industry and no individual business could be forced to buy all it’s labor from one union we might have a better situation.
Yours,
Tom DeGisi
Wow, absolutely nothing in the sad events that occurred on that NW flight on December 25th would have been prevented if either:
1) the TSA was unionized
2) Rand supported his local police department
Yet, people with nothing better to do but visit a blog and criticize the host still put up such arguments.
It doesn’t matter how affective the NYPD has been at stopping crime in NY. They were unionized on 9-11, and when the planes flew in from Boston, there wasn’t much the NYPD beat cop or special crimes unit could do about it. Unless you are referring to securing the debris to perform exploitation of recovered evidence after the fact. This is apparently what Democrats call, “the system working”.
And I have no problem supporting my local police department. But if I call up my good friend and Sergeant for HPD; he’ll tell me that there is nothing he can do to stop a suicide bomber flying in from Denmark. I’ll be sure to ask him though, “but aren’t you unionized?”
Leland – if by “HPD” you mean “Houston Police Department” yes he is unionized. They got their union in 1947.
I’m actually not arguing that the TSA should be unionized – I am saying that nothing in the history of police and security (which is what the TSA does – NORAD intercepts planes) suggests that it can’t be done by a unionized force.
Arguing that because the FBI doesn’t have authority to arrest somebody in Yemen we need to militarize airport security in the US is like arguing that because the FBI can’t arrest druglords in Colombia we need to militarize police in the US. One does not follow from the other.
Moreover, there is nothing in law or custom preventing the military from either killing people overseas or capturing them and bringing them to the US. See Manuel Noriega.
Arguing that because the FBI doesn’t have authority to arrest somebody in Yemen we need to militarize airport security in the US
Who argued that? All that is being argued here is that there are higher priorities than unionizing them.
Yeah, diversity training and pseudo-randomization to avoid accusations of profiling.
“Yet, people with nothing better to do but visit a blog and criticize the host still put up such arguments.”
As opposed to people with nothing better to do than visit a blog and blindly support every bit of idiot blathering from its host?
As opposed to people with nothing better to do than visit a blog and blindly support every bit of idiot blathering from its host?
I wouldn’t know. I don’t visit blogs that think unionizing the TSA is a great idea. But if you think unionizing the TSA is the upmost priority in light of recent events; perhaps you can provide supporting rationale? If you can’t think of any, perhaps you can just repeat what you read elsewhere?
It would be worthwhile if the union halls were all adorned with pictures of known or suspected Islamic terrorists, each captioned: “Union-buster!”
PC would be cast aside in an instant…
“I am saying that nothing in the history of police and security (which is what the TSA does – NORAD intercepts planes) suggests that it
can’tcan be done well by a unionized force.”Of course rapid response to new techniques and changes in the mission would be hampered by union work rules and shop stewards enforcing coffee breaks, seniority and vacation schedules.
Mark, you’re just a d*ck
“Support your local police department – they may just save your life when you need them the most.”
My local police department is a Glock 19 stuffed with 124gr+p Speer Gold Dots in a RCS Phantom Holster. I support it thru seeking out world-class trainers along with frequent practice, necessary maintanence, quality ammo and quality support equipment.
Not to besmirch the other Departments as several are friends and I work closely with some from time to time in my job but there is less than one LEO per five square miles where live. Their job it to prevent crime thru deterrence, the same as mine. When deterrence fails, they are going to be several minutes away at best.
Much like Buckaroo Banzai, however, wherever I go there I am.
“As opposed to people with nothing better to do than visit a blog and blindly support every bit of idiot blathering from its host?”
Rand, why don’t you just go ahead an ban it now? You know that is the eventual outcome for this Vandal so why not just cut to the chase?
Agreed with Puckett.
Here’s the thing that bothers me about government officials working towards unionizing the TSA. It’s a massive conflict of interest. First, while a unionized TSA might be able to do the job it is tasked to do, it’s pretty clear that a non-unionized TSA will do the job better. We have government officials conspiring to make US security more costly and perhaps less effective. The reason is obvious. Unionized workers are more likely to vote Democrat.
The reason is obvious. Unionized workers are more likely to vote Democrat.
Maybe they will, but the real reason is that unionized workers must give some of their money to the union and the union leaders are very likely to give some of that money to the democrats which they would not get directly from the workers. Always follow the money.
Agreed with Frank.
Now the TSA is going after bloggers.
I will say this much. I am all for he TSA being able to Unionize to portect employee rights. After all, their management is Government too.
I am opposed to them being able to strike or bargain collectively against public funds.
But I doubt that arrangement would be lucrative enough for their powerbrokers.
if only they had the […] collective bargaining rights
I agree with your quoted author’s point, but the way he phrases it is not correct. The proposals are not about giving people more freedom, since people typically already have the right to negotiate collectively. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m undecided whether a voluntary monopoly would be bad, but I think it would likely fall apart spontaneously anyway.
The big problem is that what unions want is to take away people’s rights to negotiate individually. Less freedom, not more.
I used to be in a union and they are a joke. They had there purpose back when kids worked in factories and there were robber barons. Now they are bloated, greedy, wastes of your hard earned money. It’s just one more group with there hand in your wallet. What’s sad is their very existence guarantees their eventual extinction. You can only bleed your employer so much before he shuts his doors. Go by your local union hall any day of the week and see how hard they are working on your behalf. Or look carefully at the next publication from the International and see all the parties they throw themselves at your expense. If you like to be extorted with nothing to show for it then by all means vote union. Remember the Democrats are counting on you!