Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Monica47, Feb 17, 2013.
Publicly. In a visible fashion.
Some of it may be intimidation or the attempt at intimidation, but I think most of it boils down to either looky loo behavior or trying to end the situation. I have been guilty of inserting myself in a situation that seems to be spiraling or heading towards being out of control (but that was part of the job description for the LTSO position). Sometimes it is just other TSOs interested in what item was found, or what the discussion is about. I have also been guilty of that one from time to time when something really different is found in a bag, I have a tendency to drift over behind the Xray and look at the image and then look at the item when it is pulled out of the bag during the bag check - I have (since visiting here and remembering how that can appear) made a conscious effort to tamp that down, but I am not always entirely successful at it (at least with regards to the xray), especially when it is a firearm or something I have not seen before.
Intimidation is a double edged sword, it can work in some situations, but it can also backfire terribly. It should not be used in the checkpoints under any circumstance, calm rational discussion on the part of the TSOs will yield much better results - even at the LTSO/STSO/TSM level, it just works better. There is no reason to raise your voice (unless the background noise makes it difficult to hear), and being rational about things just works better. Added plus, if the passenger is out of control, I as a TSO am not going to be able to out-shout them,, and that wouldn't serve a purpose, once you degenerate to a shouting match, nobody wins because nobody is thinking. Part of the job is to find solutions to challenges, whether it is a firearm or an oversized LAG, and if we are all shouting at each other, we are not seeking a solution to the challenge, we are all just posturing - annnnnnd looking like we are about 3 years old and just lost our Wubby.
If the TSA had employees who could think, the first interaction between the TSA and any given passenger wouldn't immediately start with the TSA employee barking at the passenger.
On one of the sites where this story ran, Bloviating Boob felt it important to go on over and say, "Hey, guys, come take a look at my wonderous blog!"
No, for real, here it is:
KSLA 12 (LA, TX, OK) coverage of the incident
And here is what he posted in the comments section:
Really? That's kind of pathetic.
If she demanded, she would have gotten blank stares from the freedom fluffers to rival any Radio Shack employee.
"Freedom fluffer" works for me. It is descriptive, accurate, and pejorative. If it encourages them to find real jobs (a real fluffer would be an example), so much the better.
The day can't come fast enough when these people can't wear their uniforms outside of a controlled facility without suffering the consequences.
I also wonder if the reason this particular incident didn't escalate further and the little girl did not get a pat down is because her father is an attorney. In this instance perhaps intimidation goes both ways.
...after 1990. I was an employee back in the days when we actually had to know what volts, watts, ohms, and farads meant.
I tried getting a job there post 90. I made the mistake of telling the manager I had a ham radio license.
Radio Shack: You've got questions, we've got answers blank stares.
That's as bad today as admitting you have a brain or conscience in the TSA hiring interview. Instant down check.
Oh, you work for TSA? No morphine for you. You're a "federal agent" and I might go to jail for delivering an inappropriate amount of pain medication, as determined by the DEA.
And given my druthers, I'd rather it be the tyrants/freedom fluffers.
I think there's a big difference between looky loo behavior and menacingly positioning yourself arms crossed in a phalanx right in front of someone recording with their phone, and then threatening them verbally. Looky-loos are one thing, swarming is another.
this is what Burns posted:
Our employees continue to gratuitously molest little kids, this one AFTER she cleared the checkpoint. After inflicting psychological harm on the the little kid, the clerk responsible was overruled by her boss when it became clear the mother was not going along with the program.
This is indeed NOT the case, yet how do you explain the constant violation of this policy? If your agency cared about it, Bob, TSA would fire them on the spot. That would get the message across. The clerks who do this are not fired because the TSA secretely agrees with these clerks.
AFTER this story broke and had legs, your agency did whatever it could to control the PR damage. Those actions did NOT result in policy changes to prevent this in the future. Save your apologies and change your processes and training.
What we didn’t do:
The child did not receive a pat-down. You can read our new procedures for children 12 and under here.
Bob, you lying sack of sh*t. The clerks attempted one and were thwarted when the mother started to film them doing it. Did you even read the material at your own link? That set of procedures NOWHERE states that the little kids will NOT be rubbed down. NOWHERE. It states they WILL be screened but provides NO DETAILS on what this will be. Yet you imply that they WILL NOT be molested, when no such gaurantee is made in that policy page: "If your child is unable to walk or stand, the Security Officer will use alternate measures to screen your child while he/she remains in their mobility aid, that may include a visual and physical inspection of their equipment.".
Was the forward progress toward their flight stopped or not, Bob? by your clerks AFTER clearing the checkpoint? It was. Were they free to continue? No! They were detained. These people had nowhere to go but to their aircraft and your clerks stopped them AFTER the checkpoint.
Methinks that an initial mistake was made at the checkpoint of not screening either the chair or the teddy bear. Somebody realized it and that's why they were stopped after the checkpoint. There is no other explanation.
There is an explanation. TSA AFU.
yes, beyond all recognition.
Except, they weren't told that. If that was explained to the folks with basic communication skills there probably wouldn't have been a problem.
Of course they weren't told that; TSA wouldn't admit that they let someone get through without any apparent screening at all.
Separate names with a comma.