There are options besides striking. Since the union, itself, cannot call a strike, TSA workers need to stage actions independent of the union. Slowdowns at major hubs would be the most effective. It would ripple through the industry as either people miss connections or the airlines delay flights. Calling in sick is another option. The safest way to slow down the line would be to check carryon bags meticulously. Also, Have people walk through those silly machines several times. Eventually, the lines will back up and flights will be delayed. Baggage is another pressure point. Flights can’t leave if bags aren’t loaded and they can’t be loaded unless they are screened.
I bet people are trying to sneak 3.1oz of shampoo through all the time. Better check every single bottle. Also, that thing that looks like a dildo? Gotta pull that out and screen it. Replace some of the bomb sniffing dogs with diabetic Pomeranians, which will flag every bag with a crumb of anything quasi-foodlike somewhere inside. Work very, very slowly (Thoroughly! Carefully!) Examine every man's packed underwear. Hold it up to the light and marvel at it.
I’ll admit, I’m not a labor organizer but Im trying to reason through this and well, what good is a union without a contract? It seems like taking that away is effectively neutering the union entirely. And then the only thing left to do is to strike. What else is there? Or is that the point? At which I would say “the only way out is through.”
Slow-downs, working-to-rule, sick-outs, etc are escalating options on the road to striking. They have a ton of uses, in contexts where they are legal!
1. Striking is very hard, and scary. You lose your paycheck. You lose your insurance. The uncertainty is huge. It takes tons of organizing for YEARS in advance of a strike to prepare for a strike. If people have never done any risky work action before? Very unlikely to succeed. Lots of workers might keep working. Striking with less than a significant majority is even more risky. It signals to management that they have a strong hand.
2. It’s easier to get lots of workers to participate in actions (see above). It builds power and a sense of strength, and flexes organizing muscles. It’s jogging before signing up for a marathon.
3. It’s more of a pain for management to punish because how do you prove someone is intentionally slowing down their work? They are being EXTRA thorough, is all.
(I have no knowledge of their thinking and am not recommending anything to anyone. I’m explaining why other work actions might be used in a hypothetical context.)
Yes, one time I was in Toronto when the airport security people were executing a slowdown and yeah, they made themselves heard - massive lines and delays.
Were never going to be able to win policies that benefit working people, like UBI, without millions upon millions of people organized to fight for it. So yea, what we actually need are unions.
Universal Basic Income (UBI) often fails because it increases consumer spending power without addressing supply constraints, leading to inflation that erodes the payment’s value. As businesses raise prices to capture the extra income, essentials like rent and food become more expensive, negating UBI’s benefits and leaving people no better off.
Places It Failed:
- Iran (2011): A cash transfer program (similar to UBI) led to significant inflation, with prices of essentials like food and fuel rising sharply, reducing the program’s effectiveness.
- Finland (2017-2018): A UBI pilot showed no significant improvement in employment and faced criticism for not addressing rising costs, as the fixed payment struggled to keep up with inflation in urban areas.
Atta boy (or grrl). However, the devil remains in the details. How about where UBI did NOT fail? Were the places where UBI "failed" paying enough to live on, and was that amount designed to keep up with the rising cost of living? Who exactly was passing judgment on the "failed" attempts in the first place? I bet that if we had a UBI equal to what Congress pays itself, it would be a terrific success (from the point of view of everyone but TPTB, of course).
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a sham that’s crashed and burned every time it’s been tried, and it’s built on straight-up theft. Look at Finland’s two-year flop or Canada’s Ontario disaster—employment barely budged, and economic stability? Forget it. UBI’s whole game is stealing your money through taxes, ripping off property owners to bankroll a free-for-all handout scheme. It’s not just wrong; it’s a disaster. Pump out $250,000 a year to everyone, and watch the economy tank—people stop working, productivity craters, and the costs spiral into oblivion.
Milton Friedman saw through this garbage decades ago. He trashed government giveaways like UBI for screwing up markets, killing drive, and chaining people to handouts. His fix? A negative income tax for workers busting their asses in the private sector. It rewards effort, not laziness, and doesn’t rob you blind to pay for it. UBI’s a thief in the night; Friedman’s plan actually works.
