gingersnaps

Within the last 3 weeks Covenant Security employees at SFO were arrested for smuggling drugs through security checkpoints.

Boggie Dog

Yes, and they cost less than government employees doing the same thing.

gingersnaps

What accepted analysis can you show that private security is cheaper....and

if cheaper, does "you get what you pay for" come into play?

gingersnaps

Chollie, read Neffenger's latest testimony. I quoted it in another thread and you seemed to deny his testimony about speed.

Peter Neffenger:

"across TSA, leaders’ and officers’ organizational behavior emphasized efficiency outcomes and a pressure to clear passengers quickly, at the risk of not diligently resolving alarms"

gingersnaps

A FSD is a TSA employee. And TSA Managers oversee private security. Moving passengers quickly, starts with TSA Management.

Just look up FSD Paul Armes, somewhat checkered history with TSA, was moved from one airport to another.

Look up Cliff VanLeuve at MSP, the FSD accused of unlawfully retaliating against employees who reported violations.

chollie

There is only person at the top - the buck stops with him/her. If 'leaders' and officers and FSDs and line employees are not doing their job, it is Neffenger and his predecessor who are responsible. Behind every employee at every level who is allegedly guilty of prioritizing speed and customer service over security, there is an org chart stretching all the way to ....Neffenger. If the folks underneath him are not doing their job, then it's on him to keep better informed about what's going on and to enforce discipline when the ranks don't comply.

In a well-run organization, Neffenger should be able to issue a proclamation to his folks - total 100% compliance with all rules, no exceptions, length of lines and time are of no concern. Success has only one measure: better scores on the tests.

That order could be issued in one 24-hour period to the vast majority of the work force (absent those sick or on vacation).

Is he waiting for something? Money for a new training agenda that will take months or years to implement? An eye-wateringly expensive 'retreat' for the higher ups so they can get away from all the distractions and chat about what their job description is?

chollie

Why would it? The rules and the bosses are still on the government payroll. Do you really think anyone qualified to be trusted with top position at TSA is going to lowball security bids and risk having a 'big one' happen on his/her watch?

If you do believe that such people could take over the top leadership at TSA, then that's a far bigger worry than whether or not private security under TSA leadership is more or less effective that government employee security under TSA leadership.


You may have forgotten Minetta Walters, BUF BDO. She had been fired by TSA once, but was subsequently rehired and promoted to BDO. The second time she left, it was because she was arrested for using her position as BDO to guide drug dealers around the checkpoints.

IIRC, this fine TSA employee (not private contractor) may have enough time with TSA to have a vested pension.

Carl Johnson

No, because Wal-mart greeters are cheaper than TSA clerks, and they are smarter than TSA clerks, more polite than TSA clerks, more efficient than TSA clerks, know their jobs better than TSA clerks know theirs, know TSA clerks' jobs better than do TSA clerks, have a higher rate of detection of weapons than do TSA clerks, and contribute more to aviation security than do TSA clerks.

Boggie Dog

Civilian contractors are used across government because it saves money. Government employees are paid higher than their civilian counterparts, have more generous leave, retirement, and health plans.

You started this thread off asking why there is a push for private screeners.
I and others have given some reasons.

So what answer will you find suitable? That there should not be any private screeners? If that is the answer you are looking for I think you'll find this is the wrong place for the question.

gingersnaps

Your reasons need to be supported. The law (ATSA) requires that private screeners be paid on par with TSA screeners; so "cheaper" reasoning is flawed.

Private screeners are no better at the job than TSA screeners.
Private screeners have circumvented security for drug dealers.
Private screeners are "managed" by TSA management.

The push for private screeners is irrational, as private screeners provide no advantage. I am not saying do away with private screeners; the point is private screeners offer no meaning advantage or benefit.

KDS

Because private screeners are not government employees. We do not need more government bloat and growth. Why do people think a person is automatically better at a job just because they're directly employed by government? As former US President Ronald Reagan once said, (paraphrasing), the scariest 10 words in the English language (here in the USA) are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.'

gingersnaps

I am not sure anyone is promoting that a person is better because they are an government employee. The record indicates that whether government or private, the results are the same. Yet, even though the results are the same, people promote "we need private security" to make airport security better.

Is there any difference between a Covenant Security guard barking orders about what to remove and a TSA employee barking the same orders?

Boggie Dog

Why should airport security screening functions be the responsibility of government to carry out the actual screenings?

Should all airline pilots be federal employees? Or how about the A&P Mechanics employed by airlines, or airline Aircraft Dispatchers? All of these groups have a federal agency as their regulator.

That is exactly the same way that airport security screenings should be structured, private workers with federal regulations and oversight.

AS far as you complaints that contract screeners have done some illegal things we all know that federal TSA screening employees have done the exact things and more. If you would like to refresh your memory of our upstanding federal TSA employees just browse through this list.

http://tsanewsblog.com/master-list-o...es-and-crimes/

The big question in my mind is just why do you think the government should be conducting screening operations in our airports? Passenger security should be the responsibility of the owners of the airplanes. Do you think that every shopping mall and other large business should have federal security personnel handling all security concerns?

I'll concede the point that a standardized national security policy should be beneficial but TSA has even failed on that point. In fact by just about any measure TSA is a failure. But if there is no difference between TSA barkers and Covenant barkers I choose Covenant. Government need not be in every aspect of our lives.

We all know that you are Pro-TSA. I don't know if that is because you work for them, have a close family member that works for them, or just what, but I for one think that the country was sold a bill of goods when TSA was invented. We could do much better by returning airport passenger screening operations back to civilian companies.

petaluma1

Granted this is old but:

This is not as old:

http://reason.org/files/overhauling_...t_security.pdf

If I am correct, private screeners can be fired on the spot for not following SOP; that can't and doesn't happen with government screeners. And that's the best rationale of all for private screeners.

gingersnaps

Boggie Dog....Posting against Managed Inclusion, posting against free-rides for precheck, promoting a proposed law that would end free-rides for precheck is being "pro TSA"?!? You have a distorted sense of means it means to be "pro" about something.

privatization will not solve the misery that is passage through a security checkpoint; that is the point of this post. Private security is shown to be no better. You choose private because you angst against the government, your choice is your choice. But in deciding between tsa and private, lets be honest that neither is shown to function at a higher rate of success than the other.