Make airline security as efficient as Post Office?

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.

"With federalization," says Gleason, "Democrats will try to get the union monopoly bargaining power." Such a move would mean less accountability and fewer choices for dissenting voices in the union.

This doesn't mean private companies don't have their problems. In the wake of the September strikes, it was revealed that Argenbright Security, Inc., had hired criminals to man security checkpoints at Philadelphia International Airport The Department of Justice has cracked down on the company, taking them to court for not adequately doing background checks.

Still, it is far more likely that Argenbright, which successfully runs airport security programs around the world and argues that not enough money was available for security in this country, will right itself before the government does. Private companies have an incentive to make improvements to win contracts, stay competitive, and avoid government sanction.

Compare that to the FAA. The agency was told by Congress to set uniform standards for airline security as far back as 1996. Five years later, there was no such system in place when 19 hijackers smuggled box cutters onto four planes to take control for their suicide runs.

In fact, the FAA is slow even by the federal snail's pace. On September 21, Isaac Yeffet, former head of security for Israel's E1-A1 Airlines, gave Congress a strong "I told you so." "In my previous statement that was presented to the subcommittee 12 years ago," he said, "I am positive that if you review it again you will see that the same problems that lie behind aviation security are still evident and that no significant changes have been made for improvement."

The federal government has a history of failure, high rates of attrition, and mounting inefficiency in other agencies such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Postal Service, and Customs Office.

What's most interesting, perhaps, is that the federal government doesn't rely on federal workers when it comes to its own security. In the most dangerous and high-risk terror zones, including Belfast, Ireland, and Tel Aviv, Israel, the government insists on contracts with private companies such as Securicor, Securitas, and ICTS.

While these companies are new to American soil they have been hired as private contractors for years to ensure the security and safety of embassies, military bases, and other U.S.-affiliated properties for years. They are also used by NATO, the European Commission, and the European Parliament in Brussels.

Even Israel, the nation with the most experience at thwarting terrorism, has turned to a public-private partnership to ensure the latest techniques, accountability, and newest technology.

Israel used to have all aviation security handled by government. But five years ago, the government asked the private sector for assistance. The government assesses the risk level, sets standards, writes security directives, and follows up with tests and quality control.

Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, a government agency, trains and supplies management, including security oversight and access. But Amishav, a private company, conducts the pre-boarding interviews, searches, and other security functions in response to the government and airport demands.

Despite the evidence from abroad, however, pure domestic politics helped propel the Senate bill to passage: The 28,000 new workers will not just be members of an inefficient, unaccountable government union, but all of them will be paying dues that will support the Democratic Party in its push for an ever-expanding federal government.

According to Right to Work, the average worker's dues total nearly $500 a year, which would mean nearly $30 million more every year for labor to use to try to bury Republicans and the free market.

The Bush Administration, which originally opposed federalization of the workers and then seemed to switch sides, is slowly moving back into opposition to the scheme, favoring the House proposal for a public-private partnership. As the President warned, "We must resist pressure to unwisely expand government."

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Oct 22, 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved