TSA Again

Well at least this guy actually has the qualifications to grope passengers. But I really think that he is too dedicated, what with bringing his work home and all!
 
Too Bad TSA doesn't have the same dedication to agent screening that they use on old ladies and people in wheelchairs.
 
I don't like TSA as much as the next guy, but my brother is a screener at Logan. I here the stories. As much flack as they get from the public about who they screen (which is much more less than the "media" portrays), they get way more pressure from their supervisors, and will be suspended/fired if they use common sense and discretion when who and how people are screened. Not to defend the guy in the article (hang him from his short and curlies), but give the rest of the TSA screeners a break. They are just normal people with jobs trying to make a living.
 
JB1842 said:
They are just normal people with jobs trying to make a living.
Click to expand...

I do agree that typically the problem is with the higher ups not with the screeners and it is a crappy job to have.

That said, there are lots of other jobs out there. There are certain jobs that I simply won't do regardless of the pay. TSA agent would be one of them.
 
JB1842 said:
I don't like TSA as much as the next guy, but my brother is a screener at Logan. I here the stories. As much flack as they get from the public about who they screen (which is much more less than the "media" portrays), they get way more pressure from their supervisors, and will be suspended/fired if they use common sense and discretion when who and how people are screened. Not to defend the guy in the article (hang him from his short and curlies), but give the rest of the TSA screeners a break. They are just normal people with jobs trying to make a living.
Click to expand...

"I was just following orders." How can a reasonable person complain about that?

<where is that sarcasm smilie?>
 
In this job market, and also as a federal government employee, it's really hard not follow policy without getting into some serious trouble. The government makes all these rules and regulations to cover their @ss, but will leave their employees out there hang without backing them up when they do their job. I've seen it and experienced it. One problem is the policy makers have no idea what the job entails, and don't listen to imput from the screeners.
 
And I really don't like how the media uses this as an example to jump on the "TSA is bad" bandwagon. Yes, he worked for TSA. But him molesting little kids, and those TSA employess doing their job are completely unrelates. If we want to bash the quality of people that work in government, let's start with the White House and Congress.
 
JB1842 said:
In this job market, and also as a federal government employee, it's really hard not follow policy without getting into some serious trouble.
Click to expand...
It's probably just as bad, if not worse at some jobs in the private sector. Government employees have more recourse. That can be seen as either good or bad.
 
JB1842 said:
And I really don't like how the media uses this as an example to jump on the "TSA is bad" bandwagon. Yes, he worked for TSA. But him molesting little kids, and those TSA employess doing their job are completely unrelates. If we want to bash the quality of people that work in government, let's start with the White House and Congress.
Click to expand...

You're correct that the correlation is not that TSA encourages molestation of children, and you can just as easily (probably more easily) have a threat like that in a daycare center or the like. It's a low blow. That said, such is to be expected when you're an unpopular organization that is almost universally hated. As far as I'm concerned, that is part of what you get for working for the organization.

At my last job, I had anyone who I knew that was a user of the products my company made blame me for every little problem they had. Nevermind the fact that the product was designed by people who were mostly dead before I had even heard of the company (probably before I was ever born), and that the things I was working on weren't in production yet. Comes with the territory. You work for a company or organization, you are the face of that company or organization whether you like it or not.
 
JB1842 said:
I don't like TSA as much as the next guy, but my brother is a screener at Logan. I here the stories. As much flack as they get from the public about who they screen (which is much more less than the "media" portrays), they get way more pressure from their supervisors, and will be suspended/fired if they use common sense and discretion when who and how people are screened. Not to defend the guy in the article (hang him from his short and curlies), but give the rest of the TSA screeners a break. They are just normal people with jobs trying to make a living.
Click to expand...
Seems like a lot of screeners are arrested for theft and other crimes. The problem with the supervisors is that they did not screen their employee very well. But even so that does not excuse the criminal element that we see far too often in the screener ranks.

Does that mean that all screeners are criminals? No it does not, but it makes me think that there is a higher potential that my stuff will be stolen when I have to deal with their autocratic, jackbooted and stupid policies. Also makes believe that the security kabuki theater that is the TSA screening process really does nothing to decrease the chance of a terrorist event.
 
