jkhuggins

If both TSA and private screeners perform the work with the same quality, and private screeners can do it more cheaply, then why wouldn't we save taxpayer money by doing it the cheaper way?

Boggie Dog

You must have me confused with someone else.

I am not against the idea of Manage Inclusion but I do think initial screening should use the same standards as Pre Check for everyone. I do have serious doubts that TSA BDO's can pick anyone out of a crowd who is a lesser threat. I don't think I posted against free rides for Pre Check and I certainly don't support the proposed law that would end Pre Check for those who haven't paid. I have benefited from that exact situation several times.

But I am definitely Pro, I am Pro to the idea of ending the reign of TSA. It was a bad idea in the beginning and has proven over time to be a bad idea going forward.

Now, I asked several questions of you in an earlier post and you have conveniently not addressed a one of them.

Can you only attack but never respond to other ideas?

gingersnaps

You need to read your second to last post to understand the "pro TSA" context.

As for pilots or anyone else, I do not have an opinion.

I agree Federal oversight should be required. As I recall a lack of regualtion is what contributed to 9/11. Post 9/11, a knife or any type of blade is not going to be effective. But we should not turn back the clock and allow every security firm to create their own individual policies. But that is not the point of this thread.

This thread is based on the premise that private screeners provide no meaningful benefit to the traveling public, so we shouldn't clamour so desperately for private screeners.

gingersnaps

Are you sure it is cheaper? Here is the law:

��� 44919. Security screening pilot program

��(f) QUALIFIED PRIVATE SCREENING COMPANY.�A private screening company...will provide compensation and other benefits to such individuals that are not less than the level of compensation and other benefits provided to such Federal Government personnel in accordance with this chapter.


By law private companies must provide compensation and benefit not less than provided to TSA screeners, so how could that make private cheaper?

jkhuggins

You were the one who raised that premise earlier. If you now want to withdraw that premise, that's fine, but it's hard to have a discussion when you keep changing the rules.

Compensation to the screeners is just one small part of the cost of running a checkpoint. I will leave the rest as an exercise for you to complete.

Boggie Dog

If federalized security screeners are the best way to meet that obligation then it seems federalized pilots, mechanics, dispatchers and any others in like fields would enjoy the same benefits, don't you agree?

Pre 9/11 screening was in fact regulated by government. Government establish the screening criteria and the FAA was the regultory agency. So it was a failure of the government to forsee the possibility of some group using allowed items to take over airplanes and then use those airplanes as guided missiles.

So if you really consider the performance of government in its role as a regulatory agency I would suggest that government should be the last choice to have any role in airport security functions.

Edit to add:

If as you say government screeners offer no benefit over private screeners then should not the job fall to the private sector? Is it really the role of the federal to intrude into our lives in this manner?

gingersnaps

What "premise"? I have only mentioned that others claim it is cheaper. I have maintained that private screening must be paid "on par" with Federal screeners.

gingersnaps

Who said anything about any group being "the best way to meet that obligation".

I recall news cast that mention inconsistent policies from screening company to screening company - this inconsistency lead to the creation of TSA, which by many accounts maintains a similar inconsistency.

I do not agree that the obligation should fall to the private sector. And testimony about TSA has been very disappointing regarding its role in airport security.

I think that is a different discussion. The "intrusion" is minimal. And what makes the intrusion any less offensive if a private entity is perform under contract with the Federal Government?

Do you have a KTN? If so, do you think there is no ongoing intrusion into your life for you to remain eligible for PreCheck?

Boggie Dog

Isn't the core question a matter of who best should carry out airport security screenings?



The FAA was the regulatory agency before 9/11. Are you suggesting government failed in its regulatory responsibilities thereby helping set the stage for 9/11?


Government should have little daily impact in our lives. The safety of airplanes and travelers should be the responsibility of the airlines, however I concede the point of having one agency in charge of standardization.



The intrusion is substantial. I do not have a KTN and refuse to buy into TSA's attempts to pit travelers against each other.

Pup7

Yes. Several thousands of dollars in pay in benefits.

If the results of using A and B are the same, but B is cheaper, why on earth would you continue to pay more for the same thing?

I'm a military officer, a nurse, and a clinic manager, so I deal in personnel issues, manning documents, and contracts, as well as sick people - there are reasons the Feds hire contract physicians over simply recruiting another physician to go active duty and fill the slot: IT'S THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS CHEAPER for exactly the same result.

Contract physicians come at a flat rate, which the DOD pays to the contracting agency. Active duty officers incur costs directly from the DOD's pocket: straight salary, housing allowance, food allowance (all officers get money each month in lieu of government provided chow halls), recruitment costs, bonuses (which MDs make to make their salaries competitive with the outside so we can recruit and keep the best of the best), moving costs (at last tally it costs approximately $50K to move an officer to his or her next assignment), HEALTH CARE COSTS, dependent costs.....believe me, I've seen the numbers, and it's always cheaper to contract. If an MD in one spot under a Federal contract costs the Feds $125K a year, that's far less than paying for everything that a Federal employee or military member accrues (Fed employees get health insurance, which of course the Feds subsidize, competitive salaries, benefits, etc - and they have to get promoted or stepped in a certain period of time, and as the old saying goes - they're damn near impossible to fire, so they could cost you even more in the long run because having them removed is difficult. They cost you either in legal costs or dead weight.)

It works the EXACT same way for any contract, whether it's to replace/circumvent a military member or a GS (General Schedule/what Federal workers are classified under) employee, or even an entire agency. It's always cheaper. Health care, life insurance, salaries, uniforms, you name it. It's cheaper to pay a company a flat rate and let them deal with the rest of it. It's always cheaper.

Why do you think there's so much privatization in the Fed these days?

Everyone here has said that many, many times over. If it's cheaper, and the result is the same - then yes, privatize it.

Boggie Dog

I'm not sure that the premise "there is a push for private screeners" is correct in the first place unless Gingersnaps knows things that the rest of us don't.

Regardless, I think this was more of an effort to just stir the pot than any real concern about the subject and no matter what anyone else has to say they will always be wrong.

Pup7

But the back end costs for that pay are not borne by the Fed when the work is contracted. The Fed is not responsible for health care, workman's comp, life insurance, dependent health insurance, et cetera, when the employee is not directly beneath the Fed. The employee gets that from his or her employer: the contract agency.

The taxpayer doesn't pay it even though the employee's salary is the same because the benefit cost is borne by the contracting agency. Even if the contract employee "makes more" on paper than a comparable GS employee, the Feds actually PAY LESS out of pocket because all the ancillary costs are not their responsibility. Even the costs of the background check are reimbursed to the Feds by the contract agency, and the agency pays back whatever monetary amount the Fed puts on the cost of filing paperwork (that little codicil on Federal documents that sometimes says "the estimated cost of providing this information is X amount"). The Fed ultimately pays less. Trust me.

Pup7

You're most likely right....it's a slow day here....

gingersnaps

bostonglobe, Time to close the TSA, Jeff Jacoby

The article was republished many times.

gingersnaps

TSA is not GS.

TSA is SV pay scale.

Why do I think there is so much privatization, because someone makes alot of money at it - whether backdoor deals with members of Congress or you name it.