Unionizing TSA the wrong move

This past Christmas, more than eight years after 9/11, Americans were faced with a sobering reminder that the threat of Islamic terrorists is still very real. The attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to kill the passengers of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as they neared Detroit was thankfully unsuccessful, but it reminds us that we cannot afford to undermine the safety of Americans as they travel by air. Sadly, the Obama administration and its Democratic allies on Capitol Hill haven't learned the lesson of the Christmas bomber and are still intent on implementing policies that will significantly weaken airport security.

Since the Transportation Security Administration was created after the 9/11 attacks to screen luggage and passengers at airports nationwide, TSA administrators have consistently opposed collective bargaining for its employees, citing serious security concerns. Yet even though the 9/11 Commission never recommended it, President Obama and Democrats in Congress appear intent on forcing all 50,000 airport screeners nationwide to join a union.

Today, screeners are permitted to choose to join a union, but collective bargaining would mean that union bosses would represent every TSA screener and security officials would be forced to negotiate with union bosses before making critical security decisions. Basically, the same union bureaucracy that has crippled the American auto industry and made service at post offices the punchline to jokes could soon be a way of life at U.S. airports.

When the plot by terrorists from the United Kingdom was uncovered in 2006, new rules on carrying liquids onboard went into effect within 12 hours. If TSA had been unionized then, officials would have had to first ask permission of union bosses. Even in their recent response to the attempt by Abdulmutallab, TSA officials re-assigned staff and changed screening procedures within hours, a quick move that would be nearly impossible under collective bargaining.

The terrorists are not going to hold their fire while TSA and the Ameri-can Federation of Government Employees figure out a work schedule that everyone likes. Further, TSA managers currently promote on merit -- as opposed to seniority.

They are now also able to discipline employees, which is what happened when TSA immediately suspended the five individuals responsible for posting a classified security manual online. And more security leaks would be a near certainty under collective bargaining because it would force the TSA to share sensitive intelligence information with third parties to explain work-requirement changes.

It's for these same national security concerns that we do not allow the CIA, FBI, Secret Service or Coast Guard to collectively bargain.

Unionization could also lengthen wait times in screening lines for travelers nationwide. When the Senate debated and eventually stopped TSA unionization in 2007, the agency told me it would be forced to move 3,500 screeners off of security lines immediately to set up the new infrastructure required by collective bargaining.

I asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about this during a hearing in November, and she admitted that she and the president intend to unionize the TSA. I then asked how forcing TSA to negotiate with union bosses would improve safety. She couldn't give a single example. That's because this isn't about improving security, its about political kickbacks to union bosses.

While Democrats are suddenly feigning concern over the direction of TSA, they should first direct their criticism to President Obama, who ignored the agency for 243 days until he finally nominated Erroll Southers to head it in September.

Unfortunately, if you believe Mr. Southers' answers to simple questions I posed to him a few weeks ago, you'd have to conclude he really has no good idea how to manage the agency. I asked whether he had an opinion about the propriety of unionizing the TSA workforce. His answer was, "Forming an opinion at this time would be premature."

Really? The president's formed an opinion, the Secretary of Homeland Security has formed an opinion, I've formed an opinion, the unions have formed an opinion, nearly every senator and House member has formed an opinion and the even The Washington Post has formed an opinion (it opposes unionization). Because of the al-Qaida Christmas attack, I will continue to seek a public Senate debate and vote on this nominee.

Our TSA screening system must be improved as the Christmas attack exposed security gaps that must be closed. But the last thing we should do is weaken security based on a political kickback. Aviation security decisions must not be subjected to the veto and approval of those who write the biggest campaign checks.

Jim DeMint, a Republican, is South Carolina's junior U.S. senator.