In other news, the Washington Post reports that Transportation Security Administration nominee Erroll Southers has withdrawn his name from consideration. I assume the next nominee will not have violated the federal Privacy Act nor provide false testimony to the Senate Government Affairs Committee. I think Radley Balko would also like the next nominee to replace the official TSA blogger.
Note: I don’t expect every nominee to have a spotless record. We’re all human. Nonetheless, some transgressions should disqualify individuals from certain types of jobs, even if not from high-level government positions generally. Furthermore, I think it is reasonable to expect nominees to be truthful and forthcoming about their past transgressions, and not to submit false or misleading affidavits. A particularly exacting standard this is not.
neurodoc says:
Didn’t this really amount to something like a “blackball” by DeMint, who kept Southers’ nomination from being voted up or down by the Senate, with the announced reason for his opposition to Southers being conerns about the prospects of unionization at TSA and the impact it might have on security, not the “privacy” issue? Is that a good way of doing business? I don’t think so, irrespective of Southers’ merits or demerits.
January 20, 2010, 9:55 amPer Son says:
Nice smear. He very quickly afterwards amended his response. You assume his ommission was deliberate, I do not.
January 20, 2010, 9:57 amJonathan H. Adler says:
neurodoc — It is certainly possible that Southers withdrew due to DeMint’s opposition, and not to the other issue, but I suspect Reid could have overcome DeMint’s hold were it not for the privacy issue.
Per son — It was irresponsible for him to sign the affidavit without reviewing the details of his conduct first, particularly since it resulted in a letter of censure from the FBI that (at least at the time) was not provided to the committee. Further, he did not correct his error for several weeks. The affidavit was filed in October. He did not send a letter correcting the record until November 20, which was after the committee voted on him.
JHA
January 20, 2010, 10:04 amArthurKirkland says:
My tentative preference would have been for Mr. Southers to find another spot in government — with another layer of oversight — from which to serve his country, enabling a nominee without his baggage to proceed. I hope that can still be arranged, if Mr. Southers’ skills and experience would be handy at TSA.
If Sen. DeMint opposes another nomination, and the motivation is determined to be opposition to unionization, I hope the Senate steamrolls Sen. DeMint. Unless the “free country” principle was rescinded while I wasn’t looking, if employees want to form a union, they should be able to form a union, and neither the Chamber of Commerce nor the Heritage Foundation holds trump, even if a senator is willing to fold his arms for them.
January 20, 2010, 11:18 amJoseph Slater says:
My impression was the same as neurodoc’s, and I agree with at least the second paragraph of Arthur Kirland’s post above.
January 20, 2010, 11:32 ambyomtov says:
OK Jonathan. Now give us the official excuse for the other 176 positions going unfilled because of Republican obstructionism.
January 20, 2010, 11:33 amK Dackson says:
Interesting.
I seem to recall that one of the issues in forming the DHS was that the DHS could not be unionized, because there would be no easy way to remove employees without a cumbersome review. Which would mean that no DHS employee could ever be fired. And isn’t the TSA part of DHS?
Or did you all seem to forget that? If Sen DeMint did not, then good for him. Because we always knew that the favorite tactic of the Democrat is to agree to something than try to change it by breaking the rules.
January 20, 2010, 11:46 amK Dackson says:
How about “They are unqualified hacks”?
Works for me.
January 20, 2010, 11:47 amPer Son says:
K Dackson:
To some that was a concern, but it never won the day. Instead the DHS statute allowed the TSA Administrator to allow collective bargaining or not. DHS is highly unionized.
So your recollection is incorrect.
As for difficulty in firing DHS employees, what planet do you live on? I represent lots of them, and can say that plenty get cut, and the goverment has ample abilities to put people on garden leave and/or indefinite suspensions.
January 20, 2010, 11:54 amPer Son says:
byomtov:
The fail a major test – not Regent grads.
January 20, 2010, 11:55 amK Dackson says:
Per Son:
I stand corrected in my recollection.
Are the leaves or suspensions paid or not? If they are paid, thanks ever so much.
January 20, 2010, 11:58 amPer Son says:
K Dackson:
Both (paid and unpaid – depends on the alleged offense). Keep in mind that paid leave (while internal procedures are exhausted) applies to all non-probationary federal employees whether there is a union or not. It is called procedural due process, which as I understand, many folks on the right do not agree with (those Supreme Court cases can be discussed on another day).
My basic point is that the argument that unfit/dangerous people cannot be removed from the workforce is a tired canard that is disproven daily, and while examples periodically arise seeming to support a counterview, such examples are not the norm.
