Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Rude, lazy, incompetent and too dumb to lie....

accurately describes the a-hole screener I had the displeasure of interacting with today, though very much to my surprise his supervisor actually seemed to care!! Most of the time I find the TSA just annoying but on 2 or 3 occasions someone has done something that made me want to actually complain immediately to their supervisor, this was one of them. Typically they are the one sitting up in the booth thing with 3+ other TSA screeners talking and laughing...you know sucking tax dollars and doing nothing. So it was very much to my surprise today when the guy actually seemed to care that one of his screeners was a being an a-hole.

Here's what happened, only MMW scanners were in use (LAX) and there was a TSA guy standing directly on the other side of the WTMD, pointing people to the MMW, which had a line of 4 people in it. After putting my items on the belt I approached him:
Me: I'm going to opt out
D-bag TSA: (blank stare)
Me: (stares back)
D-bag TSA: I don't do that.
Me: huh?
D-bag TSA: stand over there (points to line for MMW)
Me: but I'm opting out
D-bag TSA: yeah I don't do that
(now I didn't expect him to do the pat down, what I expected was for him to slightly turn his head and call out: "Male assist" as is always been the case)
Me: I get that but don't you need to call someone
D-bag TSA: I don't do that
Me (getting somewhat annoyed at this point): so what do you do?
D-bag TSA: I stand here.
Me (trying real hard not to share my true feelings at this point): ok can you find someone who does things then?
D-bag TSA: (blank stare)

about 20 seconds later another screener comes over and I tell him I'm opting out, he apparently can say the magic words: "Male Assist" and rather quickly a screener comes over, I get through, get my pat down but I'm far from done with this idiot so I march over to the little supervisor area and ask to speak to whomever is in charge.

He actually comes down, asks me what happened I explain the screener was being rude, dismissive and apparently thinks his whole job was to "stand here", he asks me who it was and I point over to the guy (which was easy since he was still standing right where he was the whole time...which apparently in his mind constituted 100% of his job responsibilities), he had a pad of paper and took down notes of what I described, turned to the guy next to him and asked his to "tap out" Captain Standing Here. While I'm waiting there Captain Standing comes over and the supervisor asks him what happened, to my shock he tells him: he wanted to opt out, I told him I don't do that, I was standing blocking the WTMD. The supervisor got this look on his face like AYFKM, rolled his eyes, turned to me, apologized and said "I'll take care of it". Now who knows if Captain Standing will actually be disciplined, but it did seem like the supervisor was both interested in being helpful and recognized this guy was being a giant douche, so here's hoping he does.

I wonder if he was a BDO and not "responsible" for saying male assist.

My guess is that the supervisor cared because that's an obvious violation of their policy, or it can be interpeted as such.

My guess is that the supervisor cared because that's an obvious violation of their policy, or it can be interpeted as such.

well my previous attempt to point out an obvious violation of policy at another airport was met with: "the cards are over there" (points to box with cards) and the resumption of the discussion about weekend plans. Thus my surprise.

I think I would have assisted by yelling "I need a male assist and a supervisor immediately" in my loudest possible voice myself.

OP, I can only imagine the look on your face when he said, "I don't do that" to you. I have this thought in my head of you responding to him, saying, "Well, I don't do THAT" and gesturing to the scanner. You two could have volleyed the "I don't do that" line back and forth all day! I'm glad the supervisor apologized and seemed to get it. You handled this situation much better than I think I would have. :)

I think I would have assisted by yelling "I need a male assist and a supervisor immediately" in my loudest possible voice myself.

I was only a couple seconds away from doing just that, well not the supervisor part but the "Male Assist" part, when the other screener showed up and thankfully unlike Captain Standing Here he was not only capable of handling that task but will also willing to do so.

OP, I can only imagine the look on your face when he said, "I don't do that" to you. I have this thought in my head of you responding to him, saying, "Well, I don't do THAT" and gesturing to the scanner. You two could have volleyed the "I don't do that" line back and forth all day! I'm glad the supervisor apologized and seemed to get it. You handled this situation much better than I think I would have. :)

yeah I am sure I was sporting quite the facial expression. It took great restraint not to tell him off but I figured if I had then he would have just claimed I was being "disruptive" or some other nonsense. Even now I'm still surprised, and find it rather sad and hilarious all at the same time, that he didn't try to make up some BS claim and just told the sup exactly what he did. Its like he really thought it was what he was supposed to do.

As much as it's hard for the bulk of the folks who frequent this forum to admit, there *are* actually some good apples in the TSA who care. Glad that this STSO appears to be one of them, and kudos to the OP for keeping a level head and properly addressing the issue.

I think I would have assisted by yelling "I need a male assist and a supervisor immediately" in my loudest possible voice myself.

I found out the hard way that they don't like you calling for your own assist...:D there was a line at the xray entrance so I asked the TSO directing people through the NOS to preemptively get an assist and he refused, so I did it myself. f-ing chaos ensued.

