Make airline security as efficient as Post Office?

Human Events, Oct 22, 2001 by Robinson, Matthew

Inside Washington

In their retreat from the Capitol last week, the House of Representatives left lingering the security of the nation's skies and an ideological debate that could end up making airplane travel more dangerous for every American.

On a 100-to-0 vote, the Senate on October 11 passed a bill that would federalize the nation's airline-security and baggage-handling workforce. If the U.S. Senate gets its way, the ranks of government workers will get their biggest expansion since the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The Senate bill would create at least 28,000 new dues paying, unionized federal workers charged with making air travel safer in the wake of the September 11 hijackings. Most of the cost would be covered by a $2.50 tax on every plane ticket.

Chances are, however, that the American people won't come out the winner, say critics. In an inherent conflict of interest, they say, government would be put in the position of setting and enforcing new security standards.

The only beneficiaries will be partisan Democrats who will have more union dues to tap at election time.

In an effort to stop the federalization of air safety, House Republicans offered their own measure last week. Conservatives, in particular, want a system that uses a public-private partnership. The government would set standards and oversee the effectiveness of private companies competing for contracts. Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) has staked out a defiant position on the issue. "The Senate bill, by adopting a discredited approach," said DeLay, "fails to satisfy the primary purpose of any airline security plan: raising standards and accountability to safeguard the flying public by implementing the most effective model."

Rep. John Mica (R.-Fla.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Aviation, is equally defiant. He calls the Senate's claim that only the federal government is up to the job a "fiction."

"Most airports in Europe provide security through a coordinated effort of public oversight and supervision of private screening contractors," Mica said. "In general, foreign governments provide an average of 10% to 15% of security personnel, while the private sector provides the remaining 85% to 90% of security personnel."

"What [the Senate] is proposing is a leap into the dark," said Robert W Poole, director of transportation studies at the Reason Public Policy Institute, who has done an in-depth investigation of the experiences of other countries in handling airline security. "It's the kind of thing Al Gore would call a `risky scheme.'"

DeLay agrees that a federalized system is "inherently incapable of delivering the security accountability Americans are demanding."

"We know that the Europeans and Israelis both attempted to provide airline security through complete government control," he added. "They all walked away from that flawed approach in the 1980s when airline security failed to improve."

Conservatives agree that one of the few legitimate spheres of responsibility given to the federal government under the Constitution is national defense.

But even with the finest military in the world, there is reason to be concerned that a federalized airport workforce would operate effectively-even in the United States.

Poole, for one, sees several arguments against the Senate plan.

"Unionization and civil service status would bring too much inflexibility," said Poole. "For one thing, it will make it too difficult to get rid of people."

Shortly after the September 11 strikes, a security officer at Logan Airport in Boston left a monitoring station unmanned to go on a coffee break. Passengers passed through unchecked and complained at the counter. The company fired the security guard that same day.

"That would never happen in the public sector," noted Poole.

In a multinational study, the Aviation Security Association found that the even most pro-union nations considered it too dangerous to trust inefficient government union workers with airline security. In Denmark, England, Germany, Amsterdam, Belgium, even Israel, left-leaning governments have sought the accountability and adaptability of private companies, precisely because errors are corrected almost immediately.

Union Protectionism

"Under-performing employees can be removed by private sector companies," ASA said. "Under normal federal worker protections this is a difficult and timely process. It is essential to maintain the security paradigm of zero tolerance for poor job performance."

Putting a government union in charge of passenger safety creates other problems. "It will give unions veto power over new technology, so they can preserve jobs," said Poole.

Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, agrees, arguing that eliminating one example of union protectionism could have prevented the horrors of September 11.

"The Pilot's Union was single handedly responsible for blocking proposals to seal the cockpit because they were afraid of their becoming coffins," says Gleason.