January 20, 2010, 12:06 pmJohn Thacker says:
It doesn’t matter to me whether the “omission” (really trying to minimize what he did) was deliberate or not. When it comes to qualifications for TSA head, or for any law enforcement position, I think that “don’t use official databases to spy on people for personal reasons, like to look into your ex-wife’s boyfriend” is right up there. It’s a big enough problem in the Federal Government already; we don’t need the guy at the top to have done it.
For quite a lot of them, no nominees. The Administration has been busy with other business, I suppose, but it’s setting quite a record for not nominating people.
January 20, 2010, 12:07 pmJohn Thacker says:
Would you agree that “the argument that the internal federal procedures are necessary to prevent people from being removed from the workforce unfairly is a tired canard that is disproven daily, and while examples periodically arise seeming to support a counterview, such examples are not the norm?” I, and many other people I know, work in the private with “at will” firing and people certainly are not fired for anything short of extreme conditions.
It’s all a matter of degree, either way. Surely you can agree that the federal procedures make it more difficult to remove unfit and dangerous people, no? They make it less likely that someone will go to the trouble unless the worker meets a particularly impressive bar of unfitness and dangerousness. It’s a strawman to claim that the only reason to oppose the procedures is that they make it actually “impossible” to fire people.
January 20, 2010, 12:14 pmK Dackson says:
Call me a heartless b@$t@rd, but since I have only worked in “at will” companies, I find it hard to sympathize with employees who really ought not to be employed at a place (or agency).
January 20, 2010, 12:24 pmPer Son says:
John Thacker:
Of course, it is more difficult to fire folks in the public sector, and I think that is a good thing (just as I agree with the European just cause standards for private employment). I see plenty of folks in the private sector canned for circumstances far from “extreme conditions.”
I was only arguing against the strawman since K Dackson erected it in the following: “I seem to recall that one of the issues in forming the DHS was that the DHS could not be unionized, because there would be no easy way to remove employees without a cumbersome review. Which would mean that no DHS employee could ever be fired.”
Given that I represent federal employees facing discipline and termination, I have a good view of what goes on behind the scenes. Many of my claims are about unfairness. For example, 10 employees were disciplined for offense X and given 3 week unpaid suspensions. The 11th employee was proposed for termination despite it being a one-time transgression in an otherwise spotless career.
One of the biggest problems I see in government is that managers fail to make use of the probationary period (generally the first year of employment) where they have near un-paralleled power to terminate for no cause. Many times the employee that they want to can is displaying the same problems they had during the probationary period. A good manager would have recognized the employee was a poor fit and terminated them. A bad manager keeps them going, because they do not want to manage or supervise (but they do not mind the increased pay), and years later suddenly want to get rid of the employee.
So to lay out my thesis – public sector employment is much more complicated than “no one can get fired,” and the civil service rules apply regardless of the existence of unionization/collective bargaining rights.
January 20, 2010, 12:27 pmPer Son says:
K Dackson:
I couldn’t agree with you more, when you said: “Call me a heartless b@$t@rd, but since I have only worked in “at will” companies, I find it hard to sympathize with employees who really ought not to be employed at a place (or agency).”
People who should not be employed at a particular workplace, should certainly not be employed at the particular workplace.
January 20, 2010, 12:29 pmwws says:
and another one down,
and another one down,
and another one bites the dust!
You think he “withdrew” on his own volition? First practical effect of the Massachusetts election, right here. Axelrod and Emmanuel don’t need any more liabilities, so… under the bus with ye!!!
January 20, 2010, 12:32 pmJonathan H. Adler says:
byomtov –
I don’t think there is any valid excuse for Republicans to block the confirmation of most other nominees. I have said repeatedly that the Senate should be quite deferential to a President’s nominees, particularly for positions within the executive branch, but also for judicial nominees. So, for instance, I am on record supporting the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen at OLC. It is reasonable for Senators of either party to demand adequate time to investigate a nominee’s background, but I do not think policy differences — such as Sen. DeMint’s disagreement with Southers’ alleged view on unionization of TSA employees — are adequate grounds for stalling or blocking confirmation.
JHA
January 20, 2010, 12:42 pmpete says:
It is still a lot harder to fire public employees than private sector non-union employees. I work for a city government and after the probationary period it is really hard to fire someone, even when this person does something as serious as threaten mutilple employees with violence and throw things at them. I have known managers to carefully document these sorts of offenses and then have HR people refuse to do anything about it because it is too much of a headache to actually get rid of them. Then the offender usually gets transfered as soon as there is an opening in another department so someone else has to deal with them. Most of the firings I have heard of happened when they could get some third party documentation that the person had done someting illegal, like using a city credit card for personal use.