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is like binge-watching exercise videos while munching on chips and expecting six-pack abs—a fantasy that blatantly disregards the need for real effort. Economically, UBI is dead on arrival: it hands out cash without incentivizing productivity or innovation, leaving the skills and drive that fuel growth untouched. Despite this, UBI lingers in public discourse, often as a shiny promise from politicians chasing votes by appealing to our craving for rewards without responsibility.
In today’s world, where economic power shapes global influence, nations can’t afford to stagnate—real GDP growth isn’t optional, it’s essential. UBI, though, adds nothing to the economic engine; it’s a mirage that promises prosperity but delivers only inertia. Poverty is a real challenge worth tackling, but the answer lies in investing in education and job creation to boost workforce productivity—not in policies that reward doing nothing. UBI doesn’t just fall short; it’s a step backward from the effort-driven progress economies need to thrive.
Imagine the flood of freeloaders these policies would attract from across the globe, drawn by the promise of easy rewards with no effort required—akin to people who watch fitness videos while munching on potato chips, expecting to get in shape without breaking a sweat. Such policies risk turning our great nation into a haven for the unmotivated, all under the guise of progress.
The thing I am currently obsessing over (some might say spiraling) is the potential for another government shutdown given the current expiration of the CR in a week. In 2019 during the last shutdown, TSA workers were required to come to work without getting paid but obviously a lot of them began calling out sick. Eventually after some air traffic controllers also called out sick and air traffic was diverted to other airports, the Flight Attendants Union’s Sara Nelson started making noises about something that looked like an industry strike, and finally the wheels started turning. Kind of seems like tearing up the TSA contract is just waving the red banner in front of a raging bull right now….
Yes, take action!! You're sure not going to get help from Putin's soulmate or the richest man in the world, who shares the rubber crown worn by his main "look the other way and leave me alone" friend. If the planes start crashing, these two rats could care less.
Please leave Putin association, real or imagined, out of any critique of Trump. It just muddies the water, imo, distracting from the labor vs. rich filth analysis we need to focus on. No politics but class politics.
"Work to rule" action. Stick strictly to the letter of the details outlined in the union contract. It's time for your mandated break but no one has arrived to relieve you? Take your break anyway, if that is allowed under the terms of the contract. Keep a copy with you to refer to regularly.
Be pedantic about not taking any shortcuts over time-consuming little details and rules that are often not enforced. Passive-aggressively slow everything down.
This is an old idea - note that the founders changed "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" to the rather prosaic "Life, Liberty, and Property" in the operating document. They did like their contracts.
Remember how it used to be borderline illegal for anyone except the government to demand your Social Security number? Said right on the card “Not for identification purposes” and they meant it.
You know what changed that? Deadbeat dads.
Any time they want to ratchet down control a little tighter, they start with people nobody likes.
Nobody likes deadbeat dads. Don’t you want to help catch them?
Nobody likes TSA agents. Who cares if Trump just banished their union by decree?
I agree...They have little choice but to strike. Other slow down actions are good and calling out sick is good too. They won't ever get anything decent to work for from the Chump we know.
A lot of good ideas for job actions here. I’d add that TSA doesn’t have to conduct job actions at every major airport everyday to be effective. A slowdown at any hub city will affect the entire nation. Atlanta on Monday, Chicago on Tuesday, Denver on Wednesday, Dallas on Thursday, and the DC airports on Friday when Congress is trying to fly home for the weekend. Each day would be a nationwide clusterf&*k.
Donald Trump made his name by regularly treating contracts and debts as things that could be ignored or revised through frequent bankruptcies. Is there any reason why--having graduated from that particular Trump University--we should expect him not to see union contracts, the U. S. Constitution, etc. as things to be dumped in the can for the next garbage pickup?
He is like that, so unions need to figure out how to enforce their contracts in this environment or they aren't going to be worth very much to their members.
I want a general strike, AND I fear the king will declare martial law; assign the national guard, or the 10k private army mercenary freaks, and down the rabbit hole we go. I know fear isn't helpful. I'm just sayin....damn. we're sinking fast....
