Thompson Urges Chertoff to Retract Statement on TSA Employees
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Today, Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff concerning the conditions and climate under which Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) are required to work.
Specifically, Chairman Thompson’s letter recognizes low morale and personnel problems that plague the TSA and raises questions as to why the Secretary has chosen to deny collective bargaining rights within the agency.
The text of the letter follows:
______________
March 1, 2007
Dear Secretary Chertoff:
I am writing to express my concern and disappointment over your recent remarks pertaining to the unionization of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs).[1] I agree with you that TSOs play a critical role in protecting our Nation from terrorist attacks. However, your remarks are plagued with assumptions and mischaracterizations of the impact that unionization would have on our Nation’s aviation security. As the author of H.R. 1, the “Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007,” I am deeply disheartened by the approach you have taken to influence the congressional debate on whether TSOs should have the right to bargain collectively.[2]
As you are aware, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has suffered from personnel problems since its inception. Among the most troubling of these include the agency’s inability to retain its employees. Overall, TSOs have an attrition rate of 30% among full-time employees and 50% among part-time employees. Clearly, these rates of attrition are a sign of low morale at TSA—a vexing problem throughout the Department of Homeland Security (Department). After your agency’s abysmal ranking in the annual Federal employee job satisfaction survey, you expressed your commitment to address morale. For the men and women at TSA who want the right to unionize, your remarks are sure to further undermine morale.
Moreover, your contention that allowing collective bargaining would reduce TSA’s flexibility to reassign employees during emergencies would weaken aviation security is unwarranted and unsupported by the facts. TSA has all the authority it needs to get the job done during an emergency. Title 5 of the U.S. Code authorizes an agency to “take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out the agency mission during emergencies.” The law confers great flexibility to TSA to meet its homeland security responsibilities in the event of an emergency.
Further undermining your contention that collective bargaining will threaten national security is the fact that private sector workers hired to perform screening duties at opt-out airports have a right to bargain collectively.
Possibly the most disturbing and inappropriate aspect of your remarks, however, was your comparison of TSOs to U.S. Marines. Unlike TSOs, Marines deployed to fight the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan are not able to go home to their families at the end of the day. Moreover, Marines do not have the freedom to simply quit the Corps at will. TSOs have and will continue to quit until the Department’s significant morale problems are addressed. Unionization, where employees can freely voice their grievances and concerns, is an effective vehicle for improving morale, decreasing attrition, and therefore leading to stability in the workforce.
A more appropriate analogy would compare TSOs to others at the Department with homeland security responsibilities such as Customs and Border Protection Officers, FEMA employees, and Border Patrol Agents. Among these workers, TSOs are the only employees within the Department who lack collective bargaining rights, safeguards against retaliation, whistleblower protections, and appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board. At no time in the Department’s history have collective bargaining agreements undermined the Department’s ability to execute its homeland security mission or respond to emergencies. In fact, at FEMA, the American Federation of Government Employees’s collective bargaining agreements sets “forth an orderly process for workers to volunteer for temporary duty assignments.”
A couple of weeks ago you heralded Congress for recognizing the commitment of the Department’s employees. It seems to me that if you share our regard for the Department’s employees, you would want the workforce to be empowered. My life experience has taught me that success follows when people are allowed to fully exercise their rights and contribute in a meaningful way. Your recent remarks may well send a chill throughout the entire workforce and further erode their necessary esprit de corps. I urge you to apologize for your outrageous and inaccurate statements which are counterproductive to the Department’s mission.
Sincerely,
BENNIE G. THOMPSON
Chairman
[1] “The screeners are like Marines in Iraq. . . The Marines don't collectively bargain over whether they're going to wind up in Anbar province or Baghdad. TSA screeners are on the front lines of protecting this country,’" Nicole Gaouette, Senate Anti-terrorism Debate Starts with Turmoil Bush Threatens to Veto the Bill Over Airport screeners' Rights, and a Fight Ensues Over Driver's License Standards, Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2007 (quoting DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff).
2 Approved by the House 299-128 on January 9, 2007 (Roll Call Vote No. 15).
# # #
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please contact Dena Graziano or Todd Levett at (202) 225-9978.
