America's Outrage Over TSA Naked Body Scanners Was Right-Wing PR to Prevent Workers from Unionizing

[kpete]

Did You Fall for It?

America's Outrage Over TSA Naked Body Scanners Was Right-Wing PR to Prevent Workers from Unionizing

The right fears nothing more than unionized workers, and found a cunning way to scapegoat workers to derail a campaign to organize the TSA.
April 28, 2011 |

This is the year that the Republican right-wing, backed by corporate sponsors like the billionaire Koch brothers, have declared all-out war on public sector unions. It’s the culmination of a decades-long crusade against organized labor, which has only hit the national radar screen in recent months. The showdown in Wisconsin between Scott Walker and the unions has changed all that: suddenly, Americans had their eyes opened up to just how ruthlessly and cynically the Republican right was ready to fight to destroy public sector unions because they see it as a way to cripple the Democratic Party by killing off a major source of funding, as well as political muscle and votes.

If there’s some good to come out of the right-wing’s war on Wisconsin and other state employees, it’s that we now have a better insight into the Republican playbook against public sector unions, which boils down to this: 1) Manufacture a fake budget crisis in order to frighten the state’s residents; 2) PR the false-crisis hard enough until it breaks out of the right-wing/libertarian pipeline and into the mainstream media; 3) Blame the fake crisis on a fake villain -- “greedy” state employee unions -- thereby pitting the public against state workers. That way, when Republicans pass new laws destroying teachers and firefighters unions, they’ll come off as heroes defending the public from greedy unions, rather than as sleazy mercenaries carrying out their corporate sponsors’ dirty work.

Republicans have used this playbook before, of course, it’s just that Wisconsin finally made us all too aware. Perhaps the most obvious example -- and the least understood -- is from last November, when the same basic strategy was used to wage war against the TSA’s 55,000 employees, who have been locked in a savage decade-long battle to gain the same collective bargaining rights that employees of all other federal agencies enjoy. Unlike in Wisconsin, the Republican right succeeded in burying the story about the TSA employees’ struggle for collective bargaining rights underneath a sophisticated, well-PR’d campaign demonizing TSA screeners as modern-day Gestapo agents, rapists and child molesters.

But lost in all the media hysteria vilifying the TSA was the appalling story of labor abuse against the agency’s screeners, a consequence of Republican anti-union policies. If anyone is wondering why collective bargaining rights are so important to public sector workers, look no further than the TSA, whose employees suffer the lowest morale and highest attrition rates of any federal agency, year after year. Complaints and lawsuits abound, accusing TSA management of rampant sexual harassment, racism, bullying, wrongful termination and abuse of power. If that didn’t make working in the TSA difficult enough, the recent campaign demonizing TSA agents as modern-day Gestapo-agents turned them into the most hated of all federal employees; passengers, encouraged by incendiary PR, hurled abuses in TSA screeners’ faces, and in a few cases even physically attacked screeners.

the rest:
http://www.alternet.org/media/150767/did_you_fall_for_it_america%27s_outrage_over_tsa_naked_body_scanners_was_right-wing_pr_to_prevent_workers_from_unionizing/

[Tippy]

1. K&R

[bbgrunt]

2. maybe; but I'm still outraged by the scanners and intrusive patdowns.

[KeepItReal]

5. +1

No excuse for those horrendous policies

[pintobean]

3. I'm a union member. My outrage isn't anti-union. n/t

[guardian]

4. NO you are wrong

It is outrage over being forced to allow someone to stick their hands down my pants and feel me up just to travel as part of my job.

The TSA p-r-o-c-e-d-u-r-e-s are the problem. And people are rightfully outraged. If is a violation of your constitutional and civil rights. People don't care whether the person molesting the little girl or irradiating me belongs to a union or not.

You know, not everything is political. Grow up and smell the roses.

[TheMadMonk]

29. This well may be the case, but taking it out on the footsoldiers...

...isn't particularly productive. Especially since doing so aids and abbetts the enemy.

And the ideas expressed in the OP are not at all incompatible with your various outrages.

The media could have done what it's done with so many other RW horrors. Ignored it and turned it into just one more bug up the arse of LW bloggers, right beside electoral irregularities, Gee-dubs military record, FEMA trailers, 2 wars, and so on.

Instead they made every report of malfeasance about the screeners performing the search, whilst the TSA itself is cast as the beleaguered agency doing unpopular things in the name of public safety.