I found out the hard way that they don't like you calling for your own assist...:D there was a line at the xray entrance so I asked the TSO directing people through the NOS to preemptively get an assist and he refused, so I did it myself. f-ing chaos ensued.

haha please do elaborate on said chaos :D

As much as it's hard for the bulk of the folks who frequent this forum to admit, there *are* actually some good apples in the TSA who care. Glad that this STSO appears to be one of them, and kudos to the OP for keeping a level head and properly addressing the issue.

while you are right from a factual perspective, here are my thoughts on the issue...

The entire reason that we have to go through the absurdities the TSA forces on us is because of 'a few bad apples'. We call them terrorists, and they in reality are worse than the TSA, but at the core (pun intended) they really are just bad apples within the defined group of society. Yet here we are with the TSA's bad apples and being asked to just ignore them because there are good apples to.

I am a good apple of society. If we use the logic that the mere existence of good apples in anyway excuses the bad apples, than my existence in society proves that we don't need the TSA if we apply the same logic. Airport security exists because there are bad apples in society. We need to run it on the assumption that there are bad apples in the TSA.

haha please do elaborate on said chaos :D

Yelled at, supervisor, threatened to call police, just basically standard threatening...but before that, the whole place just stopped. I unintentionally yelled way louder than necessary or they didn't recognize the voice or something. Everyone stopped...the supervisor basically materialized and I had a very thorough patdown and very thorough luggage search. I have a lot of good PHX stories. Unfortunately, the new job usually has me flying out on a flight that gets me to my destination within about 4 hrs of meetings instead of the day before so the shenanigans have died down a little. But there was the time I started taking photos and they followed me for like half an hour.

Some clerks are extremely loathe to call out the magic Walgreen's phrase "I see three" when the line becomes more than 3. SO I have taken to calling out myself if the line gets too long "I see three."

Needless to say the staff doesn't like it but i get into nowhere near as much trouble as I would by calling out "male assist" at the airport. :)

while you are right from a factual perspective, here are my thoughts on the issue...

The entire reason that we have to go through the absurdities the TSA forces on us is because of 'a few bad apples'. We call them terrorists, and they in reality are worse than the TSA, but at the core (pun intended) they really are just bad apples within the defined group of society. Yet here we are with the TSA's bad apples and being asked to just ignore them because there are good apples to.

I am a good apple of society. If we use the logic that the mere existence of good apples in anyway excuses the bad apples, than my existence in society proves that we don't need the TSA if we apply the same logic. Airport security exists because there are bad apples in society. We need to run it on the assumption that there are bad apples in the TSA.

Not sure I understand your point. The TSA has an interview process that one must pass in order to become a member. Society does not. One can be fired from the TSA by a single individual (called a boss). One cannot be so easily fired from society. (ETA: Multiple posters have already pointed out it's very hard to be fired from federal employment. Still, it's easier than being fired from society, and the decision is ultimately made by a single person, even if that person is not the individual's day to day supervisor.)

(And of course the good apples don't excuse the bad apples. Bad apples should always be weeded out of any organization whose job is to serve the public. I also don't think we're going to get there as long as anyone claims that 100% of TSA's employees are bad apples.)

Not sure I understand your point. The TSA has an interview process that one must pass in order to become a member. Society does not. One can be fired from the TSA by a single individual (called a boss). One cannot be so easily fired from society.

(And of course the good apples don't excuse the bad apples. Bad apples should always be weeded out of any organization whose job is to serve the public. I also don't think we're going to get there as long as anyone claims that 100% of TSA's employees are bad apples.)

its an arguement of linguistics.
bad apples in society are used as a reason to reduce our rights
bad apples in a company/agency are used as an excuse for unaddressed screwups.

well my previous attempt to point out an obvious violation of policy at another airport was met with: "the cards are over there" (points to box with cards) and the resumption of the discussion about weekend plans. Thus my surprise.

But what kind of violation was it? From what I've read it appears that supervisors seem to care a lot more regarding scanner policy violations (refusals to accept medical "opt-outs", refusals and forced delays regarding regular op-outs, etc) as well as ID issues than other complaints. Of course, I presume that the amount of people complaining about being refused an opt-out are minimal compared to complaints about confiscated shampoo.

Personally I haven't had any really bad experiences with TSA, other than they had me wait almost 10 minutes for a "male assist" back in June, but I arrived to the terminal 2 hours before my flight to prevent their waiting tactics from succeeding.

I did have a slightly similar experience to yours in ATL, where I was coming out of the secondary Customs inspection and got somewhat lost. I was traveling with a school group and the instructions were "Go out, follow the connecting flight signs, we'll meet by the elevator". We had gone through ATL just over a week before but we met somewhere else. I got lost because I lost my sense of direction when I went through secondary, and I had no idea where in the airport I was (turns out, I was just a few steps away from the regular exit), and I asked some TSA guy directions, essentially just asked him if that was the checkpoint that was after the regular customs inspection for connecting flights, or if there was an elevator nearby (in case the elevator was before the checkpoint), and his response was "If you're taking a connecting flight, go that way, if not, go this way", and every attempt to get more information got me the same response from before. At that point I decided to just go to that checkpoint and hope for the best, and as I got to the line I met with one of the teachers who was going with us, so I knew that if we were at the wrong checkpoint, at least I was saved from any kind of punishment (turns out I wasn't the only one who didn't know if it was the right checkpoint). And yes, it was the regular checkpoint.