TSA should walk, and air traffic controllers, AFA, ALPA, and all aviation unions need to follow them out in support. Is it a gamble? Sure. But as you've noted, the alternative is even worse.
This is such an egregious violation of the contract that the union could file a breach of contract action in federal court in addition to all of the potential for slowdown or sickouts. One of the most effective ways to slow things down is "work to rule". Look very carefully at the contract and all applicable regulations. Follow every process, regulation and provision to the absolute letter. If complicated enough, bring written copies to use to guide everything done and refer to the written copies frequently. It is possible to find contract provisions or regulations that are sufficiently conflicting or ambiguous that work has to stop until the conflicting regulation or contract provision is amended.
If the Executive branch wants to challenge the concept of government unions how else can they do it? I am interested that you do not suggest taking the government to court - to enforce the contract. Don't you have lawyers? Or enough money to hire lawyers? Or should you keep getting a paycheck while slowing down your work? I paid union dues twice, once as a janitor for Cincinnati Schools and the second time as a worker for UPS.
There are options besides striking. Since the union, itself, cannot call a strike, TSA workers need to stage actions independent of the union. Slowdowns at major hubs would be the most effective. It would ripple through the industry as either people miss connections or the airlines delay flights. Calling in sick is another option. The safest way to slow down the line would be to check carryon bags meticulously. Also, Have people walk through those silly machines several times. Eventually, the lines will back up and flights will be delayed. Baggage is another pressure point. Flights can’t leave if bags aren’t loaded and they can’t be loaded unless they are screened.
Good old fashion sabo-cat stuff. Like.
As Utah Phillips said, "Direct action gets the goods."
Labor Notes has great materials on “Ways to Not Quite Strike,” but…why not strike in this instance? With or without AFGE leadership approval?
I bet people are trying to sneak 3.1oz of shampoo through all the time. Better check every single bottle. Also, that thing that looks like a dildo? Gotta pull that out and screen it. Replace some of the bomb sniffing dogs with diabetic Pomeranians, which will flag every bag with a crumb of anything quasi-foodlike somewhere inside. Work very, very slowly (Thoroughly! Carefully!) Examine every man's packed underwear. Hold it up to the light and marvel at it.
I’ll admit, I’m not a labor organizer but Im trying to reason through this and well, what good is a union without a contract? It seems like taking that away is effectively neutering the union entirely. And then the only thing left to do is to strike. What else is there? Or is that the point? At which I would say “the only way out is through.”
Slow-downs, working-to-rule, sick-outs, etc are escalating options on the road to striking. They have a ton of uses, in contexts where they are legal!
1. Striking is very hard, and scary. You lose your paycheck. You lose your insurance. The uncertainty is huge. It takes tons of organizing for YEARS in advance of a strike to prepare for a strike. If people have never done any risky work action before? Very unlikely to succeed. Lots of workers might keep working. Striking with less than a significant majority is even more risky. It signals to management that they have a strong hand.
2. It’s easier to get lots of workers to participate in actions (see above). It builds power and a sense of strength, and flexes organizing muscles. It’s jogging before signing up for a marathon.
3. It’s more of a pain for management to punish because how do you prove someone is intentionally slowing down their work? They are being EXTRA thorough, is all.
(I have no knowledge of their thinking and am not recommending anything to anyone. I’m explaining why other work actions might be used in a hypothetical context.)
You got it. The only way out is through.
Yes, one time I was in Toronto when the airport security people were executing a slowdown and yeah, they made themselves heard - massive lines and delays.
We need unions now more than ever. Solidarity.
Solidarity.
Sloganeering.
Catchphrases.
Corruption.
Racketeering.
Rigged Elections.
Stagflation.
High Unemployment.
High Prime Rate.
Generationally Inbred Bipedal Lardazz Maggots.
#ForeverUnion
No, we need a UBI high enough to live comfortably on, no matter of F'd our gov't of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1% is.
Were never going to be able to win policies that benefit working people, like UBI, without millions upon millions of people organized to fight for it. So yea, what we actually need are unions.
