Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - 6-15-2012: TSA proposes firing 7 PHL employees

7 of America's finest:

CNN:
TSA proposes firing 7 Philadelphia airport employees
6:13 PM EDT, Fri June 15, 2012 (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/travel/tsa-employees-bribery/index.html)

The agency said it removed 10 employees from security duties last November pending the results of the investigation by DHS OIG. A training supervisor pled guilty to bribery in February, after demanding $1000 from co-workers to take certification tests

Sadly, no mention of TSM Thomas Harkins being caught in the firings. Harkins was named in a federal lawsuit against the Camden Diocese of sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl 10 to 15 times in 1980 and 1981.

You know the organization is hopelessly bloated when they have to propose firing employees who clearly, blatantly violated company procedures and, considering their position, potentially a law or two.

You know the organization is hopelessly bloated when they have to propose firing employees who clearly, blatantly violated company procedures and, considering their position, potentially a law or two.

Heck, one pled guilty to bribery, and got probation.

Pretty pathetic...of course, crimes happen everywhere...:rolleyes:

Only 44993 to go then.

I guess they also need to consult with the 'union' before firing the errant clerks.

Pretty pathetic...of course, crimes happen everywhere...:rolleyes:

Well, TSA found a criminal background checks, didn't they? They won't be working at airport anymore. They are convicted felons. They didn't passed the background checks. TSA will get disciplinary action against those 10 screeners. They were never have any experienced at all.

Well, TSA found a criminal background checks, didn't they? They won't be working at airport anymore. They are convicted felons. They didn't passed the background checks. TSA will get disciplinary action against those 10 screeners. They were never have any experienced at all.

The fact these people were employed suggests that they HAD passes some sort of background check. :rolleyes:

Cheating, stealing, etc. should be punished accordingly.

It should be on the spot termination imho as this is a public safety issue and an example needs to be set*. Break the rules and you're fired-plane and simple as this way, maybe (n.b. maybe) others will get the message

*Yes, the TSA has found numerous prohibited items and has not yet caught a ter'wrist but who's to say that a TSO taking bribes for one situation doesn't take one in another situation and allows someone on the no-phly/ter'wrist watch list to clear security and board an aircraft.

It should be on the spot termination imho as this is a public safety issue and an example needs to be set*. Break the rules and you're fired-plane and simple as this way, maybe (n.b. maybe) others will get the message

*Yes, the TSA has found numerous prohibited items and has not yet caught a ter'wrist but who's to say that a TSO taking bribes for one situation doesn't take one in another situation and allows someone on the no-phly/ter'wrist watch list to clear security and board an aircraft.

+1000

There should be zero tolerance at all times for TSOs, just like there is for pax.

Pax are warned that even if everything is actually safe, appearances matter (which is why an engineer had to surrender a homemade multi-battery charger) - after all, it may look innocent, it may actually be innocent, but as TSA has warned us many times, we might be 'testing' the system for vulnerabilities.

A TSO (or BDO like Minetta Walker) thinks he/she is allowing drugs/money/etc to be moved around - maybe someone evil is just 'testing the system' before sending something really nasty through.

Zero tolerance for everyone - pax risk being denied access to the sterile area, missing flights, being put on various government lists (from checkpoint 'reports' to the watch list) with no recourse. Rogue screeners deserve equally harsh immediate treatment.

In the interests of aviation safety, of course.

The people handing out the discipline are marshmallows. They're softies. Too lenient.

To walk away from bribing these guys with only one guilty and a weak sentence like probation is a slap on the wrist.

How about civil fines of up to $11,000 for violations of their own officers? As I read their Enforcement Sanction Guidance Policy (http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/enforcement_sanction_guidance_policy.pdf) they could easily fine the violators for these breaches and bribes. Yet, they won't. TSA even told ABC News the fines were merely part of the theater to be used as a deterrent so terrorists wouldn't back out of a checkpoint.

The people handing out the discipline are marshmallows. They're softies. Too lenient.

Disciplining union employees is challenging, to say the least. In many cases, the managers do not have the power to write up, let alone fire an employee without approval of local union leadership. Local union leadership, of course, is hesitant to allow the people who vote for them to be fired.

Disciplining union employees is challenging, to say the least. In many cases, the managers do not have the power to write up, let alone fire an employee without approval of local union leadership. Local union leadership, of course, is hesitant to allow the people who vote for them to be fired.

Nonsense.

Managers were doing absolutely nothing about problem employees (and obviously, co-workers were keeping their mouths shut about what they witnessed instead of 'seeing something, saying something') for years before TSA finally got a union of sorts. The union just gives them a convenient excuse to continue what they've been doing all along -ignoring any unprofessionalism, rule-breaking or criminal conduct in the ranks unless it gets so out-of-hand that another legal authority gets involved (gun-running, drug/money going through checkpoints unscreened, repeated thefts over periods of months and years).

Local union leadership has what power, exactly, over TSA management? IIRC, it's a very limited union. I doubt if a TSO strike would be tolerated and management doesn't work for the union leaders.

The union just gave a do-nothing, anything-goes AWOL TSA management another excuse to hide behind while collecting fat checks and benefits and not doing the job they are paid to do.

The union just gave a do-nothing, anything-goes AWOL TSA management another excuse to hide behind while collecting fat checks and benefits and not doing the job they are paid to do.

I never said that I thought management was actively trying to do something about it, just suggested that even if they gave a rat's tail what their pizza-boxers were up to, it could be difficult to affect change because of the union's presence.

Mica, who has repeatedly called for privatizing Transportation Security Administration, said reforms "can't come soon enough." He added that hundreds of U.S. airports "still operate under the Soviet-style all-federal screening model."

:)

Nonsense.

Managers were doing absolutely nothing about problem employees (and obviously, co-workers were keeping their mouths shut about what they witnessed instead of 'seeing something, saying something') for years before TSA finally got a union of sorts. The union just gives them a convenient excuse to continue what they've been doing all along -ignoring any unprofessionalism, rule-breaking or criminal conduct in the ranks unless it gets so out-of-hand that another legal authority gets involved (gun-running, drug/money going through checkpoints unscreened, repeated thefts over periods of months and years).

Local union leadership has what power, exactly, over TSA management? IIRC, it's a very limited union. I doubt if a TSO strike would be tolerated and management doesn't work for the union leaders.

The union just gave a do-nothing, anything-goes AWOL TSA management another excuse to hide behind while collecting fat checks and benefits and not doing the job they are paid to do.

+1 for nonsense, I've seen unionized police, Sheriff's deputies and state troopers fired pretty easily for bribery and being involved but not charged in felonies.

The fact these people were employed suggests that they HAD passes some sort of background check. :rolleyes:

Cheating, stealing, etc. should be punished accordingly.

Exactly! He could go to prison for a long time. If he lied the job application and he didn't telling the truth.

Exactly! He could go to prison for a long time. If he lied the job application and he didn't telling the truth.

Lying on a job application is not punishable with a prison stay (though I sometimes wish it was).