I was 16 and anxious to catch another international connection to go home so I didn't complain or anything (pretty sure I didn't know that was worth it, or even possible).

I have a new job for that TSO. Think he would like to be Australian Transport Minister? Sounds like he'd do a better job then the current one.

Why are they called "bad apples", why not something like "bad bananas"?

I have a new job for that TSO. Think he would like to be Australian Transport Minister? Sounds like he'd do a better job then the current one.

Why are they called "bad apples", why not something like "bad bananas"?

There's an old saying that goes something like "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel (of apples)".

All too true with TSA, and particularly ironic for an organization that tells us to "see something, say something". If I see a 'bad apple' TSO and other TSOs don't call him/her out, as far as I'm concerned, they are also 'bad apples' because they obviously approve of the misconduct.

I have a new job for that TSO. Think he would like to be Australian Transport Minister? Sounds like he'd do a better job then the current one.

Why are they called "bad apples", why not something like "bad bananas"?

Apples used to be stored for winter... A bad apple could spoil the good ones.

One can be fired from the TSA by a single individual (called a boss).

One cannot be fired from the TSA by a single individual. The TSA employees are federal employees, and have the rights of federal employees. Termination is difficult.

As much as it's hard for the bulk of the folks who frequent this forum to admit, there *are* actually some good apples in the TSA who care. Glad that this STSO appears to be one of them, and kudos to the OP for keeping a level head and properly addressing the issue.

There are indeed competent and professional TSOs and STSOs out there. The problem is, they are the exception rather than the norm.

There are indeed competent and professional TSOs and STSOs out there.

Statistically speaking, there has to be one somewhere.

The question is, "Where?"

Given the nature of the discussion here, some of you might want to voice your opinion in a FlyerTalk/Frequent Business Traveler survey on the effectiveness of the TSA.

Click here to take the survey (http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2012/08/survey-how-effective-is-the-tsa/) if you wish.

Statistically speaking, there has to be one somewhere.

The question is, "Where?"

The one from the OP seems to qualify in my book.

The one from the OP seems to qualify in my book.

You mean the supervisor with an obvious problem on his team that he's failed to address?

You mean the supervisor with an obvious problem on his team that he's failed to address?

Maybe I misread the post. From what I read, the supervisor addressed the problem the very second he became aware of it, while the problem was happening.

That's an example of a good manager.

Short of mind-reading, I'm not sure what would've allowed the supervisor to address the issue faster.

From what I read, the supervisor addressed the problem the very second he became aware of it, while the problem was happening.

Do you honestly believe that such behavior would be a "first-time" issue?

If so, hey, you'd be a shoo-in for a TSA stuporvisor position.

Do you honestly believe that such behavior would be a "first-time" issue?

If so, hey, you'd be a shoo-in for a TSA stuporvisor position.

My, what a rude and troll-y thing to say.

Anyway, since we have no idea if this was the TSO's first day (or the STSO, for that matter), or first time working with this particular supervisor, I stand by the fact that the supervisor strikes me as actually making an effort.

But hey, not everyone is capable of being objective. For those who'd rather just whine and complain, I suppose it's hard to admit that there are individuals within the TSA that are good examples to follow.

Anyway, since we have no idea if this was the TSO's first day (or the STSO, for that matter), or first time working with this particular supervisor, I stand by the fact that the supervisor strikes me as actually making an effort.

If he's standing by himself, it's not his first day - unless all of the TSA employees have been lying about their first-day training and "shadowing" people at the checkpoint.

The employee in question was either improperly trained (supervisor failure) or had a bad attitude to start (another supervisor failure.)

I suppose it's hard to admit that there are individuals within the TSA that are good examples to follow.

Given that their day starts with "Why, yes, I will put on a law enforcement costume and go violate people at the airport," I can't think of any reason anyone should follow any of their examples.

...the supervisor strikes me as actually making an effort....It could also be that the supervisor is a great actor, as befits their position in the cast of the Great Security Theatre.

You mean the supervisor with an obvious problem on his team that he's failed to address?

So based on your logic, the TSA can never do anything right, because if they do, they should have done it sooner?


It could also be that the supervisor is a great actor, as befits their position in the cast of the Great Security Theatre.

And same with this quote. Anything good a TSO does is probably just theater anyway.

Statistically speaking, there has to be one somewhere.

The question is, "Where?"

PVD. I really like the crew at that airport.

So based on your logic, the TSA can never do anything right, because if they do, they should have done it sooner?

Since everything the TSA is is predicated on lies, paranoia, and reaction instead of proaction, you've got the gist of it.