IMHO it's a lot easier to demand that yr "representatives" represent you than it is to form/join a union & then make sure it actually does something, isn't corrupt, etc. https://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/end-poverty-demand-a-ubi-equal-to-what-congress-pays-itself
Ok yes that is easier, but does it work? lol
We could try it, & find out.
Clown, UBI doesn’t work.
Now, THERE's a cogent & well-reasoned argument.
Universal Basic Income (UBI) often fails because it increases consumer spending power without addressing supply constraints, leading to inflation that erodes the payment’s value. As businesses raise prices to capture the extra income, essentials like rent and food become more expensive, negating UBI’s benefits and leaving people no better off.
Places It Failed:
- Iran (2011): A cash transfer program (similar to UBI) led to significant inflation, with prices of essentials like food and fuel rising sharply, reducing the program’s effectiveness.
- Finland (2017-2018): A UBI pilot showed no significant improvement in employment and faced criticism for not addressing rising costs, as the fixed payment struggled to keep up with inflation in urban areas.
Atta boy (or grrl). However, the devil remains in the details. How about where UBI did NOT fail? Were the places where UBI "failed" paying enough to live on, and was that amount designed to keep up with the rising cost of living? Who exactly was passing judgment on the "failed" attempts in the first place? I bet that if we had a UBI equal to what Congress pays itself, it would be a terrific success (from the point of view of everyone but TPTB, of course).
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a sham that’s crashed and burned every time it’s been tried, and it’s built on straight-up theft. Look at Finland’s two-year flop or Canada’s Ontario disaster—employment barely budged, and economic stability? Forget it. UBI’s whole game is stealing your money through taxes, ripping off property owners to bankroll a free-for-all handout scheme. It’s not just wrong; it’s a disaster. Pump out $250,000 a year to everyone, and watch the economy tank—people stop working, productivity craters, and the costs spiral into oblivion.
Milton Friedman saw through this garbage decades ago. He trashed government giveaways like UBI for screwing up markets, killing drive, and chaining people to handouts. His fix? A negative income tax for workers busting their asses in the private sector. It rewards effort, not laziness, and doesn’t rob you blind to pay for it. UBI’s a thief in the night; Friedman’s plan actually works.
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is like binge-watching exercise videos while munching on chips and expecting six-pack abs—a fantasy that blatantly disregards the need for real effort. Economically, UBI is dead on arrival: it hands out cash without incentivizing productivity or innovation, leaving the skills and drive that fuel growth untouched. Despite this, UBI lingers in public discourse, often as a shiny promise from politicians chasing votes by appealing to our craving for rewards without responsibility.
In today’s world, where economic power shapes global influence, nations can’t afford to stagnate—real GDP growth isn’t optional, it’s essential. UBI, though, adds nothing to the economic engine; it’s a mirage that promises prosperity but delivers only inertia. Poverty is a real challenge worth tackling, but the answer lies in investing in education and job creation to boost workforce productivity—not in policies that reward doing nothing. UBI doesn’t just fall short; it’s a step backward from the effort-driven progress economies need to thrive.
Imagine the flood of freeloaders these policies would attract from across the globe, drawn by the promise of easy rewards with no effort required—akin to people who watch fitness videos while munching on potato chips, expecting to get in shape without breaking a sweat. Such policies risk turning our great nation into a haven for the unmotivated, all under the guise of progress.
The thing I am currently obsessing over (some might say spiraling) is the potential for another government shutdown given the current expiration of the CR in a week. In 2019 during the last shutdown, TSA workers were required to come to work without getting paid but obviously a lot of them began calling out sick. Eventually after some air traffic controllers also called out sick and air traffic was diverted to other airports, the Flight Attendants Union’s Sara Nelson started making noises about something that looked like an industry strike, and finally the wheels started turning. Kind of seems like tearing up the TSA contract is just waving the red banner in front of a raging bull right now….
Yes, take action!! You're sure not going to get help from Putin's soulmate or the richest man in the world, who shares the rubber crown worn by his main "look the other way and leave me alone" friend. If the planes start crashing, these two rats could care less.
