The Wicker Report Government unions costly to taxpayers U.S. Senator Roger F. Wicker Nearly
10 years after September 11, 2001, we must remain mindful of the active
threats to our nation. Safeguarding America’s transportation requires
both vigilance and flexibility. Recently, the Obama administration
announced a decision to allow Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) unions to enter into collective bargaining agreements. Not only
would this change restrict their ability to meet ever-changing dangers,
the litigation it creates would lead to significant cost increases for
taxpayers. Because of real concerns over security
and spending, I sought to prevent this change by keeping airport
screeners and others under the same regulations as FBI, CIA, and Secret
Service agents. Last week, the Senate voted on an amendment I authored
to prohibit TSA personnel from collectively bargaining. My amendment
was defeated on a party-line vote, 47-51, but this issue is far from
over. Flexibility is Necessary for Security Personnel Since
the creation of TSA 10 years ago, its unions have been prohibited from
collective bargaining. The current ban stems from a determination by
the TSA administrator, who stated the decision came “in light of their
critical national security responsibilities.” This was the right
action to ensure TSA personnel could meet their objectives. The
American people witnessed this necessary flexibility in 2006 when a
British airliner bombing plot was uncovered. TSA overhauled security
procedures in a matter of 12 hours to deal with the threat of liquid
explosives. It is difficult to imagine that kind of quick change under
non-flexible union rules. Proponents of TSA
unionization argue that security would not be impacted because these
personnel could not bargain over “security issues.” However, defining
what can be considered a security issue could be the subject of endless
potential litigation. Under the administration’s current plan,
bargaining would be allowed over the selection process for special
assignments, policies for transfers, and shift training, among other
issues. TSA will be less flexible and less efficient in going about
their business of protecting America. Costs of Collective Bargaining While
working to update rules regarding air travel, Congress is also debating
how to keep our deficit from ballooning. Allowing collective bargaining
for 50,000 additional employees will add to federal spending. Union
demands will undoubtedly make our transportation security more costly
and less efficient. For that reason, the Heritage Foundation, the
Workforce Fairness Institute, and Americans for Tax Reform supported my
amendment. Many states face dire fiscal
situations in large part because of the cost of employee union
contracts. These unreasonable costs have forced states such as New
Jersey, which has the second highest level of public sector
unionization in the nation, to raise taxes on both individuals and
businesses. Without action to break these contracts, states could be
forced into bankruptcy. At a time when governors
are moving in that direction and trying to get out from under these
public employee collective bargaining agreements, it would be the
height of irresponsibility for the federal government to go in the
opposite direction. In the Senate, I will
continue working to ensure collective bargaining does not impact the
safety of America’s air travelers. The debate now moves to the House of
Representatives, which has an opportunity to prevent TSA collective
bargaining. The current experience of many states with employee unions
should serve as an important lesson to those of us in Washington. |