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.
__________________
"Fear profits a man nothing - unless they're a TSA employee, and then it's the only reason they have a job."
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.
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.
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.
__________________
"Fear profits a man nothing - unless they're a TSA employee, and then it's the only reason they have a job."
Programs: Marriott Plat, EZ Pass, Back of the Plane Platinum
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan182
<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.
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.)
Last edited by StanSimmons; Aug 17, 12 at 9:05 pm..
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanSimmons
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!
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.
__________________
"Fear profits a man nothing - unless they're a TSA employee, and then it's the only reason they have a job."
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.