Please leave Putin association, real or imagined, out of any critique of Trump. It just muddies the water, imo, distracting from the labor vs. rich filth analysis we need to focus on. No politics but class politics.
Unfortunately, the threat of Putin is very real. But you're certainly correct in that rich filth need focus as well.
"Work to rule" action. Stick strictly to the letter of the details outlined in the union contract. It's time for your mandated break but no one has arrived to relieve you? Take your break anyway, if that is allowed under the terms of the contract. Keep a copy with you to refer to regularly.
Be pedantic about not taking any shortcuts over time-consuming little details and rules that are often not enforced. Passive-aggressively slow everything down.
Oh, there's a wiki about it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule
This is an old idea - note that the founders changed "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" to the rather prosaic "Life, Liberty, and Property" in the operating document. They did like their contracts.
And I should have said - this is something Gore Vidal pointed out, not my own observation.
Funny, how the administration always seems to decide things like this on a Friday afternoon.
Remember how it used to be borderline illegal for anyone except the government to demand your Social Security number? Said right on the card “Not for identification purposes” and they meant it.
You know what changed that? Deadbeat dads.
Any time they want to ratchet down control a little tighter, they start with people nobody likes.
Nobody likes deadbeat dads. Don’t you want to help catch them?
Nobody likes TSA agents. Who cares if Trump just banished their union by decree?
They always start with the people nobody likes.
Then they move on to the rest of us.
I agree...They have little choice but to strike. Other slow down actions are good and calling out sick is good too. They won't ever get anything decent to work for from the Chump we know.
A lot of good ideas for job actions here. I’d add that TSA doesn’t have to conduct job actions at every major airport everyday to be effective. A slowdown at any hub city will affect the entire nation. Atlanta on Monday, Chicago on Tuesday, Denver on Wednesday, Dallas on Thursday, and the DC airports on Friday when Congress is trying to fly home for the weekend. Each day would be a nationwide clusterf&*k.
Donald Trump made his name by regularly treating contracts and debts as things that could be ignored or revised through frequent bankruptcies. Is there any reason why--having graduated from that particular Trump University--we should expect him not to see union contracts, the U. S. Constitution, etc. as things to be dumped in the can for the next garbage pickup?
He is like that, so unions need to figure out how to enforce their contracts in this environment or they aren't going to be worth very much to their members.
'...they aren't going to be worth very much to their members.'
but hey, their lardazz execs, morbidly obese staff, and land whale 'elected' 'l;eaders' sure do manage to rake in the cash, so there's that...
I want a general strike, AND I fear the king will declare martial law; assign the national guard, or the 10k private army mercenary freaks, and down the rabbit hole we go. I know fear isn't helpful. I'm just sayin....damn. we're sinking fast....
This admin is banking on that fear.
TSA should walk, and air traffic controllers, AFA, ALPA, and all aviation unions need to follow them out in support. Is it a gamble? Sure. But as you've noted, the alternative is even worse.
This is such an egregious violation of the contract that the union could file a breach of contract action in federal court in addition to all of the potential for slowdown or sickouts. One of the most effective ways to slow things down is "work to rule". Look very carefully at the contract and all applicable regulations. Follow every process, regulation and provision to the absolute letter. If complicated enough, bring written copies to use to guide everything done and refer to the written copies frequently. It is possible to find contract provisions or regulations that are sufficiently conflicting or ambiguous that work has to stop until the conflicting regulation or contract provision is amended.
If the Executive branch wants to challenge the concept of government unions how else can they do it? I am interested that you do not suggest taking the government to court - to enforce the contract. Don't you have lawyers? Or enough money to hire lawyers? Or should you keep getting a paycheck while slowing down your work? I paid union dues twice, once as a janitor for Cincinnati Schools and the second time as a worker for UPS.
Everyone calling out sick in unison is legally protected - it'd legally not be defined as a strike.
And it will show everyone who is still gaslit by Musk that nothing will work if they keep on letting him destroy our federal workforce.
Calling out sick simultaneously would of course raise a few alarm bells and maybe even be seen as a warning - but that would exactly be the point.