Simple, when it is Federalized, profit is not a motive. This is the case with all our Armed Forces, Police and Fire. Why should a security function be left to the free-market. It is clear to me that profit will always motivate some private company to cut corners.
I know that by making the workers Federal, the cost will most certainly rise. It is a cost I am willing to pay.
The one and only area where Federal workers makes sense is in the security arena.
The problem with making feds out of security screeners is just that: to satisfy the PC watchdawgs, we will simpy have to hire all those poor screeners who will lose their jobs. So, we wind up with better-paid versions of what we have now.
IMHO, aiport security is a job for the military. Those folks are accountable for their performance. They're specialists -- and, by the way, highly underpaid.
A system of aviation security in which the federal government sets rigorous standards and provides extensive oversight, as in Europe, with the private companies providing aviation security, thereby eliminating airlines as primary providers makes the most sense.
The federal government takes control of the regulatory and oversight activities to create an environment where the need to provide the highest standard of aviation security is not compromised by the competitive and economic pressures placed upon the airlines by their highly competitive industry environment.
The single most important factor in continuing to raise standards, increasing security levels, raising security wages and career opportunities will be the removal of the aviation security companies from the direct control of the airlines while retaining the private companies’ ability to hire, fire and retain personnel without federal budgeting or personnel restrictions.
That explains why FedEx and UPS are so inferior to the Post Office. (/sarcasm)
The one and only reason airport security never has and never will be federal workers is:
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Simple, when it is Federalized, profit is not a motive. This is the case with all our Armed Forces, Police and Fire.
Armed forces are a constitutionally mandated responsibility of our federeal government, which cannot be privatized. But all of their equipment is from the private sector which operates under the profit motive.
Police and fire is also a privately provided service in many cities around the U.S.
But the most important thing to remember, whether it is the armed services or police or fire, they still have to abide by the Bill of Rights, as a government entity, and thus have to abide by 4th amendment.
Even if the Feds -- always an employer of last resort -- re-hire the same people, many of whom are where they are because they can't get jobs elsewhere? Thereby making it impossible to fire them for the same kind of behavior? And, in addition, rewards their incompetence by tripling their salary?
When was the last time you visited a federal government office? Say, like Social Security? Or the Wage & Hour Division of the Department of Labor?
I'm in favor of higher standards, which will require higher pay -- and justify tighter supervision. But to "federalize" these jobs and expect higher standards to follow is wishful thinking.
Put my life in the hands of Fed-Ex EVERYTIME!