And even here on DU it worked, with large numbers of suposedly progrssive people coming forward to tell us the "inconvenience" is the price of safety, so shut up and spread'em.

[Renew Deal]

6. That BS

The nude scanners and groping of toddlers by the TSA are real issues.

[WatsonT]

7. So as long as they're in a union we can't say anything about what they do?

[guardian]

18. Pretty much that is what the OP is saying.

Some people see politics in everything and impute a political motives when none a justified.

[TheMadMonk]

64. Not even close. What the OP is saying, is that the US public was...

...helped by the media to direct their ire at the poor bastards given a choice to do what they're told or walk away into a an abysmal job market and no safety net for anyone who voluntary leaves their job or get themselves fired for cause, say by refusing to do as they're told and look up little girl's dresses.

A strongly unionised force of screeners WOULD have the power to refuse to carry out such egregious orders.

Instead the US public chose to use one of their rare moments of seeing eye to eye across the aisle to side with the wielder against the tool.

In fact Since the Civil War, if not earlier the power brokers of America, have furthered THEIR cause by setting American against American. And even when occasionally the people do get pissed off enough to fight back, they fail to learn the real lesson and go back to fighting amongst themselves as soon as they resecure their base.

[FormerDittoHead]

8. Bullshit. No one had a problem until the new search procedures were introduced LAST YEAR.

The new, intrusive, invasive procedures was the ONLY PROBLEM that people have.

That the Republicans want to exploit the outrage of seeing old men with urine all over them, while the left sits by and APPROVES, then that's the political landscape each side has chosen.

I would have RATHER had the left stand up to Chertoff and the other right wing appointed security chiefs and call the TSA procedure the bullshit they are, but we "have to" stand by Obama.

To SUGGEST that the outrage over these procedures is made up is BULLSHIT.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

66. Actually, I have had a problem with 99%

of the reactive BS in airports since 9-11. We need hardened cockpits and good luggage screening, that's about it. Most of the rest is just ineffective and economically counter-productive hysteria.

[Pholus]

9. So the Koch brothers seem to have outwitted the investigative journalist on THIS one.

SEVEN PAGES of text and the "November Conspiracy" boils down to.

1) The "junk" guy said in an online forum he should act up the month before he did. He apologized to people who felt duped saying he was merely shooting his mouth off and hadn't planned the incident.

2) Some libertarian operative was involved in an unclear manner and he has a history that definitely looks unwholesome.

3) Drudge ran a video and it got traction in the MSM echo chamber.

Yup, the Koch's fingerprints are all over this one, all right. Too bad they were soooooo good
that we have no evidence.

The main allegations occupy about one of the seven pages.

The other six deal with the history, republican anti-union bashing, and descriptions of low morale at a tossed together, overfunded and politicized organization where employees are placed in a situation where they have power over others while being at the whim of those with power over them.

Sorry, charlie, but that wasn't enough (any?) evidence to indicate why I've been a tool for expressing my discomfort with invasive searches. You simply indicate the event follows the pattern. Perhaps, but then your headline was too strong for what you were saying.

When you can get some SOLID evidence there was some planning or conspiracy why don't you get back to me.

Edit: Typos and removed repeated "it seems" from subject

[Bonobo]

10. Don't worry, KPete, you are still a .900 batter in my book, but...

this is BS.

[kpete]

12. thanks Bonobo

BS never, ever bothers me (not in politics and war)
i find truth in some of the stinkiest shit...

peace, kpete

[Pholus]

13. +1 I still love your posts too, kpete! eot.

[seabeyond]

11. how fucking insulting. cant fuckin think or figure things out for self. oh no, dont agree with us

cowards allowing our rights to be eleminated cheerfully cause afraid.... must have fallen for rw ploy.

WRONG

i am not doing a strip search or being groped when i have done NOTHING to warrant treatment

that has nothing to do with fuckin rw

this article has everything to do with cowards so fuckin afraid trying to manipulate people to cowar, also.

[pintobean]

15. I find it extremely insulting, too.

I didn't fall for shit, and I'm not falling for this bullshit.

[seabeyond]

16. " I'm not falling for this bullshit. " damn straight. what a condescending dismissive

obnoxious article.

[CreekDog]

37. My sentiments exactly

:hi:

[MuseRider]

24. I agree with you. n/t

[CreekDog]

14. If you agree with that, then are you calling my outrage "right wing"?

:shrug:

[pintobean]

17. No, I think we're just stupid

because we "fell for it".