At this point, the only possible thing the TSA could do right is to simply go away and let someone else do real security instead of gadget-collecting and voodoo.

Not sure I understand your point. The TSA has an interview process that one must pass in order to become a member. Society does not. One can be fired from the TSA by a single individual (called a boss). One cannot be so easily fired from society.

(And of course the good apples don't excuse the bad apples. Bad apples should always be weeded out of any organization whose job is to serve the public. I also don't think we're going to get there as long as anyone claims that 100% of TSA's employees are bad apples.)

That statement is so far from the reality of federal employment that it boggles the mind. It leads me to dismiss you as just one of the "Anything For Security" people that believe anything the TSA does is good and wholesome. :rolleyes:

That statement is so far from the reality of federal employment that it boggles the mind. It leads me to dismiss you as just one of the "Anything For Security" people that believe anything the TSA does is good and wholesome. :rolleyes:

Cool! Nice knowin' ya.

If one single comment is enough to make you decide that I'm just an "Anything for security" person (when I'm quite the opposite, thank you), then my guess is carrying on a discussion with you would be a waste of time anyway.

I'll see it as saving my time for people that actually want to have a real, actual discussion and who don't need to buy tinfoil in bulk. Now... dismiss away!


(I'll add: the earlier poster who pointed out that as a federal employee, their boss can't simply fire them if they make a mistake -- which is shocking and depressing as a taxpayer and as someone who is glad that I can fire people without having to consult a committee -- got it right. I used to think private security was just as bad as TSA, but if they can be easily fired and TSA can't, maybe that's a plus.)

(I'll add: the earlier poster who pointed out that as a federal employee, their boss can't simply fire them if they make a mistake -- which is shocking and depressing as a taxpayer and as someone who is glad that I can fire people without having to consult a committee -- got it right. I used to think private security was just as bad as TSA, but if they can be easily fired and TSA can't, maybe that's a plus.)

A little homework for you - see how many TSA employees charged with crimes were previously discharged from the TSA for one reason or another.

I'll even throw you a head start: Minetta Walker, BD"O" charged with assisting drug dealers in smuggling cash through the checkpoints.

<snip>
Me: but I'm opting out
D-bag TSA: yeah I don't do that
(now I didn't expect him to do the pat down, what I expected was for him to slightly turn his head and call out: "Male assist" as is always been the case)
Me: I get that but don't you need to call someone
D-bag TSA: I don't do that
Me (getting somewhat annoyed at this point): so what do you do?
D-bag TSA: I stand here.
<snip>at this point, would it have been possible for you to just walk through? i wonder what would have happened then.

Cool! Nice knowin' ya.

If one single comment is enough to make you decide that I'm just an "Anything for security" person (when I'm quite the opposite, thank you), then my guess is carrying on a discussion with you would be a waste of time anyway.

I'll see it as saving my time for people that actually want to have a real, actual discussion and who don't need to buy tinfoil in bulk. Now... dismiss away!


(I'll add: the earlier poster who pointed out that as a federal employee, their boss can't simply fire them if they make a mistake -- which is shocking and depressing as a taxpayer and as someone who is glad that I can fire people without having to consult a committee -- got it right. I used to think private security was just as bad as TSA, but if they can be easily fired and TSA can't, maybe that's a plus.)
Hmmm. I don't recall a single post (ok, maybe one) of yours in the TSS section that wasn't defending the TSA in some form or another... I haven't gone looking for any of your posts, but your username is fairly memorable.

Being "shocked and depressed" by how hard it is to get rid of bad apples in government jobs just means that you really haven't been paying any attention to how the US government works on federal, state and local levels. (Not how it is SUPPOSED to work, but how it actually works.)

Hmmm. I don't recall a single post (ok, maybe one) of yours in the TSS section that wasn't defending the TSA in some form or another... I haven't gone looking for any of your posts, but your username is fairly memorable.

I'd be happy to point you to some literacy programs. Once you've done a little reading, I think you'll find I'm not in any way, shape, or form a defender of the TSA. But I'm also not a mindless, paranoid moron, and don't just sit around whining about the TSA all day.

I'm certainly not here to defend myself or my beliefs. If your goal is to drive away anyone with an opinion counter to yours, then by all means, keep going. I'm secure enough in my beliefs to listen to opinions from all points of the spectrum. There are people here who don't just want to mindlessly bash the TSA all day, and who are actually interested in having a discussion about how to improve the situation. Why don't you try respecting that?


Being "shocked and depressed" by how hard it is to get rid of bad apples in government jobs just means that you really haven't been paying any attention to how the US government works on federal, state and local levels. (Not how it is SUPPOSED to work, but how it actually works.)

I'm sorry, but I didn't realize this thread had become about me and whether or not I pay attention to how the government works. Now please, keep your promise of dismissing me. Thanks! :D

Let the rational discussion resume...