JB1842 said:
Yes, he worked for TSA. But him molesting little kids, and those TSA employess doing their job are completely unrelates.
Click to expand...

I am going to limit my comment in this thread to one point, and one point only.

It is a matter of "optics" or "perception". And when you get down to it, perception = reality.

I suspect that this particular case would be much less of an issue if the TSA were not doing frisks/pat-downs that have become, in many cases, gropes. I've personally experienced TSA frisks that were much, much too personal & not only touched genitals but could, in another context, be construed as molestation. There is plenty of other anecdotal stories of other folks experiencing a similar occurrance. And there's factual evidence (and you-tube video which may or may not be a complete view) of TSA screeners performing such frisks & pat-downs on young children.

So the optics or perception problem arises from a TSA policy that encouraged pat-downs of children and a screener arrested for child molestation. If you don't see the connection between the two, you should. But let me be explicit:

If this particular screener was responsible for doing pat-downs of either adults or children, or he was promotable to that responsibility, then it's very clear that he could/would be given the opportunity to molest children at the checkpoint. He may not have acted inappropriately on the job, but he may have had the opportunity to do so.

Given that, I would not declare that the two things are "unrelated" - certainly not the same way that a DUI and baggage screening would be unrelated. They are related in the same way that a TSA baggage screener arrested for theft or shoplifting when off-duty would be related to the opportunity to steal things from baggage.

This guy held a position of public trust. His personal behavior violated that public trust, and frankly, reflects on his co-workers. Guilt by association is inappropriate, but arises from perception.

BTW, I don't believe this is the only screener arrested for child molestation.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You're correct that the correlation is not that TSA encourages molestation of children
....
Click to expand...

There are videos of agents removing children's clothing to get a better feel of them that would argue against that point...
 
Answer: Remove all security from airport boarding areas and allow people to choose which airline to fly and what defenses to carry.

Kinda like regular life....
 
SkyHog said:
There are videos of agents removing children's clothing to get a better feel of them that would argue against that point...
Click to expand...

And when your baby is born, you'll be stripping him/her down naked several times a day and "fondling" his/her private areas.

But in your case it'll be a diaper change and using a baby wipe, and in the case of the TSA agent doing his/her job, it's screening. I disagree with the rule profusely, but there is a difference between either of those and the crime committed, even though the basic motions have similarities.
 
I'm currently taking an aviation course at a local university and two very senior TSA people were guest speakers and answered any and every question. Both were originally FAA inspectors and were moved over to TSA when it was created. The more senior member was based in Florida then moved to DC HQ when asked. His primary focus is developing & delivering training for TSA.

The question of background investigation came up (I explicitly asked) about screeners. The reponse is that they pretty much do the same as a DOD clearance - criminal history, financial, family, etc.

If this is true, then every time I see a report about someone with a criminal past getting hired I start to wonder. What was not specifically stated was at what level - is this locally or from HQ? I know from DOD world, the FBI gets involved hence it's HQ.
 
dmccormack said:
Answer: Remove all security from airport boarding areas and allow people to choose which airline to fly and what defenses to carry.

Kinda like regular life....
Click to expand...

Agreed. And particular airlines can compete on how many armed undercover people they put on board. Cost vs. benefit.

The security problem is their problem, and they can fix it.

Personally I'd be cool with an entire armed flight crew. Just make it Con Air and treat everyone like prisoners, and we'll have a bigger Private Pilot population in no time. ;) :D :goofy:
 
murphey said:
I'm currently taking an aviation course at a local university and two very senior TSA people were guest speakers and answered any and every question. Both were originally FAA inspectors and were moved over to TSA when it was created. The more senior member was based in Florida then moved to DC HQ when asked. His primary focus is developing & delivering training for TSA.
Click to expand...

Tells you something about what the salary level is at TSA, I suppose. Follow the money.

I don't know how you become "very senior TSA people" though, considering the agency's only 10 or so years old.
 
murphey said:
I'm currently taking an aviation course at a local university and two very senior TSA people were guest speakers and answered any and every question. Both were originally FAA inspectors and were moved over to TSA when it was created. The more senior member was based in Florida then moved to DC HQ when asked. His primary focus is developing & delivering training for TSA.

