Newsstand - Airport screeners' strains, sprains highest

By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
Wed Jan 11, 9:35 AM ET

Federal airport screeners continue to have the highest injury rate among the nation's workers nearly two years after the Transportation Security Administration discovered the problem.

The rate of screeners injured on the job fell in 2005 to 29% from 36% the previous year, according to the latest TSA figures. But the rate remains higher than any of about 600 job categories tracked by the Labor Department.

The injury rate for screeners far exceeds the 4.5% injury rate for the rest of the federal workforce. The private sector rate was 4.8% in 2004, the most recent year for which Labor Department figures are available. These figures include all job injuries, even if an employee didn't miss work. In general, about a third of workplace injuries result in lost job time.

Screeners are five times more likely to get injured than coal miners and seven times more likely than textile millworkers, according to TSA and Labor Department data.

More here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060111/ts_usatoday/airportscreenersstrainssprainshighest

Does high number of reported injuries correlate with worker morale or employee turnover?

Heartbreaking.

If fewer bags were rummaged through, the injury rate would surely decline.

Most injuries occur at checked baggage. Chief among the reasons for injuries is poor design of baggage screening pods. Many of these screening areas were thrown together as a quick-fix in order to meet the Congressionally-mandated deadline for TSA to implement 100% baggage screening. The CTX machines are poorly designed from an ergonomic point of view, which results in lifting and unloading heavy bags in a manner that stresses the lower back.

Theoretically, screeners are only supposed to handle bags once, but in reality, they end up handling bags multiple times because the airlines have yet to come up with a way to efficiently receive them from TSA. Yeah, the SOP says that once we hand the bags over to the airlines, it is their responsibility to take them from there; however, the reality is that we end up assisting airline personnel receive and load their bags even after we've screened them.

In response to my good friend Spiff's expression of sympathy and concern, many screeners are now trained in on-screen alarm resolution protocols, which allows them to clear certain alarms without having to open the bag and conduct a physical search. This will most certainly reduce the number of bags that have to be opened.

And some airlines still haven't labeled heavy bags properly. What appears to be a small light bag may be a 50+ pound bag filled with heavy tools. Incorrectly anticipating the true weight of a bag also results in lower back injuries.

TSA tries to mitigate these injuries with classroom instruction on proper lifting techniques, reminders to seek assistance when lifting heavy bags. And a large part of the fault has to be placed on screeners who use poor lifting techniques. However, TSA also pressures screeners to get the bags moving on time and not missing any flights. This results in screeners lifting bags improperly in order to keep up with the rush hour pace, and it results in screeners not asking for help because everyone else is busy. There is hell to pay any time a bag misses its flight. So TSA says one thing but does another.

The solution to all of this is supposed to be an in-line baggage system. Theoretically, this will result in less baggage handling by screeners because the bag will be loaded by the airline ticket agent, fed into a conveyor system that is automatically routed through a CTX machine and, if cleared, proceeds directly to the off-loading area where airline baggage handlers unload the bag and place it on the plane. If not cleared, then and only then will a TSA screener handle the bag. This will reduce the number of injuries with the only issue remaining being proper lifting techniques by the screeners. We're years away from this because many airports will have to undergo major construction in order to install an in-line baggage system.

Does high number of reported injuries correlate with worker morale or employee turnover?

I think so. Most definitely. In the beginning, we were given the understanding that we could apply for either checkpoint screening or checked baggage screening. In order to economize its workforce, TSA mandated that we be dual-certified for both types of screening. Initially, we still remained at our primary duty stations and only worked the other duty at a minimum level to maintain our qualifications. In other words, I was primarily a checkpoint screener and, once a month, had to work at checked baggage for four hours in order to maintain my checked baggage proficiency rating. Then, as TSA continued to reduce our manning levels, we ended up being rotated between the two duty stations more frequently. Theoretically, we're supposed to work close to a 50-50 workload between baggage and checkpoint. The reality is that it is more like 80-20. I will work at baggage four times more than I do checkpoint.