I have worked as an at will self employed consultant in a medium sized corporation as well and there you were lucky if you even had any warning if the boss wanted you gone. World of difference.
January 20, 2010, 12:55 pmPer Son says:
pete:
You point out a serious problem. Public sector managers and HR folks are paid to do a job. Part of that job is to document problems, and deal with the headaches of getting rid of folks.
January 20, 2010, 1:01 pmLaura Victoria says:
Per Son says:
pete:
“You point out a serious problem. Public sector managers and HR folks are paid to do a job. Part of that job is to document problems, and deal with the headaches of getting rid of folks.”
Correct. And in turn, it is very hard to get rid of incompetent public sector managers. The whole public sector needs some serious trimming down, and unionization and collective bargaining for government employees should be banned. It creates not only inefficiencies, but a conflict of interest when you can vote to retain your boss in his or her job, and he has no financial stake in whether his department is efficient or not.
We don’t need a big legal debate, just look at government. Look at the ineptitude we all experience at all levels every day. Look how they mostly benefitted from the recession, all that money going to more government jobs. Yes, I know there are some exceptions. But look at the polling data. The great majority of government employees feel positive about the economy, the vast majority of private sector employed (and unemployed) don’t.
Per Son. You sound like a bright guy, but people are not just throwing this out as somce canard that we read about on some right wing talking points memo. It is based on personal experience and a sound knowledge of economics and public choice theory.
January 20, 2010, 1:14 pmPer Son says:
Laura:
This will be my last comment on this matter. I am not sure what you are talking about regarding the ability to vote for one’s boss, unless you are referring to the President and the employee is an executive branch employee. I have not viewed the polling data, but I can say that since Clinton there have been great decreases in overall numbers of employees if you account for new agencies and whatnot. His way of dealing with it was to simply not fill old positions as employees left government. It is fairly common and truthful to hear federal employees say that 15 years ago, 4 people would have performed their job.
Also, most Agencies are extremely underfunded, and are doing the best they can to carryout increasing congressional demands. Typically, federal agencies (non-DOD and DHS) are working with continuing resolutions set to years’ back rates despite inflation.
As for unionization and collective bargaining – it is here to stay and hopefully increase. Employees in the federal sector have a choice whether to vote for a union as well as pay dues (two distinctly different things).
One last snippet – you can always statutorily ban collective bargaining, but because of the 1st Amendment, you can never ban unionization. Although, without collective bargaining, they are toothless tigers.
January 20, 2010, 1:30 pmpete says:
Honestly, I can’t blame the HR people too much. I think the HR people would have been willing to fire them if left to their own devices, but there is a good chance city lawyers talked them out of it rather than risk a lawsuit. The city only has so much money to spend on defending itself when it tries to fire people and has lost before after firing bad employees.
January 20, 2010, 1:41 pmbyomtov says:
KDackson,
How about “They are unqualified hacks”?
Works for me.
I’m sure it does. Saves a lot of thinking, I suppose.
January 20, 2010, 1:41 pmluagha says:
If you look at Obama’s nominees, the pattern is clear.
Obama chooses people with tainted backgrounds because he wants to have the ability to engage in tainted actions.
Someone who has already committed tax fraud himself is unlikely to complain when a friend of yours has tax problems that need sweeping under the rug, or when you request tax records of him unlawfully.
Someone who has already subverted the regular justice processes for political or personal gain is likely to be willing to do it again for you, say, when the opportunity to use prosecutorial discretion comes around.
Someone who will search a restricted government database for personal revenge use is likely to be willing to search that restricted government database for your personal revenge use.
And so on.
January 20, 2010, 1:56 pmzuch says:
Prof. Adler:
Ummm, like Dubya? Or Craig? Or Vitter? Or Ensign?
I’d note that the real opposition to Southers was because of his support for workers to unionize.
Just like the opposition to Coakley seized on one case where she played at best a peripheral role (and did what prosecutors across the country have mostly done and stood by the role or prosecutor in opposing leniency to those convicted).
Why can’t people be up-front in their opposition?
Cheers,
January 20, 2010, 2:24 pmzuch says:
Are we talking the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority here? Or Brownie and the Katrina-era FEMA?
Cheers,
January 20, 2010, 2:29 pmK Dackson says:
Yes, well, when the positions are given on the basis of “who you know”, are part of the machine, and are generally unqualified, yes, they are hacks.
When it comes down to almost every “qualified” appointee have problems paying their taxes, the pattern seems obvious.