The question of background investigation came up (I explicitly asked) about screeners. The reponse is that they pretty much do the same as a DOD clearance - criminal history, financial, family, etc.

If this is true, then every time I see a report about someone with a criminal past getting hired I start to wonder. What was not specifically stated was at what level - is this locally or from HQ? I know from DOD world, the FBI gets involved hence it's HQ.
Click to expand...

First, I highly doubt that they do a full DOD clearance, especially not an SSBI. I would expect it to be a bit more than a SIDA background check, but less than a Secret clearance.

Second, the TSA has outright hired felons. See this

I wasn't going to post more in this thread. D'oh....
 
I think TSA is a joke, I just hate the bashing on it. I do think that their policies are a joke, and need to do a better job of hiring. But you will find bad apples in every job. TSA is just a large beast. An overly large, stupid beast. And the larger it is, the more bad people there are.
 
JB1842 said:
I don't like TSA as much as the next guy, but my brother is a screener at Logan. I here the stories. As much flack as they get from the public about who they screen (which is much more less than the "media" portrays), they get way more pressure from their supervisors, and will be suspended/fired if they use common sense and discretion when who and how people are screened. Not to defend the guy in the article (hang him from his short and curlies), but give the rest of the TSA screeners a break. They are just normal people with jobs trying to make a living.
Click to expand...

I keep trying to tell people that the problems in TSA come from the top, but nobody wants to believe it.
 
Bob Noel said:
"I was just following orders." How can a reasonable person complain about that?

<where is that sarcasm smilie?>
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the TSA, but be sure and get back to us when they set up death camps.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm no fan of the TSA, but be sure and get back to us when they set up death camps.
Click to expand...

yeah, because that's the only time "I was following orders" is no defense.

:rolleyes:
 
Bob Noel said:
yeah, because that's the only time "I was following orders" is no defense.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's a question of degree. I don't think EVERY bad act on the part of government rises to the level where morality requires that people make themselves unemployed in a time of high unemployment in order to protest it. I wouldn't want a job like that, but it's easy for me to say, given that I'm not in a position of needing a job and having few options.

Rather than comparing people who may not have a lot of employment choices to death camp guards, it would be more useful to lean on the people in charge. Unlike the Thrid Reich, we do still have that option.
 
Palmpilot said:
It's a question of degree. I don't think EVERY bad act on the part of government rises to the level where morality requires that people make themselves unemployed in a time of high unemployment in order to protest it. I wouldn't want a job like that, but it's easy for me to say, given that I'm not in a position of needing a job and having few options.

Rather than comparing people who may not have a lot of employment choices to death camp guards, it would be more useful to lean on the people in charge. Unlike the Thrid Reich, we do still have that option.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely positively want to lean heavily, very heavily, on the people in charge on the TSA. But those in the trenches are not part of a forced-labor workforce and are not completely innocent.

I have very little sympathy for TSA workers complaining about being hassled because they work at the TSA. Kind of like telemarketers being unhappy about getting grief. If they don't like it, get a job that provides value.
 
Bob Noel said:
Don't get me wrong. I absolutely positively want to lean heavily, very heavily, on the people in charge on the TSA. But those in the trenches are not part of a forced-labor workforce and are not completely innocent.

I have very little sympathy for TSA workers complaining about being hassled because they work at the TSA. Kind of like telemarketers being unhappy about getting grief. If they don't like it, get a job that provides value.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is a matter of degree, but it's also a slippery slope because how people evaluate the morality of a situation changes.

We're so used now to intrusive government that people will think that violating the privacy of people by depicting them naked and potentially seriously hurting their health in the process isn't "too bad". I'm sorry, but it is bad. It's criminal, and I think most people would have agreed with that sentiment 10 years ago. Of course, thanks to the impressive work of a few bad guys, America is running scared now.

So, the following orders analogy is very appropriate. You don't need to be running death camps to be doing the wrong thing. To me, damaging people's health and lying about it alone rises to the level of a felony. And molesting children obviously is a felony already.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Answer: Remove all security from airport boarding areas and allow people to choose which airline to fly and what defenses to carry.