[CreekDog]

36. I didn't fall for anything --I complained of my own volition against forced x-rays w/ no opt out

and TSA targeting of a certain class of passengers for this treatment.

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

52. The subtitle is HUGELY unfortunate, but there's things worthy of discussion here.

Unfortunately, the RW knows how to push the emotional buttons and they certainly have here.

But there's some valid issues in the piece, I think.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pholus]

21. Godwin's Law has been evoked! Discussion over people! :)

Signed, one of the sheep... :)

[seabeyond]

28. or those that do a strip search and are groped are sheep because they are afraid

which sounds more hilteric?

[Matariki]

20. NO. My outrage was, and is, REAL

I won't fly until I know I'm not going to have some creepy stranger groping my vulva or putting their hands down my pants. It has NOTHING to do with privatizing TSA or union busting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14mKoAptaiw

[Admiral Loinpresser]

67. +1

[robinlynne]

22. The scanners are not a faked crisis. My doc said he would not go into a scanner.

period.

[Moondog]

23. Meh. I really don't think so. n/t

[CrossChris]

25. I said this as soon as these stories started popping up. nt

[CrossChris]

26. that the new policies were meant to create a backlash---not that the outrage was fake.

My outrage over the TSA's policies is very real.

I saw their policy shift as the first shot against unions after the 2010 elections.

[blondeatlast]

27. Why am I NOT surprised in the least? Please, DU, read John Dean

and David Brock's books--please.

You won't regret a minute of it.

[Xithras]

30. This is pure garbage.

The TSA should be disbanded and its agents fired. That opinion has NOTHING to do with anti-unionism, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that they exert power through intimidation, are a violation of the most fundamental notions of freedom, represent the WORST of Bush-era anti-terrorist hysteria, and sexually assault Americans on a daily basis.

I DO oppose their unionization, but only because I oppose their EXISTENCE. There shouldn't be any TSA jobs to unionize.

[ecstatic]

31. I can understand some of the concern, but some of it is so exaggerated and over the top

I think there is a bit of a racial element as well.

[pintobean]

32. Racial? Really?

Please explain.

[ecstatic]

33. Well there's a few things

Read some of the RW blogs, race is a common theme in their posts about TSA "groping."

Secondly, people who are complaining want the United States to adopt racial profiling as a "better" way of securing flights. Racial profiling would not work because the minute you exclude one group, that group will be the next attacker.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-schultz%E2%80%99s-tsa-junkgate-just-excuse-for-black-president-hating-right-to-promote-racial-profiling/

[Canuckistanian]

34. Bull. The scanners are TSA POLICY

It doesn't matter if it's government unionized workers doing it or private contractors - the end result is the same.

You're going to get scanned or groped no matter WHO'S doing it.

[Puregonzo1188]

35. Um...not it wasn't. I'm a Socialist and very pro-Union, but am 100%

to the body scanners for reasons that have nothing to do with TSA unionizing and everything to do with Michael Chertoff ripping off the taxpayer.

[Generic Other]

38. Unionized? I think they should be fired

They haven't caught a single terrorist, have let a few dangerous people and weapons through, and have harassed most Americans unmercifully. And they have ZERO qualifications.

[blondeatlast]

40. Did you read the entire piece? nt

[Generic Other]

68. I just don't wnat to encourage their continued existence in any way shape or form

I think they are a scam perpetrated on us by Chertoff to grab power and make money for himself. They serve no useful purpose.

Their attempts to organize are meaningless to me.

[gkhouston]

49. I think you just made the OP's point. Your anger is directed at the individuals

carrying out the policy, not at the policy itself. I hold no love for the handful of TSA types who appear to use their positions to abuse passengers, but a lot of them, in the course of simply doing the job they're supposed to be doing, are still doing something of doubtful value that is demeaning to passengers. That is the true problem, and I agree that TSA needs to be disbanded/reorganized. Hell, I think Homeland Security should be done away with. I don't think we've gotten anything positive out of creating that agency.

[blondeatlast]

39. Seems very few have read the entire piece. It's long,

but the author makes his/her case.

[Pholus]

41. Highly disagree.

See my post above. The "November Conspiracy" is long because six of its seven pages are history. The specific allegation is supported by only three bits of evidence, with NO strong connections and absolutely no evidence that some Koch brothers conspiracy drove it.

It tries to make its case circumstantially through comparison with the Koch playbook in WI.

