Open letter to Restructuring Associates

Sorry to interrupt your regularly scheduled blog, but I've taken the opportunity to use this space to write an open letter to Restructuring Associates.

Attn. Restructuring Associates:

It's come to my attention through the Washington Post that you've been hired by the Transportation Security Administration to assess the feasibility of allowing Transportation Security Officers to engage in collective bargaining. That is, negotiating with the agency through a designated representative of their choosing.

I've reviewed some of your work, and it seems to be, frankly, without peer.

I know its imposing but since you've been hired by the Transportation Security Administration, I feel that you are working first and foremost for the people - after all, who is the TSA but the people themselves in response to that fateful day in 2001?

So as you review the data, meet the people, mull over the pros and cons (before recommending yes), I feel that there are a few things you should know:

Number one, your website uses the word "stakeholder". If you use that word at a place like SFO, the TSO will hear "everybody but you".

Number two, your decision has the potential to affect not just the TSO's directly employed by the TSA, but also those that are in the employ of private companies in the Screening Partnership Program.

To wit, from a collective bargaining agreement at SFO (Section 9.6, in part):

...In addition, the Employer agrees to reopen negotiations over possible changes to wages and retirement benefits if the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agree upon the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement with its employees, and if the documented cost of the TSA economic package for the San Francisco area is within five percent (5%) of the total economic package under this agreement. (end)

Now, you and I both know that the federal government, with few exceptions, does not bargain over wages. Why any wage and retirement reopener is contingent upon the TSA negotiating over terms of employment is beyond me. But I felt it should be brought to your attention. Do they think that the contract will have charts detailing wages in San Francisco?Ha, ha. So, please, keep your audience in mind when you write this report. They may be in the midst of a lot of misinformation.

Here's what I would like to see while this Screening Partnership Program continues its stepchild to the stepchildren act: equivalent wages and benefits as mandated by the Aviation Transportation Security Act. That means an opportunity for bonuses (one of the major complaints of TSOs relates to fairness in the PASS bonus systemthere are no PASS bonuses at SFO), and wages and benefits including retirement that are 100% equal on an individual basis with a similarly situated employee of the TSA.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kamikaze Kid