This doesn't bother me at all. I happen to be a weightlifter by hobby, and the physical work doesn't concern me. In fact, I personally prefer to work baggage than I do checkpoint. Pardon me for my candor, but the standing joke about working baggage is: "the bags don't talk back, and the black ones don't accuse you of profiling." (OK, so I'm going to get a few scathing comments for that remark.)

However, for many other screeners, this is not why they joined TSA. Many expected to be nothing more than checkpoint screeners. Of those who accepted the reality of working baggage, a number of them didn't expect the physical strain that comes with baggage. And you would think that TSA could find a middle ground by accomodating certain screeners: let those who prefer checkpoint remain there, having to work checked baggage on an absolute minimal basis in order to maintain their dual-proficiency; do the same for those who prefer checked baggage screening; and flip-flop the rest who don't have any preference. While I admitted to prefering checked baggage over checkpoint, I don't mind working checkpoint. I happen to be very good at both, and in spite of my irreverent joke, I do enjoy working with the public. It's just that I don't mind when I get a break away from the checkpoint.

Employee morale, however, is affected by more than just the frequent injury rates and dual duties. I think a major contributing factor in poor employee morale is the draconian bullying "leadership" style that many TSA supervisors and screaming managers use. Unfortunately, this probably has a downhill effect resulting in screeners lashing out against passengers. This has been a flashing yellow light for Loy and Stone, which has now become a flashing red light under Hawley. Not that it's his fault; I'm just pointing out that the previous administrators ignored these signs, and it's fallen to Hawley to do something about it. I think this is an Emperor-has-no-clothes situation in which no one on his staff is willing to tell him how extensive this problem truly is. I have to credit him for making an effort, such as starting up a nationwide screener advisory council designed to openly discuss employee issues; however, people like me who have a jaded and cynical outlook don't have much faith in these sort of inaction committees. What Hawley needs to do is leave the palace and visit the troops on the floor. He needs to discreetly visit these sites and personally observe the interactions between supervisors and screeners, otherwise, he will only see a puppet show presented for his benefit.

I don't see it happening. I think we will eventually lose a lot of good employees once better opportunities become available. It's a damn shame, too, because the solution is so easy. Just takes a bit of testical fortitude.

In-line baggage x-ray systems won't be cheap. Cost-effective is another matter, especially if factoring in the financial implications of health-and-safety-related issues.

I asked the question about employee morale because in other entities, reported injuries increased when employee morale was low. Of course high number of reported injuries/injury-risk can be a cause of and/or a symptom of low employee morale. Or it could be both. (Or it could be a better reporting system.)

I asked the question about employee morale because in other entities, reported injuries increased when employee morale was low. Of course high number of reported injuries/injury-risk can be a cause of and/or a symptom of low employee morale. Or it could be both. (Or it could be a better reporting system.)

I think it's a little bit of both: low employee morale combined with poor ergonomic designs.

I think it's a little bit of both: low employee morale combined with poor ergonomic designs.

Along the same lines, current ergonomic design (or lack thereof) and process flow certainly does not help. I'd be curious if small airports have a higher proportion of injuries or not, as I've seen some really bad layouts at some smaller airports in the US.

In YUL international(US) pax put their checked baggage on a belt that goes 'who knows where'. It's centrally located just before going through US customs.

Perhaps this is some sort of a variation on the inline system Bart was referring to. Get the pax to haul the bags this distance that the inline system would take care of, up to the first feasible point of entry into the system for the baggage.

Cheers

Heartbreaking.

If fewer bags were rummaged through, the injury rate would surely decline.

It has to do with wonderful things called kickers - and boy do they kick bags hard! And right into you, as a matter of fact...

Bart, I really wish we could replace Comrade Hawley, or even Comrade Secretary Mineta with you.

It has to do with wonderful things called kickers - and boy do they kick bags hard! And right into you, as a matter of fact...

Stand clear. :)

The injury rate as quoted in the article seems absurdly high.

Just out of curiosity, how does the TSA injury rate compare with the injury rate of airline baggage handlers or, say, UPS/FedEx delivery people? Are TSA employees really so much more subjected to such ergonomically horrible working conditions?