January 20, 2010, 2:43 pmK Dackson says:
Are we talking the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority here? Or Brownie and the Katrina-era FEMA?Cheers,
No, zuch. If you read the original comment, it was about Republican opposition to Obama’s appointees. So what you are pointing to does not strictly apply.
Cheers, as you say.
January 20, 2010, 2:45 pmJoseph Slater says:
I agree with everything Per Son said above. I would only add that the supposed problem of the folks going into DHS that unionization would create was not documented with any actual, you know, facts. I’ve read through the legislative history and heard all the debates on the subject, and I ever encountered ONE example of union collective bargaining rights creating a concrete problem in the safety / security area. Not one. In contrast, I will point out again that union bargaining rights did not interfere with the responses by unionized security / safety folks on 9/11.
I make no comment on the merit of the concern about Southers’ accessing a database improperly, except to say that didn’t seem to be DeMint’s concern.
January 20, 2010, 2:47 pmRuss says:
byomtov,
You are trying a diversionary tactic and attempting to justify the improper behavior of Southers by whining, “Well, they haven’t confirmed anyone else!”
That’s irrelevant to this discussion. Southers used a government computer and database to spy illegally on a private citizen for purely personal reasons. Might not be the reason Demint used, but it’s plenty enough in my book to disqualify him. Do you honestly trust someone like that in such a position of authority?
Yes, people make mistakes, but how many of us make such egregious errors in ethical judgment?
January 20, 2010, 2:51 pmSteve says:
I don’t think it has anything to do with the ability to fire bad performers, which is just a standard anti-union argument trotted out by default. After all, union protections also make sure that good workers don’t get fired for bullshit reasons.
DeMint’s stated concern regarding unionization was that the infamous “union bosses” would supposedly have veto power over safety decisions, which is to say, if the TSA decided to implement new screening procedures, supposedly the unions would have the right to object. I don’t know if there’s any validity to that concern but it strikes me as pretty far-fetched.
January 20, 2010, 3:01 pmPer Son says:
Steve:
I said I was done, but I am back.
In the federal sector, unions can bargain over the impact and implementation of a management decision. So, if new screening procedures are developed, the parties could bargain over staff rotation, training on the new system. They cannot, however, stop the procedure from coming into effect.
January 20, 2010, 3:29 pmzuch says:
Well, if you don’t want to look at the big picture of exactly who the Republican senators think are unqualified. The objections seem to be … ummm, a bit blinkered and partisan. Which is pretty much par for the course, if we’re discussing competence.
Cheers,
January 20, 2010, 3:50 pmzuch says:
It’s been my experience that … well, you’d be surprised. Or maybe not.
Cheers,
January 20, 2010, 3:53 pmRuss says:
It’s been my experience that … well, you’d be surprised. Or maybe not.
You’re right – after all, I am in a blog full of lawyers. :-P
January 20, 2010, 5:05 pmpot meet kettle says:
I’m glad that Southers is out. I’m not glad that it is for the wrong reasons.
January 20, 2010, 8:10 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » TSA Nominee Withdraws -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by San Antonio and Damir Tankovic, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: TSA Nominee Withdraws: In other news, the Washington Post reports that Transportation Security Administration nomi… http://bit.ly/8obAW0 [...]
January 20, 2010, 8:35 pmOwen H. says:
Seriously, an issue from more than 20 years ago, and dealt with long ago, matters so much to people? I have to wonder where they’ve been all these years then.
January 20, 2010, 9:10 pmChrisTS says:
Steve says:
Well said.
Beyond that point, I keep wondering about all this ‘at will’ stuff I hear. Of course, waitpersons, retail clerks, chicken factory line workers, and such are employees ‘at will.’ But as soon as we get into larger business or corporate employment, we find that all sorts of incompetents are simply bumped sideways or, worse yet, upstairs – quite without the benefit of unions, which would be anethema to the self-same folks.
In fact, as far as I can tell, the higher up one lands in the employment shuffle, the less likely one is to be liable to the standards of any genuine meritocracy.
January 21, 2010, 1:09 amneurodoc says:
You address yourself only to instances in which the employee deserves to be disciplined. Have you never seen cases in which it is the manager(s) who should be disciplined or fired, but won’t be? I certainly have.
January 21, 2010, 1:42 amneurodoc says:
The “Republicans” didn’t block the confirmation of this nominee, a single Republican senator blocked the confirmation, and the reason he gave for his opposition was a “policy” one, not the “personalized” reason you think has some validity. Why avoid the issue of whether a single senator should be able to do what DeMint has done by surmising, as you do, that “Reid could have overcome DeMint’s hold were it not for the privacy issue”?
January 21, 2010, 2:02 am