Dec 29, 2009

Rightwing Republican puts airports at risk because the TSA workers might unionize


The national news has been all over Michigan since the failed terrorist attack on Christmas day to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit Metro Airport.

“Twitter” Pete Hoekstra is shamelessly using the incident to fundraise for his Michigan Gubernatorial run, and right-wingers have used it to attack the President like they do everything. But MSNBC host and Rhoades Scholar Rachel Maddow reported on a very interesting tidbit over airport security last night.

Apparently, rightwing U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C, is filibustering the President’s nominee for the position of administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) because it could lead to unionizing the TSA workers who check bags and passengers for explosives and weapons.

In this guy’s warped mind, denying the people who keep passengers safe a decent wage, benefits and safe working conditions is somehow going to make them more motivated to do a better job. Is this guy for real?

He is holding up the nomination of counterterrorism expert Erroll Southers simply because the workers might be allowed to organize. Southers is a former FBI special agent, and he is currently the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence. He also is the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, and he served as a deputy director of homeland security for California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Two Senate committees have given Southers their bipartisan support, but one member of the minority party is putting the American people at risk for political reasons. All of this just to avoid giving workers a voice. The Republicans hatred of the American worker knows know bounds.

7 comments:

Not Anonymous said...

I'm afraid that it's your mind that is warped. Sen. DeMint cannot stop this nomination. The real problem is that Sen. Harry Reid, remember him? He's the Majority Leader. He hasn't scheduled a vote on this nominee yet.

I fail to see how people are at risk because the nominee hasn't been voted on yet. The position is not sitting empty. There is someone acting as the head.

I find it hilarious though that you put your union bias in front of the American people's safety.

The employees at the TSA are earning a "decent wage", have benefits and are working in a safe environment. There are zero reports to the contrary.

In fact, a case can be made to not have this union. We don't need people going on strike when the American people are at risk by this administrations failed policies on terrorism (pardon me, "man made disasters).

People are promoted and rewarded in pay based on merit. This means if you do a good job, are innovative, you can get a promotion or a pay raise or both. We already know the stories of union workers telling others to slow down in their work because the other is making them look bad by doing more than everyone else.

You based your story on false and incomplete information, which is typical of you. I find it hard to accept someone as credible when it comes to work and benefits, who makes excuses for not working and not buying the benefits for his own wife.

Enough said about this.

Communications guru said...

I’m afraid that it's your mind that is warped, anonymous. DeMint can and is filibustering the nomination, and Sen. Reid has scheduled a vote.

Seriously, you can’t see how people are at risk because the head of the employees tasked to catch contraband from getting on airplanes has been blocked from taking the job?

Perhaps you are right, anonymous; a case may be made for not having a union, but that choice is up to the workers.

Gee, police officers and fire fighters are union members. How many lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks?

“This administrations failed policies on terrorism?” Are you serious? What “failed policies on terrorism?” Here’s the score on those policies: Bush 3,000 lives lost in terrorism attacks in the U.S. Obama- 0.

No, we don’t “already know the stories of union workers telling others to slow down in their work because the other is making them look bad by doing more than everyone else.” You are correct when you say “we already know the stories.” The problem is they are fiction stories.

Ah, the personal attacks from an anonymous coward; it didn’t take you long to go there, but when you can’t win on the facts this is where you have to stoop.

Not Anonymous said...

Wrong again. Not that it matters, but Bush is no longer President. But if you want to go down that road, I'm willing.

There have been 12 deaths and I believe nearly 40 wounded in a terrorist attack at Fort Hood in late October or early November.

But for the grace of God, and some brave passengers there are not an additional 280 odd dead from the plane attack.

Bush had one attack. There were over 2,700 dead from that attack, but just one attack. There was not another attack during his Presidency. Several were tried but they were stopped by our intelligence community.

Obama has had two attacks in less than two months. HIs administration did nothing to stop either one. They don't call it a terrorist attack done by terrorists. They call it "man made disaster".

I remember saying before the election that there would be an attempt to attack us under the new President regardless of who won the election, but that there would be a successful one if Obama was elected. Interestingly enough, VP Biden said the same thing.

