December 3rd, 2009
08:23 AM ET
9 years ago

Senator blocks TSA confirmation over union dispute

Washington (CNN)–The nation's 50,000 airport baggage screeners - upgraded to "federal transportation officers" under the Bush administration - could get another title under the Obama administration: Union members.

But not without a fight.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, is blocking the confirmation of Erroll Southers to head the Transportation Security Administration, saying Southers would permit screeners to seek full union representation, a move DeMint says would weaken the effectiveness of the agency.

Unionizing baggage screeners would make the agency "much less flexible" in making quick changes, such as those made overnight in August of 2006 when the British uncovered a plot to destroy planes using liquid bombs, DeMint said.

Union leaders counter that unionization could improve national security by improving screener morale and working conditions.

DeMint's decision to block Southers' nomination is the most visible sign of a debate that has simmered since the creation of the Transportation Security Administration. When the agency was formed after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress specifically prevented its workers from seeking full union representation, saying the agency needed to be nimble to respond to threats.

Later, the government opted to allow screeners to join unions, but without "collective bargaining," limiting its ability to influence changes.

In 2008, just two weeks before the presidential election, candidate Barack Obama gave his support to union rights for screeners.

His promise was unequivocal. "If I am elected president, I will work to ensure that TSOs (transportation security officers) have collective bargaining rights and a voice at work to address issues that arise locally and nationally," Obama wrote in a letter to John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees(AFGE).

So when Obama nominated Los Angeles International Airport police department official Southers to head the Transportation Security Administration this summer, leaders of two government unions praised the announcement, even though Southers was quiet on the issue of unionization.

"The question of bargaining rights at TSA is not a matter of 'if' but when," Gage wrote in a September letter applauding the choice.

Giving full union rights to baggage screeners is "a terrible idea," James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation said Wednesday.

"Unionism and collective bargaining bring with it all sorts of inefficiencies. If you want to make any changes to your business procedures you have to spend months negotiating them first. The TSA doesn't have the luxury of months before they change their security screenings," Sherk said.

Collective bargaining "puts sand in the gears" of government, he said.

Gage calls claims that unionization will hurt national security "disingenuous and hypocritical."

"No one talks about our two officers - two union members - who took down the shooter at Fort Hood. There was nothing in their union membership that stopped them from doing their duties," Gage said. "People who insinuate that being a union member has a nation security implication are just totally wrong."

Two screeners contacted by CNN - both AFGE members - also said collective bargaining would not impact security.

"I took an oath to uphold my position," said Cris Soulia, president of AFGE Local 1234 and a screener in San Diego. "The job always comes first."

Soulia said screeners would follow emergency contingencies. "We can sit back after the fact and say, 'Hey, did you do it right?' But our mission is to keep the public safe. I'm there to keep passengers safe."

A.J. Castilla, an AFGE union representative in Boston, said he hopes Obama appoints Southers during the congressional recess.

"We're tired of sitting at the back of the bus, and I think next year we won't have to," he said.

DeMint said he is holding up Southers' nomination because "we need to make the point to the American people that this administration is more about politics than security."

"It's all about politics - pay-back to the unions," he said.

DeMint said Southers has been evasive about whether he supports unionization of baggage screeners. In a letter to DeMint, Southers said he would not support "any system ... that would potentially compromise the safety and security of the flying public."

But DeMint said it's clear what path Southers will take. "I think he is following through on the president's promise to unionize," he said.

People on both side of the Transportation Security Administration unionization debate say that, ultimately, the Senate is likely to confirm
Southers, and that Southers is likely to support full unionization for the

"The political forces are aligning for this to happen," said Sherk of the Heritage Foundation. "It's not preordained, but it looks like there's a good chance."

Filed under: Popular Posts
soundoff (31 Responses)
  1. Silence Dogoode

    These days the Union is only out for the union. Obama is just doing what comes naturally for a chicago politician. Political pay back to the unions for helping him get elected.

    December 3, 2009 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  2. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    One bonus of the TSA employees being unionized is that there are no summary firings because someone pissed off their boss. Unions, when run properly, can support the workers that the cover and provide a much needed response to an employer who does things that aren't ethical or fair.

    December 3, 2009 10:23 am at 10:23 am |
  3. Just Biding My Time

    Unions will be the open door for terrorists. They'll find ways around the already shoddy practices of the TSA, and then it will take months of barganing to get the changes put into place. People who screw up will be protected under the Union rules.

    December 3, 2009 10:45 am at 10:45 am |
  4. russell

    That's the differnce between democrats and republicans , republicans absolutely does not want employees to have any rights when it comes to the work place instead they side with businesses so you and I cannot have fair representation against employers , I've expierence this first hand under the Bush admin . because he basically curtailed the rights of the employee and allowed businesses to do as they please without any overisight from unions and a lot of business did nopt even allowed their employees to join a union under republican rule , they try to do away with unionizing all together........

    December 3, 2009 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  5. Lyin Hawaiian

    Unions worked so well for the auto industry.....I can see the screeners now with there feet on the desk reading the paper "I will be with you in a minute"

    What a joke the unions are, more payback for votes

    December 3, 2009 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  6. Jim

    And who is playing politics? Didn't the GOP complain if the Dems held a nominee up?

    December 3, 2009 10:51 am at 10:51 am |
1 2