I rate it possible, but unsupported by hard evidence the way Walker's BS was.

But its once of those pieces that make a person feel its "truthiness" through its long meandering discussion and so you'll come away either feeling insulted or affirmed.

[blondeatlast]

42. I feel neither--it's an interesting read and knowing how the Republican Noise Machine works,

I found it plausible.

I understand may find it hard to take--I largely stayed away from those TSA discussions--but I'm a frequent traveler and I find the author's contentions plausible.

Not to be smart here, but I work in the legal profession--circumstantial evidence is not second class evidence by any means.

[Pholus]

45. I approached the piece with an open mind, ready to be told my feelings were used.

So we have different standards to be met. I required direct evidence to change my viewpoint. You required an argument that supported what you already felt. As a result, you will by nature accept a lesser argument than I will and in that case circumstantial evidence would probably seem sufficient.

But considered on the evidence presented, the title of the article borders on the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent" in that the main argument is:

Because they hate unions, the right wing started a media blitz in WI which was confirmed by hard evidence like the phone call. The TSA "grope or peep" fest last fall was also media blitz. Since the right wing hates unions they must have started that one as well.

Since a direct cause was not established via evidence, the article failed to support its thesis statement adequately.

You, who apparently had no problem with the TSA, as a result feel this is sufficient to support your belief.

Me, whose core beliefs are being smeared by the premise of the article in that if I hate the procedure I must somehow be supporting the right wing, will not find it sufficient.

[blondeatlast]

47. How do you come to the conclusion that I had no problems with the TSA?

I thought it was an interesting read that raised some valid concerns. I never said I supported the TSA--but I do support workers--always.

[Pholus]

55. Well, I obviously overreached. On the other hand, the title of the thread makes it MY trial.

We're on a thread where the premise is that I was *used* by the opposition. It made me read that article REAL closely because I wanted to see what that argument would look like. It didn't support the case but you disagree.

So I put out a jab to see what your response would be. Sometimes it gets a person to say what they really mean instead of wrapping it all up in warm fuzzies and obsfucation.

I was obviously wrong in your case so I apologize. I obviously strongly support unions, but please notice that my anger of this issue didn't start until the procedure got intrusive.

So, I support the TSA unionizing but do not support unnecessary intrusive searches when adequate alternative technology is available but goes unselected.

The position is apparently highly nuanced, based on some of the later posters here.

[blondeatlast]

58. And that's the shame of it--the unfortunate title works just like the machinations of the RW

do--it elicits an emotional reaction and shuts down intelligent study and discussion, as we've managed to have in our little subthread.

the title stinks--whether by purpose or accident, I don't know which. I notice kpete, whom I respect very much, has changed her subject line. I think that's wise.

[Pholus]

61. Thank you. That makes this one a good discussion.

I was too involved in last fall's flamefest because a core of posters seemed to believe that the only proper way to react was to, in the words of right wingers, "graciously submit."

Sorry, I cannot allow it to be that way. And so, we all need to separate those two issues.

And it seems like a more careful investigation than the article would do just that. A lot of us were interested in Chertoff's business connections. Perhaps some of those connections were political as well and if you're conspiracy minded, forcing a confrontation would serve more than one purpose.

Still doesn't make me a tool for feeling the way I do about my privacy though... ;)

[blondeatlast]

62. Of course not. I think the author bit off his/her nose to spite his /her face. nt

[Bill McBlueState]

44. people are objecting to the either/or tone

Nearly all of us probably agree that some of last fall's outrage was a right-wing PR tactic. But plenty of the ongoing concern is due to legitimate objections to breaches of privacy. Mine certainly is.

[seabeyond]

51. people bulked at the porn scanners and groping before nov. the outrage was legt. rw to take out

union and into private contractors used OUR rage. it was not rw creating MY outrage. my outrage was already there. they climbed on the back of that to break the unions.

[blondeatlast]

56. SB--you've absolutely, totally, and completely gotten it and it's

important that people understand the machinations the same way you do.

Was there a reason to be alarmed about the TSA screenings? Hell yes. Did the RW step up and exploit the emotional response? Hell fucking yes--and it worked, I'm afraid.

We need to study and discuss what happened because they will do it every chance they get.

[seabeyond]

57. i remember that time cause i have been fighting this for years. so then, i was fighting for

people NOT submitting and fighting the rw bullshit of take to contractors....

