T-the-B

I hate to sound bellicose but that answer doesn't cut it.

You stated that you thought "proper redress should have been applied" in Ms. Armato's situation but now you say that you have no idea what that "proper redress" should be? As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeeeeeeeenient."

I'm not concerned one bit with what TSA regulations are regarding employee discipline procedures. I was asking you, as a fellow human being, for your thoughts on what the proper redress would have been in Ms. Armato's case, not what those regulations would permit. To put a fine point on it when: a passenger a) asks TSA screeners to follow their own policy and, in return, is b) confined for over half an hour, what do you think would be an appropriate, proper redress?

I had come to have a good deal of respect for you and your postings here. You come off as a reasonable, intelligent, concerned and conscientious TSA employee - one who is able to see things from the passenger's point of view as well as TSA's. Given that background I am amazed and saddened to see you try to weasel out of giving any sort of definition of what "proper redress" for Ms. Armato should be. It is beginning to look like the fine words you offer here were just that - only words.

Please show me that I am mistaken. Please demonstrate that you are not just another TSA apologist who refuses to admit that TSA can get it wrong and/or should suffer no consequences when they mistreat a passenger. Forget TSA rules about what can be done. Just tell us what you as a human being think should have been done.

petaluma1

+1!

Caradoc

"Mah nishtanah?"

Caradoc

Would you really trust anyone on the TSA Slob Squad with a gun?

We've all seen the pictures with the untucked shirts and inability to dress a line.

WillCAD

Take it easy on <deleted>, guys. I understand the difficult position he's in - employees of his agency violated their terms of employment and multiple laws, not to mention engaging in despicable, inhuman behavior, but the agency failed to take proper action and fire them all, and denied any wrongdoing.

But <deleted> is an employee. If he deviates from the corporate line without authorization, he will be disciplined. The supreme irony here is that he would be disciplined for deviating from the corporate line in the manner in which we all beleive the TSOs in the incident in question should have been disciplined - termination. In other words... TSA will fire <deleted> for admitting that TSA should have fired the TSOs in the Armato case.

Break policy for which you should be fired... and you won't be. But break policy by admitting that... and you will be.

So lay off <deleted>. He's agreeing with us as much as he can without finding a pink slip in his next pay check.

Could we pile on the local LEOs in Phoenix who illegally supported the TSOs in their abuse of Stacy Armato by telling her that if she failed to go along with "TSA's horse and pony show" they'd have to arrest her at TSA's request? I mean, since when does TSA get to dictate who local LEOs will or will not arrest? They can file complaints, but ultimately it's the LEOs who decide whether to arrest and charge someone. We've seen what can happen when an abusive TSA suit runs into a LEO who refuses to violate the law for him; why are the LEOs at PHX continuing to back up TSOs who are deviating from policy and even violating the law? I think without that LEO support, some of the complaints at PHX might dry up. What LE agency provides policing in the terminal at PHX?

yandosan

I mean, since when does TSA get to dictate who local LEOs will or will not arrest?

You'd be surprised...
That's what happened to me in Puerto Rico last year.
TSA called in the undercover cops who confiscated
my camera and deleted photos. The two squads were so closely linked I misidentified the camera snatchers as TSA.
The point is, these authoritarians will cover each others' asses on a dime.

Boggie Dog

Seems like acting as a private individual that <deleted> could say his opinion on what he thinks suitable corrective action should have been for the Armato incident.

Armato was planning to/did sue TSA. Anyone know of the status of that action?

Caradoc

That'd be City of Phoenix PD. And there's been local pressure on them to stop going rogue, but at this point I'd sooner call Arpaio's goons than PHX PD.

jkhuggins

And the moment he does so, folks will jump all over the TSA saying "look what your employee says about your activities", not "look at what this private citizen says about your activities". And then <deleted> is in trouble again.

Wasn't it earlier in this thread that folks were criticizing TSA employees who comment on the blog as private citizens (i.e. without identifying themselves as TSA employees)? Why do we want <deleted> to engage in activity here that we're criticizing elsewhere?

No matter what <deleted> says, it will be viewed as coming from a TSA employee, regardless of whatever disclaimers he might make and we might accept. You can't un-ring a bell.

Caradoc

Even if he quits.