Maybe I misread the post. From what I read, the supervisor addressed the problem the very second he became aware of it, while the problem was happening.
That's indeed good, since, from a lot of the reports here, STSO's often don't address the problem even then. But if somebody's an effective manager, they shouldn't need to have improper behavior by an employee pointed out by a third-party: they should see it themselves. And it's also a training failure.

This sort of thing isn't unique to the TSA, unfortunately. A co-worker visited a non-defunct electronic discounter in NY a few years ago to buy a TV. He asked the salesman which TVs had two specific features, but the salesperson was clueless. After a bit of "discussion", the salesperson started yelling "are you going to buy the f'ing TV or not"? My co-worker went downstairs at that point to seek a manager and while he was explaining to the manager what happened, the sales person was coming down the stairs, with two other employees trying to restrain him, shouting "is he going to buy the f'ing TV?". The manager took one look and said "I'll take care of it". Of course, the difference is that I'm certain this employee was fired on the spot, but that the TSO in question is still on the job.

That's indeed good, since, from a lot of the reports here, STSO's often don't address the problem even then. But if somebody's an effective manager, they shouldn't need to have improper behavior by an employee pointed out by a third-party: they should see it themselves. And it's also a training failure.

Exactly. Every front line TSO who is a jerk is aided and abetted by equally responsible co-workers who say nothing and a management chain that is either unaware of the problems or refuses to work the problems - a failure either way.

As the managers (good ones) in my organization say: "we're paid the big bucks to know what's going on and to address problems as they come up".

Exactly. Every front line TSO who is a jerk is aided and abetted by equally responsible co-workers who say nothing and a management chain that is either unaware of the problems or refuses to work the problems - a failure either way.

As the managers (good ones) in my organization say: "we're paid the big bucks to know what's going on and to address problems as they come up".

Agree 100% of course, though no one is clairvoyant, and I wonder how much opportunity STSOs have to observe the front line in action. Either way, it's a failure of the system. At large department stores, managers can (and do) go into the security office to watch what their team does when the manager isn't on the floor. Most companies use secret shoppers and retrain or fire people with low shop scores. TSA has "secret shoppers" testing their effectiveness at detecting IED, but they don't cover customer service and training. If they made the system more robust *and* held accountable those who scored low, I suspect the situation would improve, federal employee accountability notwithstanding.

I'm also wondering why training is so bad to begin with. A rather high percentage of TSOs don't understand the differences between "opt out" and "ineligible (usually for medical reasons)," or how to properly handle either case (as in the OP).

I'd love to hear from the resident TSOs (are any still here?) how much training they get in general, how much attention is given to the above special cases, and how STSOs address training issues when pax aren't in view.

I'd love to hear from the resident TSOs (are any still here?) how much training they get in general, how much attention is given to the above special cases, and how STSOs address training issues when pax aren't in view.

If you trust someone who self-identifies as a TSA employee to tell you the truth about anything, you're far more trusting than I.

I'm gonna go a whole different way here...

Is it possible that this TSO from the OP was actually a pretty decent guy who was caught in a no-win situation himself?

Suppose he knew that the TSO responsible for doing "male assists" had some sort of history of improper procedure, maybe he suspected this guy of being a pervert but didn't have enough proof to bring it to his supervisor. Afraid of leveling an accusation that is obviously inflammatory without having the evidence needed to back it up, he just decides to quietly go about his job but under no circumstances would anybody be subjected to a patdown by the "male assist" TSO on "Captain Stand Here"'s watch.

Maybe he was doing everything he could to protect the passengers from being subjected to an obnoxious pervert, and knew the only way he could make that happen was to simply ignore opt-out requests.

Just Maybe. Just....maybe.

I'm also wondering why training is so bad to begin with.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about how TSA trains its employees.

But as an educator, I know that one of the myths of education & training is "if you told them, then they know it." A related myth is "if you told them, and they passed the test on the topic right after you told them, then they know it."

As much as folks here at TS&S complain, opt-outs are still pretty rare events (as a percentage of total travelers). And I suspect that involuntary medical opt-outs are even more rare than voluntary opt-outs. Passing the training test on the topic doesn't help much when you don't get the chance to use the knowledge on a regular basis.

At least with the X-ray machines, TSA understands this ... and puts false images on the screens all the time so that the TSOs running the machines actually have something to find now and then, allowing their training to be reinforced. Somehow, I doubt that there is reinforced training for the difference between voluntary and involuntary opt-outs on a regular basis.

TSA, with its myriad of official and unofficial rules, has probably put so much on the backs of its TSOs that it's practically impossible for any TSO to know every arcane rule they should know, even with unlimited training (which, of course, they don't have). Of course, for every arcane rule, there are plenty of people who are affected by that rule (how to inspect a colostomy bag, how to validate a NEXUS, how to grant a medical exception for foods over 100ml, how to screen cremains, etc.), and TSA takes a big PR hit when their employees get it wrong.

TSA would probably do a much better job if it was looking for fewer things.

I think I would have assisted by yelling "I need a male assist and a supervisor immediately" in my loudest possible voice myself.