[NNN0LHI]

43. I am a union member in good standing and this is true. Read this thread once

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=195268

Didn't need anyone to tell me it was right wing anti-union bullshit. I can recognize it when I see it.

[blondeatlast]

50. Interesting how little discussion there was about that. I understand that people

don't want to feel that they've been used, but something smelled fishy back then.

Were the TSA workers used by the RW? Hell, yes. Were the citizens? Hell yes.

Both can be true--and it's a shme we can't discuss it.

[seabeyond]

53. we were mad. we had OUR issue. because rw jumped on it we were suppose to submit?

then who is the coward?

[blondeatlast]

59. Absolutely not, but because the issue became so emotionally charged,

we couldn't see the trees for the forest.

Don (NNOLH) called it--but his thread didn't get any attention.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Called it.

That said, I think the radiation concerns are legitimate. I think the "ZOMG THEY'RE GONNA LOOKIT MY BUTT" concerns are just goofy.

[kenny blankenship]

48. Utter crap. A steaming pile worthy of some leftwing equiv of Regnery Publishing

[Lucian]

54. Wow. Article fail.

My outrage has nothing to do with anti-union. While I can see the author's point, I don't agree with it.

My outrage comes from the fact that TSA scanners can see my junk and the employees grope to find shit they won't find. I don't like my privacy violated like that just to fly on an airplane.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. I am sorry but I can still walk and chew gum at the same time

they SHOULD unionize and the Scanners are STILL a violation of the 4rth Amendment... (And a decision by them higher ups and if nothing else, they should wear a dosimeter, where the UNION comes in)

[blondeatlast]

63. It's not about "falling for it." The title is horrible and insulting, BUT...

Plenty of reason to be concerned--but the RW DID exploit that JUSTIFIABLE concern and it behooves us to discuss and study how they did it--because they will do it again and again.

[TheKentuckian]

65. The right wings antics have no impact on my beliefs. I didn't get "played"

I don't believe in these sort of searches and view them as counter-Constitutional.

I don't give a flying fuck about the Reich's gyrations. I do not let them number my steps.

[Gormy Cuss]

69. No,. the right wing used the growing public discontent to distract from TSA unionization drive

And to undermine that effort but many ARE unhappy about the full body scans once they see how revealing the images are and I've never heard anyone praise the hand-in-the-pants "enhanced" patdown.

[Pholus]

71. Perhaps, but last fall there were plenty of folks saying it was disloyal to the president

if you didn't take the hand-in-the-pants with a big ole smile on your face.

In fact, some were downright militant about demanding it.

[Gormy Cuss]

73. And few if any had actually experienced it

so it was just nonsense talk.

[Pholus]

76. Yes. That's good old American "I got mine" talk. Glad you had a pleasant experience.

But since reality ends at the borders of your eyesight you must live in a pleasant world.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[markpkessinger]

75. [phone]! n/t

[Pholus]

More thinking on this. Were we "used" or did the Democrats fail to spot a winning issue first.

If popular sentiment was so important to the right, it was important to the left as well. Whose political sensors were turned off to that and why?

The messages seems easy.

People have rights, no to the gropes. Workers have rights, yes to their unionization.

It wouldn't have been hard to do...

[Pholus]

72. DUPE REMOVED.

[markpkessinger]

74. I didn't "fall" for anything . . . n/t

I am very pro-Union and am vigorously opposed to the body scanners. I think they are an outrageous violation of the Fourth Amendment. There are plenty fellow progressives who agree. I didn't "fall" for anything -- I am perfectly capable of formulating my own opinions, thank you.

[markpkessinger]

77. Another offensive installment of "Anybody who criticizes the administration is a tool of the GOP"

This nonsense is getting really tiresome. There is a systematic attempt afoot here to marginalize the views of anybody within the progressive wing of the political spectrum who expresses any criticism, how ever valid, that might be inconvenient or uncomfortable for the current administration. It is utterly outrageous, and totally contrary to what the Democratic party has traditionally stood for. The fact that the GOP will exploit any issue for its own ends is not necessarily, in and of itself, an invalidation of the underlying issue. This is a convenient way for the hardest core supporters of the Administration to evade having to answer some really tough questions -- questions based on progressive values -- about the actions of the current Administration.

Nice try.

[MisterP]

78. Ames and Levine wrote "TSAstroturf" for which The Nation had to apologize

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9643225

we don't NEED more Judith Miller Democrats

they should be drummed out like an Anastasio Somoza bootlicker