Video JFK TSA "agents" force me to stop recording Part 1

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Fisher1949, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Mostly I just refuse to comment on the... ahem, status of the organization past saying there are things that we can improve on and things we do well.

    Plus, I find that if I disagree with things and voice my complaints to those that work with me/at HQ in a well reasoned manner, I usually get much better results.

    Oh, and for the record, the only coaching I get on what I post is to make certain that I do not disclose SSI, and be respectful and professional. Only once have I had a comment questioned (back in like the end of 2008) and that was simply based on how I phrased the statement, not in the content (essentially it was an english comprehension question by a local coworker).
     
  2. RB

    RB Founding Member

    So you do not disagree that TSA is AFU?
     
    Caradoc likes this.
  3. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Then surely you'd have no problem offering a respectful and professional opinion on what should be done with TSA employees caught on video blatantly proving beyond any reasonable doubt that they've entirely ignored the "photography is not prohibited" bits in the training.

    My bet is that you'll go all wishy-washy again.
     
  4. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    In most organizations, the response would be a directive from upper management saying "Reminder: Official policy dictates that (activity) IS ALLOWED. (Organization) expects that all employees will act in full accordance with this directive and in a fashion that reinforces this directive to the public. This is your only warning - employees found to be violating this directive or giving the false impression that it does not exist will be terminated."

    And then follow through.

    This kind of announcement would take all of 5 minutes to compose and release to all FSDs, with the unequivocal order that they make it known to all TSCs in their employ. TSA could save countless thousands or millions of dollars in training expenses by just firing any TSC found to be trying to stop passengers from photographing or recording checkpoints.

    My question (or challenge if you prefer to see it that way) to Rugape is: why not propose this very solution at your next meeting and insist that it be sent up the line to DC? You say you and your team don't pull this kind of crap, and I actually (oddly enough) believe you on that point. So clearly you have nothing to lose since your job would stand in no danger from a new fire-immediately directive for camera-blockers. Suggest it with the rationale that it'd save your agency money to just fire the troublemakers (some of which have probably moved beyond entry-level pay) and hire anew until the message is heard loud and clear that camera-blocking will not be tolerated.
     
  5. RB

    RB Founding Member


    I hope Rugape is never called on to make a decision, one way or the other.
     
  6. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    And there you go again, trying to apply logic to an organization whose very existence is predicated on paranoia and lies.
     
  7. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    You mean other than the daily decision to go to "work" for an agency dedicated to violating people?
     
  8. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    You obviously overestimate my influence. I am a line grunt that works with the blog team, and I have pushed commentary (in some cases exactly like you indicate) up the chain, but I am a line grunt, and carry only that much influence. I would welcome a message like you indicate, as I think that employees that impede the recording (outside of requesting them to stop interfering with the process - if they are, or stop filming the screens) is silly and a waste of time. It indicates that either the employee is not up to speed on the photography/video regulations, or are willfully ignoring them - at best, you have a situation where an employee is confused about interfering with the screening process, and that is a fairly simple question to answer. If the employee is unaware of the regulations, it is unacceptable, as that is covered in training and reinforced in briefings from time to time. If the employee is willfully ignoring the regulations, then I have no further use for them (nor should the agency) and they should be walked out. I am just as tired of seeing this Mickey Mouse crap as you are -
    1. It is wrong
    2. It escalates a situation that would normally be over and done in no time if they would JUST DO THE JOB
    3. It makes every other TSOs job more difficult, because now someone has a vid of TSO A saying it is prohibitied/not allowed here/insert stupid phrase of the week here.

    I will send a message on this subject up like I have in the past. I will see what happens from there, but I am a line grunt, not a policy specialist or analyst, so take it for what it is worth.
     
  9. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I'm thinking you might try moving yourself up in the TSA chain. I don't know if you are tied down to your current location but if not apply for every opening possible.

    This is an honest and well meant suggestion, not a dig of any kind.
     
  10. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    And yet you choose to continue "working" for a Mickey Mouse agency, staffed with thugs, thieves, liars, and perverts, whose very existence is predicated on lies and paranoia.

    You seem an intelligent and personable individual, aside from that particularly strange and offensive choice.
     
  11. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I appreciate the suggestion (seriously), and I would love to do that, but I am geographically locked. My family and friends are all within an hour of me here (plus I know where all the good fishing holes are round here).

    If I were 20 years younger and single, I would have been much farther up the chain by this point, but I would also be much less wise about how to treat people. I have built a life here and to go haring off to DC is just not something I am inclined towards, even for much larger sums of money. I am focused on making what changes I can here, and I will keep moving up here if I am deemed qualified enough to do so, but that is a few and far between situation. I also talk to some folks in HQ on a regular basis, with the blog work and all, so many of my ideas are heard at HQ, but someone hearing my ideas at HQ and having those ideas translated into policy changes are two entirely different animals.
     
  12. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Caradoc, that is about the nicest comment you have ever given me, thanks. (bolding mine)
     

Share This Page