thats what ya get when you send "girlie-men", to do a mans job Audio
Posted on 11/16/2001 1:19:03 PM PST by Cacophonous
WASHINGTON – Fearing they might have to work over Thanksgiving, congressional negotiators Thursday reached a "compromise" on airport security that gave proponents of federalization nearly everything they wanted. One senior Democratic aide told CNN the deal was a "huge victory for federalization and a token gesture for privatization."
"For us it's a big victory because you're talking about five airports in the whole country not being federalized," the aide said. "Security companies may not be able to survive on only five airports."
House and Senate negotiators had been arguing over whether to make airport security workers and baggage screeners federal employees.
"I think we have an agreement," Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, told reporters on Capitol Hill after meeting with Senate and House conferees who have been working for weeks to reconcile two bills passed by the chambers.
The House GOP conference met Thursday afternoon to discuss the agreement. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told reporters on his way in that he expected it to be accepted, even by conservatives who battled to kill the Senate approach.
"It's a victory for both sides" insisted Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. He called it a "good agreement" that has the support of the White House.
The battle, which had grown increasingly contentious over the past week, raged between the unanimously passed Senate bill to federalize all airport security workers and a plan passed by the House to add federal supervision.
Under the terms of the deal, screeners will be, except in a few cases, federal employees, but some qualified airports might be able to retain private employees if they meet certain conditions. A broader opt-out program would be in place after three years.
The federal employees working at security checkpoints would fall under the Department of Transportation but would not be offered the same civil service protections as other federal employees, according to Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. They would be allowed to unionize but not to strike, he said. All employees would have to be U.S. citizens.
This deal, if it holds up through final floor votes, is much closer to the Senate approach.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and Majority Leader Dick Armey, both Republicans from Texas, led the fight against the ultimately successful Senate approach, apparently unable to change the bill substantially.
Republicans said federalization would expand the federal bureaucracy without any increased security benefits. They pointed to the incompetence of such federal agencies as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and FBI, noted that it would be much more difficult to fire government employees for incompetence, and said the Democrats wanted to add to their core of voters by increasing the government workforce.
Democrats and the Senate said that only federal law enforcement officers can protect airports.
Both plans were to be paid for through a flight surcharge and would allow the reinforcement of airplane cockpit doors to protect crews. The Senate version also would allow pilots to carry firearms at work, but it was unknown if that provision survived the conference talks.
Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.
By that time, perhaps some RATs will be cast out of Congress and it will be scrubbed. If this bill gets into law I bet the airport screening effectiveness testers will find more lapses, not fewer.
Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., said the new system is meant to provide uniform standards for security screeners at airports. "They'd be accountable to the federal system, federal standards," Kerry said. "It would all be the same system no matter who the workers are employed by."
Wait a minute - why doesn't our intrepid watchdogs, the press, focus on this? If it makes no difference whether they are federal employees or not, why were the Demoncrats insisting on federal employees?
Never mind. I know the answer.
I share your cynicism. They only care about themselves.
Let me try this at my own job. I think I'll come in late, screw up at work, insult customers, and generally act like a moron. When the boss confronts me, I'll say, if you only PAID me more, I'd do my job correctly. How many seconds do you think it would take for him to throw me out on my ass?
"It's a victory for both sides" insisted Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. He called it a "good agreement" that has the support of the White House.
You got that right.
The federal employees working at security checkpoints would fall under the Department of Transportation
What?...Why not the new "Homeland Security" joke bureaucracy?...
Shhhh ... common sense where the GOP is concerned is strictly verboten.
I part company with Limbaugh and others on this one. I think it's a reasonable bill.
I must have a really old copy or something, because mine doesn't mention providing security for the travelling public as an enumerated responsibility Federal Government anywhere.
It must be in one of those emanations from the penumbra or something....
L
thats what ya get when you send "girlie-men", to do a mans job Audio
Let me try to understand you, are you trying to imply that the average bag screener in airports today is excellent and great? The biggest boobs you can get are in those positions today... your assumption is that under federalization the same calibre of people will be let in? It is possible they may, but not likely. I am sure the minimal requirements will be that you can speak english!
You assume that raises and promotions have helped the airport security world? Go through JFK, LAX, SFO or any of them, actually look at the people scanning your luggage... most english is a second or third language, most have not been in the country very long and certainly are not well trained or vigiliant... is this tbe "BETTER CALIBRE" that private sector brings?
I am so sick of ideaologues who chop off their noses to spite their faces... that refuse to see that capitalism, while a great system, does have inherent flaws, just like any system. Capitalism is driven by the profit motive, in most situations this is a great thing... but NOT in all... Capitalisms other flaw is Monopolism which is also counter the good of the society. You sit here and try to argue that the profit motive/competition will improve airline security... when it OBVIOUSLY HAS NOT! Profit motive has caused this industry to be farmed out to companies and people who have little skill are paid very little and in general don't do a good job, because they cannot pay enough and keep profits relative to acquire, train and retain good people. The current system IS PRIVATE COMPANIES UNDER FEDERAL REGULATION.. and guess what it sucks, it is honestly amazing that it took so long for an even like 9-11 to occur... even in the wake of 9-11 people still get past these supposedly more trained and higher alert workers routinely.
Let me try this at my own job. I think I'll come in late, screw up at work, insult customers, and generally act like a moron. When the boss confronts me, I'll say, if you only PAID me more, I'd do my job correctly. How many seconds do you think it would take for him to throw me out on my ass?
You are arguing against Unions in general with these statements not against federalization... I am no fan of most unions myself, and your also full of assumptions as well, that somehow the way airport security will be handled is the same way your DMV is run, which is also a bad analogy because DMV's are run by states, not fed... You seem to fail to realize that every man/woman in uniform in our armed forces is a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE! The FBI are FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.... federal employees are more than just your beurocrat at a state office and most of them, (NOT ALL) do good jobs for reasons that are motivated by far more than pay... sure you have your tag alongs, but if you think these don't exist in private industry you have never seen how middle or even upper management operates... it is not purely a promotion of the best workers, believe me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.