This is exactly what I did once. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1116005-nude-o-scope-opt-out-stories-merged-176.html#post18697688)


The TSA has an interview process that one must pass in order to become a member.


Yes the interview process includes holding a mirror under the applicants nose to see if they can fog the mirror.


One can be fired from the TSA by a single individual (called a boss).

It's virtually impossible to fire a Federal employee. Especially when they're represented by a union.

Yes the interview process includes holding a mirror under the applicants nose to see if they can fog the mirror.


Comments like these make me wonder what the point of this forum is.


It's virtually impossible to fire a Federal employee. Especially when they're represented by a union.

Established and discussed multiple times in this thread. Still, "virtually" is the operative word.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about how TSA trains its employees.

But as an educator, I know that one of the myths of education & training is "if you told them, then they know it." A related myth is "if you told them, and they passed the test on the topic right after you told them, then they know it."

As much as folks here at TS&S complain, opt-outs are still pretty rare events (as a percentage of total travelers). And I suspect that involuntary medical opt-outs are even more rare than voluntary opt-outs. Passing the training test on the topic doesn't help much when you don't get the chance to use the knowledge on a regular basis.

At least with the X-ray machines, TSA understands this ... and puts false images on the screens all the time so that the TSOs running the machines actually have something to find now and then, allowing their training to be reinforced. Somehow, I doubt that there is reinforced training for the difference between voluntary and involuntary opt-outs on a regular basis.

TSA, with its myriad of official and unofficial rules, has probably put so much on the backs of its TSOs that it's practically impossible for any TSO to know every arcane rule they should know, even with unlimited training (which, of course, they don't have). Of course, for every arcane rule, there are plenty of people who are affected by that rule (how to inspect a colostomy bag, how to validate a NEXUS, how to grant a medical exception for foods over 100ml, how to screen cremains, etc.), and TSA takes a big PR hit when their employees get it wrong.

TSA would probably do a much better job if it was looking for fewer things.

How hard is it to train people to be civil, professional and non-bullying? In fact, why keep someone on after probation if he proves to be incapable of civility, professionalism and non-bullying behavior.

How hard is it to train people to ask if they don't know? To make it clear that on the rare occasion that a pax does escalate, there will be consequences if the TSO has lied instead of escalating to someone who does know?

We expect our kids to enter school knowing how to follow simple rules: no bullying, be polite, if you don't know the answer, ask. It's ridiculous to think that we should have to expend taxpayer $$$ on bloated, useless, insultingly stupid vendor-supplied training materials on these subjects.

How hard is it to train people to be civil, professional and non-bullying? In fact, why keep someone on after probation if he proves to be incapable of civility, professionalism and non-bullying behavior.

How hard is it to train people to ask if they don't know? To make it clear that on the rare occasion that a pax does escalate, there will be consequences if the TSO has lied instead of escalating to someone who does know?

We expect our kids to enter school knowing how to follow simple rules: no bullying, be polite, if you don't know the answer, ask. It's ridiculous to think that we should have to expend taxpayer $$$ on bloated, useless, insultingly stupid vendor-supplied training materials on these subjects.

You can teach people what is involved in being civil, but if they are not civil people, they will be uncivil.

You can teach people what is expected of professionals, but if they are not professionally-minded, they will act non-professionally.

You can teach people to be a non-bully, but if they are bullies, they will be bullies.

Training is easy. Teaching is easy. Getting your students to actually change what they are in response to training and teaching is hard.

People can be taught any number of redeeming social skills. Getting them to value the acceptance of those skills as self-profitable is much more difficult. Getting the value high enough that people actually change not only their behavior but their understanding of the value of the new behavior is nearly impossible.

It is only possible when the social environment encourages those acceptable social skills as the ideal and people come to learn that they will only be accepted by their coworkers when they adopt ideal social skills and present themselves as having and valuing the same.

The CP is generally not conducive to that transformation.

You can teach people what is expected of professionals, but if they are not professionally-minded, they will act non-professionally.

...and it matters not how "professionally" one does a "job" that goes beyond the pale.

Comments like these make me wonder what the point of this forum is.


The point is anyone who orders a pizza can be a TSA clerk.


Established and discussed multiple times in this thread. Still, "virtually" is the operative word.

So you admit it's virtually impossible to can a Federal employee represented by a union.

Comments like these make me wonder what the point of this forum is.



Established and discussed multiple times in this thread. Still, "virtually" is the operative word.

The purpose of the Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate forum is two-fold:

1) To debate checkpoint and border policies
2) To vent our frustrations when the current checkpoint and border policies appear, in our opinion, to strip our Constitutional rights and violate the most basic intent of the Framers.

If you dislike either part, you are not obligated to participate. However, others are participating.

I must admit that the constant non sequitur disparaging comments about TSOs tend to annoy me a bit, as well, but I simply dismiss it as venting, ignore it, and move on to the next relevant comment.

