NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- We learned this week that the Transportation Security Administration (also known as the TSA, or "Thousands Standing Around") has been given approval by the Federal Labor Relations Authority to unionize.If this doesn't make you shudder, it should. If you think the snowplow drivers in New York caused havoc, wait until the TSA doesn't like having to change their "sanitary" gloves more than once a day. Let's start with the fact that in the dark days following the attacks of 9/11, the knee jerk reaction of the government was to do "something," and one of those "somethings" involved creating an entirely new federal bureaucracy called the Homeland Security Department. I shuddered at the time simply from the name of this new soon-to-be behemoth. And then came the TSA. Since airport screeners at that time failed to "capture" any of the 9/11 attackers, the only logical solution at the time was to make these people federal employees under the guise that they would be professional, highly trained, and, oh, not unionized. The TSA was created in 2001 as a non-union federal agency and for good reason. Critical positions that secure and defend our nation cannot be subject to the whims of collective bargaining. Picture the 101st Airborne refusing to go on deployment to Afghanistan until "safe working conditions" have been established...by the U.S. Marine Corps of course. Imagine the crew of the USS Enterprise deciding to strike a week before deployment because their shop steward (formerly known as a "Commanding Officer") was removed for making some funny videos. Or the Coast Guard not responding to the havoc in New Orleans because their Collective Bargaining Agreement didn't cover getting shot at by the people they were trying to rescue. Critical positions involving national security cannot and should not be unionized. In 2003, the Undersecretary of Transportation wrote that TSA officers, "in light of their critical national security responsibilities, shall not, as a term or condition of their employment, be entitled to engage in collective bargaining or be represented for the purpose of engaging in such bargaining by any representative or organization." I'd like to know who changed this rule and why. Strike that -- (pun intended) -- I can figure out the why, but would like to know the who.