Kinda like regular life....
Click to expand...
It makes sense... what hijacker would choose to mess with the airline that advertises "Weapons welcome!! " :D

Ballistic weapons might not be a good idea, though... maybe airlines should just pass out baseball bats to all pax who want one. A guy with a box cutter is not going to prevail against even one person with a baseball bat. :D
 
denverpilot said:
Tells you something about what the salary level is at TSA, I suppose. Follow the money.

I don't know how you become "very senior TSA people" though, considering the agency's only 10 or so years old.
Click to expand...

They both had been at FAA for a number of years (one 5+ the other 15+) and were given no option other than to quit when moved to TSA. The entire division across the US was given to/taken by TSA.
 
Palmpilot said:
Rather than comparing people who may not have a lot of employment choices to death camp guards, it would be more useful to lean on the people in charge. Unlike the Thrid Reich, we do still have that option.
Click to expand...

Really? I'd be interested to hear how that's done, in the year 2011.

Even the freaking Governor of Texas couldn't apply any heat to TSA. What chance do "we" have?
 
Bob Noel said:
I have very little sympathy for TSA workers complaining about being hassled because they work at the TSA. Kind of like telemarketers being unhappy about getting grief. If they don't like it, get a job that provides value.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Really? I'd be interested to hear how that's done, in the year 2011.
Click to expand...

We do still have freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Even the freaking Governor of Texas couldn't apply any heat to TSA. What chance do "we" have?
Click to expand...

Trying to convince individuals to quit their jobs in a time of high unemployement is even MORE futile.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
That hasn't been true for several years now.
Click to expand...

While it is harder to find jobs, seems that most of the people I know trying to hire people can't find people who want the jobs, including (especially) for people in the same skill level as TSA agents.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yep, and there are a lot of people that are quite happy to just sit and take welfare and unemployment without any gumption to work for more. They add to the unemployment rate.
Click to expand...
Those types of people are not counted in the unemployed ranks. While I know it is great fun for many to think that there are great swaths of people sucking off of the 'doers' the facts are that there are not that many who are looking for a hand up. Welfare cuts out for most thanks to the reforms of the 90s and those people are just plain poor and without anything. They are not looking for jobs and are not counted as unemployed.

The unemployed constitute a very specific group of people. The BLS defines them as:

Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

  • Contacting:
    • An employer directly or having a job interview
    • A public or private employment agency
    • Friends or relatives
    • A school or university employment center
  • Sending out resumes or filling out applications
  • Placing or answering advertisements
  • Checking union or professional registers
  • Some other means of active job search
Passive methods of job search do not have the potential to result in a job offer and therefore do not qualify as active job search methods. Examples of passive methods include attending a job training program or course, or merely reading about job openings that are posted in newspapers or on the Internet.
Workers expecting to be recalled from temporary layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).
Click to expand...
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm


So what that means is that these 9% are actively looking for work and not finding it. That means there is another reason that your friend cannot find people. Either they are looking for a specialty that requires more skills than the TSA type workers do. Or they are offering such crappy pay that no one wants the job even in these tough times. A third and often common problem is location. That is to say where people are is not where the jobs are at and that they have no way to get there. I know that is a big problem. Back in the 90s the company I was at had such a hard time finding manufacturing people that could get to the plant, located in a affluent suburb, that they ended up hiring a bus company to bring workers to the facility. It used to be that the areas around large cities that had public transport is where the factories and such were located. Now it seems that those jobs have all moved outside of cities and into industrial parks where one has to own a car to get to work.
 
The above is true. The real unemployment rate is hovering around 53%, which includes stay at home parents, the disabled, and other folks who willingly don't have jobs, along with seekers.

The "unemployment rate" commonly heard in the media is also seasonally adjusted.

It's a pretty bogus/made up number. There's a number of "adjustments" made to it, all to avoid making it look bad.

Look around at the coffee shop and realize that every other person doesn't have a paying job. It's eye opening.

(Now of course this isn't accurate since coffee shops attract those with money. But it's an interesting mental exercise.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top