The rules of this forum say "The moderators will enforce a zero-tolerance policy against personal attacks – against ....TSA employees as a group."

Quite frankly, this forum has deteriorated into mindless TSA bashing, and it is impossible to have a sensible discussion.

The rules of this forum say "The moderators will enforce a zero-tolerance policy against personal attacks – against ....TSA employees as a group."

Quite frankly, this forum has deteriorated into mindless TSA bashing, and it is impossible to have a sensible discussion.

It might be worthwhile to consider this forum (and others like it) to be a necessary and worthwhile social safety valve. Without being able to vent harmlessly here - some might express their growing frustration in a more direct manner?

One of the benefits of being an armchair warrior is that no one gets hurt.

Another aspect to all of this that should be considered is that the vitriol being displayed towards the TSA is the result of something. The rage being expressed doesn't exist, nor did it originate, in isolation. There is a 'cause and effect' process in action... The effect is obvious, as is - or at least should be - the cause.

The rules of this forum say "The moderators will enforce a zero-tolerance policy against personal attacks – against ....TSA employees as a group."

I've noticed that enforcement of that particular rule has slipped more and more as individual moderators have posted their own stories about mistreatment by the TSA.

With any luck, the day will come sooner than later that the TSA no longer has any defenders (well, that aren't TSA employees defending the TSA because they have no other employment opportunities, anyway.)

How hard is it to train people to ask if they don't know? To make it clear that on the rare occasion that a pax does escalate, there will be consequences if the TSO has lied instead of escalating to someone who does know?

Probably about as hard as it is to train a TSA employee NOT to say "photography is prohibited."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5kCLTjL3Is

The rules of this forum say "The moderators will enforce a zero-tolerance policy against personal attacks – against ....TSA employees as a group."

Quite frankly, this forum has deteriorated into mindless TSA bashing, and it is impossible to have a sensible discussion.

I might be more sympathetic to your point of view if my own experiences and those of people close to me haven't been so bad.

There are 'good apple' TSOs. I actually tried to submit positive feedback about one once - but after waiting for people to be summoned, surrendering my BP/ID to be copied, finally getting a form and being told to fill it out, leave the name blank to be filled in later by the supervisor standing there (the TSOs nametag was turned over, and I wouldn't dare ask for a name) - well, I had a plane to catch, so no positive feedback.

'Bad apple' TSOs bully and lie to pax every day. It may be only a small percentage of bad TSOs, but they are enabled and supported by co-workers and management and LEOs - and that, IMHO, taints them. They want me to 'see something, say something'? Why don't they lead the way?

If TSOs are tough enough to dish it out at the checkpoint (or stand by and watch while another TSO dishes it out), if TSOs can hide behind anonymity on the official TSA blog and not get called out by either the moderator or other fellow TSOs, then they are thick-skinned enough to take a little aggression from helpless pax who have no place but the internet to air their grievances.

Have you posted similar criticisms on the TSA Blog when alleged TSOs insult pax and post lies without Blogdad Bob setting them straight or calling them out? He's paid for what he's doing and he's representing the agency. He's setting the tone for the dialogue.

Frankly, I have never seen this forum degrade to the level of the TSA Blog. There are some folks here who have really suffered (and continue to do so) at the hands of TSA. I understand and share their frustration. If a TSO abuses me at the checkpoint, I have no recourse. If I lose it at a checkpoint, I will be dealing with LEOs (least of my worries) and possibly a spot on the watch list and perpetual harassment every time I fly. The internet is the only place where the playing field is remotely level, because it's the only way pax can respond to bullying and lies.

I must admit that the constant non sequitur disparaging comments about TSOs tend to annoy me a bit, as well, but I simply dismiss it as venting, ignore it, and move on to the next relevant comment.

The problem is, they've become so pervasive that they make up a significant percentage of the posts. Further, they seem to have driven away most of the people that have moderate viewpoints and who think having a rational discussion might be interesting, or even might change the situation. They have certainly driven away all of the TSOs, some of whom used to provide some decent information from time to time.

Having both sides of a debate represented is essential to any discussion. Otherwise it's just a bunch of people sitting around saying "I agree!"


Quite frankly, this forum has deteriorated into mindless TSA bashing, and it is impossible to have a sensible discussion.

Agree 100%. And what I doubt the serial bashers understand is that a sensible discussion is far more likely to yield change than mindless bashing.


With any luck, the day will come sooner than later that the TSA no longer has any defenders (well, that aren't TSA employees defending the TSA because they have no other employment opportunities, anyway.)

Do you honestly believe that will happen by attacking everyone who disagrees with you or who holds even a slightly less extreme opinion as you? Do you really see a day when 100% of Americans shout "Down with TSA!" and you can link it back to the extreme anger you spouted every time the subject came up?

Or do you think, perhaps, the way to win the support of those that don't hold the extreme viewpoint that you do is to listen?

Or do you think, perhaps, the way to win the support of those that don't hold the extreme viewpoint that you do is to listen?

