Newsstand - The TSA's High Hiring Standard

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm

"Remember all those stories about Argenbright and other private companies hiring felons, low-lifes, and other assorted human debris to work at airport screening points? Remember the gaggles of politicians telling us that a federalized TSA would end all those ugly things?

Think again. Now it's reported that not only has the TSA hired unsavory characters, it's defending doing it, too. In New Orleans, the TSA filled a screening supervisor position with a guy who's under indictment - yes, under indictment from a Grand Jury - for theft from his former employer, the New Orleans Police Department. At the time of the TSA's alleged "background check," the guy was under investigation by the N.O.P.D. Naturally, the TSA claims that they really, really did do a through background check. Sure"

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Never turn your back on the rubber glove brigade

I dunno on this post (actually I usually concur with most of yours). "Under indictment" is a far cry from "convicted felon". A BIG BIG difference.

The Argobrights not-too-brights actually employed qute a few "convicted felons". One of them in Philly had been convicted 3 separate times.

MisterNice

It looks like they knew he was being investigated when they hired him. Could they not have waited until he was cleared? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MisterNice:
I dunno on this post (actually I usually concur with most of yours). "Under indictment" is a far cry from "convicted felon". A BIG BIG difference.

The Argobrights not-too-brights actually employed qute a few "convicted felons". One of them in Philly had been convicted 3 separate times.

MisterNice</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I'm not so sure that the TSA's hiring decision would have been any different if that had waited. ...your tax dollars at work.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
It looks like they knew he was being investigated when they hired him. Could they not have waited until he was cleared? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
</font>

Innocent until proven guilty.

Unless he's convicted, to deny someone employment based on an indictment would be indication of a presumption of guilt. Your comments suggests you believe the proper course of action is "guilty until proven innocent".

Where do you get this concept of "denying" someone employment? Nobody in the U.S. or elsewhere has a right to any particular job. The employer can choose from all qualified applicants. When I hire people, I choose the ones who are NOT under indictment, and so should the TSA!

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Where do you get this concept of "denying" someone employment? Nobody in the U.S. or elsewhere has a right to any particular job. The employer can choose from all qualified applicants. When I hire people, I choose the ones who are NOT under indictment, and so should the TSA!

Bruce</font>

Except we have a whole raft of laws which says you can't make certain things the "qualification" for a job. Things like age and race and gender.

You are making "are you under indictment?" a qualification for the job. Why? Does it affect his ability to perform the job?

Only if you presumed him guilty.

You are missing my point. If I have several equally qualified candidates for a job -- and remember that TSA is deluged with qualified candidates for its relatively high-paying jobs -- I will take one who is not under a cloud. I am NOT assuming that the person is guilty. I just don't want to worry about it. No law forces me to hire such a person. Certainly the same is true for the TSA.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
I will take one who is not under a cloud.</font>

You are assuming that during the selection process it was known that the guy was under indictment. I doubt this was the case. Suppose they found out after they hired the guy, what should they have done, fire the guy? That would be an indication of a presumption of guilt, which would be inappropriate.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
and remember that TSA is deluged with qualified candidates for its relatively high-paying jobs</font>

How can we remember something if you just made it up?

The TSA is most certainly not "deluged" with qualified applicants. In fact, they've been having quite a bit of trouble getting enough qualified applicants who actually want the job. Roughly 95% of the applicants can not, or will not, successfully complete the hiring process.

From the article:

"In New Orleans, the TSA filled a screening supervisor position with a guy who's under indictment - yes, under indictment from a Grand Jury - for theft from his former employer, the New Orleans Police Department. At the time of the TSA's alleged "background check," the guy was under investigation by the N.O.P.D. Naturally, the TSA claims that they really, really did do a through background check. Sure."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ql2112:
You are assuming that during the selection process it was known that the guy was under indictment. I doubt this was the case. Suppose they found out after they hired the guy, what should they have done, fire the guy? That would be an indication of a presumption of guilt, which would be inappropriate.

</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

1) A note on grand juries: They work for the prosecution. Period. They may also indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor so desires (Sol Wachtler).

2) How many people has the TSA hired over the past year? Is it reasonable to assume that they aren't going to make any mistakes? Is the fact that this is newsworthy indicative of how successful their hiring has been?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
You are missing my point. If I have several equally qualified candidates for a job -- and remember that TSA is deluged with qualified candidates for its relatively high-paying jobs -- I will take one who is not under a cloud. I am NOT assuming that the person is guilty. I just don't want to worry about it. No law forces me to hire such a person. Certainly the same is true for the TSA.

Bruce</font>

The air marshal program is a high paying job with lots of applicants.

The TSA, overall, doesn't have a "deluge" of candidates. That's just a misunderstanding.

I tried to be clear, but apparently failed. Let me try again:

The TSA is deluged with applicants for its high-paying jobs. That's what I said. Not for its low-paying jobs, like screeners. But this particular guy was hired for a high-paying position, the article implies. That was my point.

Bruce

I think the TSA uses the same test for screeners that many employers use for entry and lowers level jobs.

It's called a "Fog Test". If the applicant can fog a mirror when held under their noses they get the job.