After reading the article (and the picture...nice), I don't get the feeling this hold is based on policy. I know the union thing has been cited, but it comes over more as an excuse rather than a solid reason to put the hold on.
It's an article from The Washington Times, and even they portray all the holds as simply being politically motivated, and not done on the merits of each of the appointments.
After reading the article (and the picture...nice), I don't get the feeling this hold is based on policy. I know the union thing has been cited, but it comes over more as an excuse rather than a solid reason to put the hold on.
It's an article from The Washington Times, and even they portray all the holds as simply being politically motivated, and not done on the merits of each of the appointments.
He wrote that nice little answer two months ago and apparently he didin't like Mr. Southers answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Times
Critics say the change would jeopardize national security by imposing union work rules that could hamstring the government's ability to quickly adapt to evolving terrorist threats.
Like when they're hamstringed when it comes to rolling out new equipment, training and information because of management's own failings? Especially how well they rolled out the ice policy.
The safety argument from DeMint is pure bull$h**. DeMint is anti-labor that's all and I'm sure he's glee that's he's able to screw up Obama's plans.
No matter, Christmas recess begins a day and two weeks from now and Obama can appoint them anyways.
__________________ Sir Takescissors Awayington
Level 1 Knight of the Airport
So the claim by Blogdad Bob on PV that the policy had already been changed before Britney (BB) is incorrect?
Does the new policy state that ice can be taken into the secure area by anyone or just people who have special needs?
The reason I ask is that the mention of ice on TSA.GOV is under the section dealing with people who have special travel needs.
1. I do not know. Usually adding things to the SOP goes through a long process I would believe though it's timing with the release of the SM SOP seems fishy.
2. Ice can be taken into the secure area provided it's thoroughly frozen and not partially melted.
__________________ Sir Takescissors Awayington
Level 1 Knight of the Airport
1. I do not know. Usually adding things to the SOP goes through a long process I would believe though it's timing with the release of the SM SOP seems fishy.
2. Ice can be taken into the secure area provided it's thoroughly frozen and not partially melted.
What does SM stand for?
Isn't ice as used in concessions always in a state of melt? If I consume any melt would I be in compliance?
1. Screening Management, the one Phil has a FOIA request on.
2. I suppose so.
Why confused? The point is that if a person has a cup of ice then there is likely some melt. So compliance with this new policy is near impossible and decisions by different TSA employees will vary. Creating more confusion and anger.
Your management should have just owned up that BS got special treatment that was not in compliance with current policy. Then this would be a non issue.
As it is TSA is using weasel words to place an ice statement in the travelers with special needs information so I doubt anyone on any given day will be able to take ice through a checkpoint.
If ice is really ok then why the reluctance on the part of TSA to publish a clear understandable policy for the public to read?
I'd tell you the reason but suspect you already know.