Perhaps you see value in listening to people who espouse the notion that the TSA or any of its employees are somehow useful.

I don't. They're a blight, and should be eradicated as quickly as possible.

Perhaps you see value in listening to people who espouse the notion that the TSA or any of its employees are somehow useful.

I don't. They're a blight, and should be eradicated as quickly as possible.

That's precisely my point. I find today's security as implemented by the TSA to be mostly theatre, and numerous examples of the agency's policies trampling on rights. I do think the TSA should be restructured or eliminated and replaced with security that makes sense while still respecting the rights of individuals.

But I also know that simply bashing them constantly, whining, .....ing, and moaning about them is not going to sway many (or any) opinions. I ignore extremists, as most people do.

So, yes, I do see value in listening, because in listening, I can hear their concerns and beliefs and construct a sensible counter-argument that might just change someone's mind.

Try it some time.

So, yes, I do see value in listening, because in listening, I can hear their concerns and beliefs and construct a sensible counter-argument that might just change someone's mind.

Try it some time.

I did, for the better part of ten years.

I got really tired of hearing the TSA apologists sputter, "But, but, but, 9-11!" while the TSA provides not one iota of security that might have prevented it.

The TSA must be abolished. It serves no useful purpose above and beyond any private security, it is a waste of money, and it represents a swirling drain of civil and humanitarian rights, all to no effect other than enriching the pseudo-military "security" complex and insuring that persons wholly unsuited for private-sector employment can obtain a paycheck despite their utter lack of any marketable skills.

I did, for the better part of ten years.

I got really tired of hearing the TSA apologists sputter, "But, but, but, 9-11!" while the TSA provides not one iota of security that might have prevented it.

The TSA must be abolished. It serves no useful purpose above and beyond any private security, it is a waste of money, and it represents a swirling drain of civil and humanitarian rights, all to no effect other than enriching the pseudo-military "security" complex and insuring that persons wholly unsuited for private-sector employment can obtain a paycheck despite their utter lack of any marketable skills.

^^ x 1000

How hard is it to train people to ask if they don't know? To make it clear that on the rare occasion that a pax does escalate, there will be consequences if the TSO has lied instead of escalating to someone who does know?


Actually, it's quite hard to do that --- but not for the obvious reason.

I've read research (sorry, I can't find a link right now) which looks at how experts and novices rate their own level of knowledge of their discipline. The brief summary is as follows. If you're an expert, you're highly likely to know that you're an expert. If you're a novice, you're just as likely to believe that you're an expert than believe that you're a novice.

In short: if you don't know what you're doing, you probably don't know that you don't know what you're doing.

This is one of the reasons I'm extremely loathe to use the term "lie" to refer to statements by TSOs that contradict TSA rules. I think it's much more likely that such TSOs honestly believe that they're correct, even as they offer their mistaken knowledge as facts.

I think I would have assisted by yelling "I need a male assist and a supervisor immediately" in my loudest possible voice myself.

would that have helped or created more issues? they are not really into improving customer experience....IMHO

Actually, it's quite hard to do that --- but not for the obvious reason.

I've read research (sorry, I can't find a link right now) which looks at how experts and novices rate their own level of knowledge of their discipline. The brief summary is as follows. If you're an expert, you're highly likely to know that you're an expert. If you're a novice, you're just as likely to believe that you're an expert than believe that you're a novice.

In short: if you don't know what you're doing, you probably don't know that you don't know what you're doing.

This is one of the reasons I'm extremely loathe to use the term "lie" to refer to statements by TSOs that contradict TSA rules. I think it's much more likely that such TSOs honestly believe that they're correct, even as they offer their mistaken knowledge as facts.

Ink's Eight Phases of Knowledge:


I do not know, and I know I do not know.

I know a little, but I have a lot to learn.

I know a lot, and there is not much more to learn (but I am wrong).

I realize that I do not know everything I need to know about this, but I know enough to get by.

I know it all and there is nothing more to learn.

Well, that was wrong, I really need to learn some more about this before I really make a mess.

I am really, really knowledgeable about this, but the more I learn, the more I realize I can never know everything.

I don't know everything, in fact I know very little, but at least I know I don't know it and I am actively learning more so that I can know more.



I am really happy if I can get to #6.

I've read research (sorry, I can't find a link right now) which looks at how experts and novices rate their own level of knowledge of their discipline. The brief summary is as follows. If you're an expert, you're highly likely to know that you're an expert. If you're a novice, you're just as likely to believe that you're an expert than believe that you're a novice.
The Dunning–Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

I've read research (sorry, I can't find a link right now) which looks at how experts and novices rate their own level of knowledge of their discipline. The brief summary is as follows. If you're an expert, you're highly likely to know that you're an expert. If you're a novice, you're just as likely to believe that you're an expert than believe that you're a novice.

The Dunning–Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

Precisely what I remembered. Thanks for finding that.

The Dunning–Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill

Hmm. 1 to 3 sound very familiar. ;) 4 does not, which says something about TSA's so-called "training".