There have now been two. One at Ft. Hood and one on the plane. The only thing that stopped the plane from having others killed is because the passengers stopped the attack and because the bomb failed, even though the plane still caught fire.

Communications guru said...

Really? Bush is no longer president? Well, this country is still suffering from his incompetence.

I don’t consider the Fort Hood shooting a terrorist attack. But even if you do, 12 is no where near 3,000. Plus, there was no President's Daily Brief (PDB) headlined “Army officer determined to strike in US. Like the one Bush had that was headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.”

Bush - 3,000 Obama - 0

So, were the police officers and the fire fighters who died in 9/11 union members?

Not Anonymous said...

I don't care if you consider the Ft. Hood "shooting" a terrorist attack or not. The country does consider it a terrorist attack since it's now come out tha the shooter had talked to an Imam about this.

You needed a briefing to know that bin laden wanted to attack the US? Oh, I'm sorry, apparently you need briefings. Or at least your president does. The rest of the world has known since the 90's that bin laden wanted to strike. You see, he was indicted in the 90's. Hope that helps you catch up to the present.

There were also warning signs on the psychiatrist. But again, they were ignored. Just like this president ignores that it's terrorism by calling it a man made disaster.

Your question is irrelevent because I didn't say that union members refuse to die in the performance of their duties. Those men died trying to rescue American citizens that were trapped in a building that was on fire because a plane flew into it. They died doing their job.

Every idiot on the planet, with the possible exception of you, knows that fire and police officers risk their lives. Are the all union members? No. Do I know that all of the firefighters and policemen were union members? No.

You're throwing up a false argument. You see, I don't consider people worthless just because they are union members, whereas you constantly imply that anyone not in a union is not fairly paid, is not treated well and is not given benefits.

What you fail to see is that nobody is given benefits. They are provided an avenue to get benefits as part of a group that reduces their payments on their benefit package. But they still pay for it. Their premiums are deducted from their pay and because they are part of a group, they qualify for group insurance which is abit cheaper than if they had to purchase it as an individual.

Being in union is not evil. It's also not evil to not be in a union. To put the TSA into a union puts the union in the decision making process as to what's safe and what's not safe for the American traveler. I don't need Jimmy Hoffa deciding what's safe for me. It's the governments responsibility to protect the borders of this country, not the AFSCME.

That's more than enough said. But I know your twisted mine will twist more things and your bias' will usurp any common sense, which is understandable because you are sorely lacking in the common sense department.

I wonder though, do you walk alone in public or do they assign some government official to move your legs for you?

Communications guru said...

Fort Hood was not a terrorist attack. Apparently, Bush needed a briefing, and he still failed when he got it.

No, the question is not irrelevant, so I’ll ask it again: were the police officers and the fire fighters who died in 9/11 union members? The answer is yes. It was you that attacked union members and said that if the TSA workers are unionized they can’t do their jobs. The NYC fire fighters and police officers are unionized, and they did their jobs with honor. Are you saying they aren’t, anonymous?

No, I’m not throwing up a false argument. If your claim that the TSA workers can strike, then so can the NY PD and NYFD. You certainly did consider people worthless just because they are union members. You said, "In fact, a case can be made to not have this union. We don't need people going on strike when the American people are at risk. We already know the stories of union workers telling others to slow down in their work because the other is making them look bad by doing more than everyone else.” That’s another one of your lies, but you said it.

To put the NYPD and NYFD into a union puts the union in the decision making process as to what's safe and what's not safe for the American traveler. I don't need Jimmy Hoffa deciding what's safe for me. It's the governments responsibility to protect the borders of this country, not the AFSCME.

What a ridiculous argument. Unions do not make those kinds of decisions and even someone like you knows that.

Thanks for the compliment. Coming from the likes of someone like you it means a lot.

Johnny C said...

Guru you should know that not anonymous don't operate in a fact based world, he lives in the world where Sean Hannity and Rush don't lie and they're always right.

Again Republicans have shown there is nothing off limits if they can score political points with their corporate overlords and the nuts in their base.

As for terrorism I love how the right try to defend Bush when he ignored his daily briefing regarding Bin Laden determine to strike while harping on the urban legend that Bin Laden was offer up to the Clinton white house.

I would say Jim DeMint and his knuckle dragging followers should be a shame of themselves but they prove they have none.