A Matter of Priorities

        This, in response to a recent post on a Navy Retiree Facebook thread I’ve been following concerning the incidence of federal workers calling in “sick” or otherwise not showing up for work. One poster said, “That’s what you get when you’re dealing with Unions.” TSA was singled out as exemplary. In fact, based on data regarding the thefts they have been charged with at some airports, I’m not a huge fan of the TSA employee screening process, but I would add that one gets what one pays for. After the below discussion of Unions in general, I will amplify at some length on why we might do better with selection and compensation of TSA personnel. But first- the dreaded unions!   

        As a 26-year retired E-9 I was not experienced in the least with Unions. When I went to work in public education, the first job I had (for a year and a half until I went to Social Studies, where I did 18 more), was as a Naval Science Instructor (Navy Junior ROTC). The very first thing the Commander ('Nam, Navy Huey pilot, flew for the Army at one point) told me, was to join the Classroom Teacher’s Association, an NEA-affiliated Union.  He was right. I became a building representative ("steward" in many unions), a  director and was on the bargaining team for 12 years, until teaching Advanced Placement became too time consuming.

        If you are waiting for (almost any) employer to make decisions with the work force as the first consideration instead of a minor irritant, go back into the military! Unions, properly run, are vital to private sector and non-military working men and women in America. There's a reason the British Parliament outlawed them (unions) initially and for  decades - Profits of the men (frequently Houses of Lords or Commons members), who owned the businesses were threatened if they were required to have any responsibility for reasonable treatment of their workforce. And make no mistake, “theirs” was precisely the way they viewed those who toiled for little compensation in sweatshop working conditions difficult to imagine today.    

       I was probably more prepared for the transition to the Civilian workforce than most, having a Master's in Human Resource Management. One of my Grad school instructors was the former treasurer of the Air Traffic Controllers' Union (PATCO), which Reagan "busted." He quit, went to Law School and became a labor lawyer.

        Some Unions have taken advantage of what some called in the early days, "Welfare Capitalism."  The name doesn't mean what it sounds like.  Ford started it with the unheard of pay of $5 per day, for which, in his mind, he owned you. There are numerous stories of working the first Ford assembly lines which are hard to believe. Then the depression struck and labor was seen as a possible enemy of Democracy, as Marx (Karl, not Groucho) predicted, because the rich largely drew in on themselves, surviving, and allowed the workforce to starve. The New Deal's labor initiatives (NLRB, Wagner Act) were aimed at restoring some balance and labor faith to the system. The came WWII and full employment, along with which came even more concessions, many probably unnecessary, but, needless to say, accepted,  to workers to keep wartime production high. When the war was ended, we (the US) were essentially the only economy in the world which had not been devastated. Accordingly, we were the industrial giant of the world, a position we will not ever be able to reclaim, largely due to non-political issues such as global distribution of resources and competition from other emerging industrial powers. But, in those glorious 40s and 50s when US automobiles and other manufactured goods were selling like hotcakes, some Unions UAW, Steelworkers, etc. demanded unreasonable concessions  ("gold plated" healthcare, unreasonable pay scales, pay for days not worked, etc, and were given them by corporations willing to pay more to get workers to just "shut up and keep production rolling," because they could just add the cost of those concessions to the price of a car. Until......!

        When auto production began to face foreign (and less costly) competition, and sales of domestic cars declined but  companies like Chrysler, who were used to telling the US buying public what they ought to buy, kept on producing gas guzzlers as gas prices went up,  those concessions became an ever increasing part of auto prices.

        What might have been done, but we'll never know, was what companies like Johnsonville Meats, and others did, which was listen to quality of work life issues, allow workers to have some participation in workplace issues, pay increases based on acquired skills and proficiency, etc. (like Volvo does, and has done for years). Unfortunately, most US management failed to listen, Ford especially, followed by the rest of the Big Three, who were once the biggest game in town, aren't, and probably never will be again.

        As my former Air Traffic Controller friend said, "Any company who gets a union deserves it."  In recent times that is an inclusive statement.  By contrast, over the years I bargained for Orange County Public Educators in Florida (a "right to work state) as part of an NEA affiliated union, we went from "adversarial bargaining" (unfortunately, the norm) to collaborative bargaining, which worked and continues working. Unions, done right, are not only not "bad" as a concept, but can be a force to make industrial relations better than they would be under the old model.

        Of course if you want to go back to the place where the owner refers to you all as "my workers,"  then be my guest, but as one who has worked in an non-union system (USN) for 26 years, trained in labor relations and management, then became a Union rep and director ( to my own amazement) or if you are a historian (my undergrad degree, and what I taught for 18 years) you know better.

        And by the way, on the subject of expectations: a new hire at TSA (you know, entrusted with your safety and perhaps with a family to feed), earns far less than a US Navy Seaman with three years’ service. The Seaman, if married, will also get Subsistence (Food) and Housing allowances.  In fact, a Seaman (E-3) with three years' service will make, this year, $49,080! Read it again - $49080! base pay - $2233.44 monthly, added to that is a Housing Allowance (in Norfolk, relatively close to the naval base) of $1488 per month and a Subsistance allowance of $369 monthly. 

       Meanwhile the new hire, married, TSA guy or gal makes $25,518 annually - $23,000 and change LESS, than the Seaman! Even if they’re "topped out" in the highest pay grade they can reach, he/she will earn a max of $44007 annually, still less than our Seaman. I guess what I'm saying is that “we get what we pay for.” A McDonald's employee at entry level in Seattle, for example will earn, (or be paid) more than a SeaTac (Seattle/Tacoma airport) TSA screener, to start. 

       For my part, I place more emphasis on airport security than burger flipping, or cleaning rest rooms, but, “Hey,  that’s just me.”