Originally posted by SteelMaiden
Am I a pessimist or does anyone else feel that putting the federal government in charge of security is going to cost us way more than revamping the private security practices? Even if the private companies brought wages into line, hired citizens that passed a background check etc., don't you think it would be cheaper for the American Taxpayer?
I don't think that having a federal employee doing inspections is going to be any more effective than a private employee (provided he is being fairly compensated.) Actually, having spent some time around govt. employees, I'd guess that with the rampant entitlement attitude, the govt. employee might be more prone to slack off knowing that it takes eons to oust someone who doesn't do their job.
Now, I don't want anyone who is a govt. employee to get offended, there are a lot of them out there that are good, concientious people. For them, I say good work and thanks. But I have met a lot through the years that just plain don't give a hoot about their job other than that retirement check they will be eligible for.
Sorry for bringing politics into it...I just think that the government gets too involved in too many things it has no knowledge about.
It's not that you're a pessimist. It's that you've bought the 'big lie' that private industry is more efficient that government. Look around. Look at Ford. Look at Enron. Look at the airlines (failing before 11 Sept).
Large companies / corporations are no more efficient than Government employees and government 'departments'. You say:
> Actually, having spent some time around govt. employees,
> I'd guess that with the rampant entitlement attitude, the
> govt. employee might be more prone to slack off knowing
Would you like me to start with the stories about the fraud, waste and abuse in big business? Ask yourself this... If tomorrow you lost your job but were quickly hired for a government position would you auto-magically become stupid and not care as people like to project onto government employees?
If you believe big business is more efficient, profitable or whatever, you haven't looked very far or worked in many companies.
> that it takes eons to oust someone who doesn't do their
> job.
Unions often serve the same functions. But before you start downing unions, make sure you know your history of labour relations and what companies did to employees (especially Ford, the coal industry and the garment industry) - especially during the 1920's and 1930's here in the US. Companies had their own private armies. People were killed / murdered. Some people really do believe in protection of workers. You may not like unions - I'm not particularly a union fan - but they do provide a balance you may not recognize.
Nor are unions more corrupt than politicos.
I will also point out that there are an awful lot of CEOs out there who are 'hard to get out' before they come close to ruining the company. Then - just like in the government (pension or whatever) the disposed CEO gets a Golden Parachute which most of us could retire on. Many Golden Parachutes are big enough that many of our kinfolks could retire with us.
> But I have met a lot through the years that just plain
> don't give a hoot about their job other than that
> retirement check they will be eligible for.
I see this every day in companies. Do you really believe this is exclusive to government? I could go on - but you get the idea.
The biggest difference is that government is
supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people (which we all know is not the case in this day and age - nor was it in the 1920's and early 1930's) while 'private industry' is interested in their profit (as opposed to the people and population). Take a look at how far GE is going to keep from having to clean up the toxic mess they made in the Hudson(?) and other rivers.
Unions came about precisely because 'private' industry left unchecked (the government not doing it's job) typically cares most about their profits and ends up abusing the employees.
> I just think that the government gets too involved in too
> many things it has no knowledge about.
Private industry never does this????<hr>In so far as the inspection aspect, I don't believe it will make much if any difference at all whether it's government or private run. This is a case of tools as well as understanding a problem that was not perceived to exist prior to 9/11. Prior to that, anyone could carry on a pocket knife, box cutter, etc. The legislation is to calm the populace - and not a reaction to a failure of the screening system. It didn't fail its intended purpose.
In 1973 the ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association) practically demanded fortified cockpits including reinforced doors. They even proposed small gun ports (like on armored cars). They said in 1973 - this is what to protect in so far as hijacking goes. Guess who deep sixed the idea as far fetched and stupid? Ummm, the government? Nope - the airline companies. Of course now.... almost 30 years later.... cockpits are being reinforced.
That said, the 'screening issue' is a smokescreen. There was no failure of the screening (inspection) system with respect to 9/11.