Boggie Dog

The point of the TSA Blog comments are suspected TSA employees posing as private citizens taking shots at other posters or posting inaccurate information that is not corrected by the TSA Blog Team. Completely different situation.

I disagree with you on being viewed only as a TSA employee. As long as a person states they are posting their personal opinion and not representing their employer then I see no foul. I don't post my employers opinion about these matters just mine.

chollie

Sorry, I have to weigh in here. Just for the record.

I've expressed disgust with the process I have to undergo every time I fly - hands inside my pants (sometimes inside my underwear), hands fumbling between my legs and over my buttocks - and the fear of having critical heart meds confiscated and being told they are not allowed. I have to submit to this process every single time I fly solely because I am physically unable to use the NoS - even though I can navigate the WTMD with no problem. I am well aware of people with graver limitations who suffer even worse indignities and humiliations just because they want to fly.

I have profound contempt for the individual employees of TSA who commit these assaults (yes, they are assaults) on people's dignity and persons unnecessarily; I have profound contempt for their overseers and co-workers, those who observe it and say nothing, those managers who are AWOL and don't care what their workers are doing.

That said, I have seen no evidence that <deleted> falls in that category. He may - it's an IBB, after all, short of going through his checkpoint repeatedly and seeing for myself, I don't know. But I'm taking him at his word, even though I have made it clear that I think he bends over backwards to give his own organization a greater benefit of doubt than he does pax. That's understandable - he's never transited a checkpoint as a handicapped pax. Perhaps if he did a few hundred times in a few dozen airports as a 'secret shopper', he'd understand a bit more of where we're coming from.

Just MHO.

chollie

+1 regarding <deleted>. I made another post before I read yours, similar thoughts.

Re: PHX LE. I might add, ABQ PD has not shown itself to be any better, although interestingly, we don't read a chorus of complaints about ABQ TSA generally. Certainly nothing comparable to PHX, which must rank as one of the top ten worst in the nation on all counts (LE, TSA, thefts, gate cr*p, extreme aggression, retaliation, etc.)

chollie

I suspect TSA is like the military - you don't get to have an opinion as a private individual about certain things.

WillCAD

My point, exactly.

And we do it here, too. TSOs engage in criminal activity during their off hours, and we are all quick to jump on them as an example of the low quality of employees that TSA has. And, I believe, rightly so - a person's behavior is an indication of their character, and their character will influence their behavior both on and off the job, so if their character leads them to behave illegally or despicably in their off hours, I have no doubt that it would do so on the job, as well.

Since WE hold a TSO accountable for their off-hours activities, and we demand that TSA do so as well when we call for dismissal or censure against those who commit crimes off the clock, I understand and even agree with TSA holding an employee accountable for what they post as a private individual on a message board, if what they post harms the agency in any way, even if it just lowers public opinion of the agency. Many private companies use the same standards for any of their employees.

The big difference here BD is that most of us (at least I) don't know who your employer is. If your sig had a line that said "Proud employee of XYZ Corporation since 1997" or something similar, then no matter what protestations of independence you might make, the light in which we cast XYZ Corp would be colored by whatever you post, be it good, bad, or indifferent. And, let's face it, if you posted a bunch of negative stuff about XYZ Corp or your fellow employees after clearly identifying yourself as an XYZ employee, XYZ Corp would be fully within their rights to terminate you for casting them in a bad light - even if it was an entirely truthful bad light.

Which is, if I recall, one of the things Stacy Armato intended to sue TSA for - casting "false light" or whatever the legal term is, when they locked her up in a glass cage in an airport terminal for no reason while they rifled her belongings and called the police on her, making her falsely appear to have been doing something wrong.

We already do it. Even I do it. As much as I respect <deleted>'s comparative reasonableness and moderation, his comparative respect for the people and his desire to improve his agency from within, the truth is (sorry <deleted>, but I must say it), so long as he wears the shiny badge, and particularly so long as he is part of the TSA Blog Team, his personal stock will never be in the WillCAD Fortune 500. I do hold him in much higher esteem than Bob Burns and certain other un-named, self-proclaimed TSOs who post here on FT with a littany of excuses and paranoid delusions about how al Quaeda is still targeting US aviation and we're all at risk and security MUST trump liberty, etc. etc. but... well, it's kinda like being the least ugly stepsister; you're still on the wrong side of the fairy tale.